Welcome to Part 4 of a 6-part consideration of “Dune” films and stuff. The 6 parts are:

1.Ed Grover’s fine review of the SF Channel Dune (Done With Dune")
http://www.epinions.com/content_107094380164
2.My lengthy comment on the above
http://www.epinions.com/content_107094380164/show_~allcom
3. A review of the 1984 David Lynch film:
http://www.epinions.com/content_107470360196#ow
4. This little demonstration that Frank Herbert isn't the only guy who can go on and on and ...
5. A review of the more recent SF Channel Children of Dune
miniseries (upcoming).
6. A parody, "Franz : Kafka :: Lorna : _____ :
http://www.epinions.com/content_3418595460
7. The newly revealed alternate ending to "Dune"
http://www.epinions.com/content_3427901572

This review now contains comments on the new 3-DVD edition of "Dune" with about 30 minutes of additional footage as well as other supplementary material.
I received the new edition of "Dune" with a certain amount of anticipation, but now I must confess to a certain amount of disappointment. There may well be 30 minutes of new footage, but a good deal of this is apparently "buried" in small expansions of existing scenes. Without comparing the 2 versions minute by minute, I can't be certain -- but I seem to have seen only 3 new scenes of any real length. These were marginal expansions of the film, involving expansions of the roles of Irulan and Fenring. No big gain here. There is also an interview that boded well -- with Willis McNelly, author of The Dune Encyclopedia (on the 2nd disc). Alas, it was mostly a bust. It lasted less than 12 minutes. There were a few mildly interesting biographical details, including the genesis of "Dune" in articles Herbert wrote concerning sand control in Oregon and Washington. But the interview contained little substance. McNelly did a few brief and simplistic comments on the "messiah" aspect of Muad'dib. Gee...I'd have missed that otherwise.... The most egregious comments were those on spice and spice mining. McNelly likened the totally renewable spice to nonrenewable oil, ignoring the fact that spice mining had been going on for more than 11,000 years without any appreciable deterioration in the environment of Arrakis. This silly comment was followed by a statement that the source of spice was "spermatic material" from the male Worms. Has McNelly read his own book??? For one thing, the male Worm eats the female after mating. For another, spice actually arises from a combination of water with the excretions of the "little maker" larval stage of the Worm. McNelly has apparently come up with this new and un-Herbert idea because he wants to explain why Worms "guard" the spice sands (which they don't -- they come to the vibrations of the harvesters). In short, this interview is worse than almost useless because it's full of bad information. Final verdict: I have no enthusiasm for this expanded version of the 2000 "Dune", and suggest that you avoid laying out money for it if you already have the 2-DVD set. Too bad, really. Most disappointing.
Thus endeth the update. We now return you to the regularly scheduled review.

A summary of the plot will not figure in this review because (a) there are plenty such summaries in other reviews and (b) most people who might be inclined to read this are very likely to have seen one of the filmed versions or read the book.

“Dune” was the most successful novel in the SF/Fantasy genre since “Lord of the Rings”, and so far as I know nothing has topped it since. It was a huge novel in an era when novels tended to be a lot skinnier. It was complex and abstruse, and full of unfamiliar terms and concepts. Still, it sold (and probably still sells) like hot cakes. No wonder people have been anxious to commit it to film, despite the inherent and obvious difficulties.

No doubt it was inevitable that the SciFi Channel should turn its attention to this blockbuster book in the hopes of making a blockbuster miniseries. In the last year of the 20th Century (2000), it released a 2-parter, virtually 180 minutes of sand, Worms, intrigue, and serious nastiness. Unfortunately, the rule of thumb is that a good TV miniseries (nowadays) has less impressive production values than a good theater film. Still, Dune fans looked forward to the new release with keen anticipation, at least partly because the old 1984 film had acquired a (not altogether deserved) poor reputation. Alas, …

First, there were significant departures from the original story line that can’t be explained by time constraints. As examples: the crucial role of Dr. Yueh in the escape of Paul and Jessica has all but vanished. Princess Irulan makes a visit to the court of the Harkonnens that, in the novel, is made later in time and to greater effect and significance by Count Hasimir Fenring and his wife Margot. Glossu Rabban is killed during the final battle for Arakeen by enraged townspeople (and in the first movie he’s beheaded by Shaddam IV) – whereas in actuality he was killed in the first onslaught of worm-riding Fremen through the broken Shield Wall. And so on…gratuitous and mostly useless changes that could just have easily not been made.

Second, the production – sets and costuming – has a tendency to yield inappropriate results. Of course, 26,000 years in the future, who knows? Still, you have to admit the costumes of the Bene Gesserit will elicit at least a giggle. Fremen stillsuits have a somewhat cheesy look, but the biggest problem is that they do a lot of wandering around in the open without the breathing apparatus hooked up … a BIG no-no on Arrakis. The standard view of Kaitain we’re repeatedly shown makes the capital of the Known Universe look like a rural monastic retreat. We’re shown a Guild Navigator that doesn’t much look like one (based on descriptions in the book). But Arakeen looks pretty good (however, it’s a cheesy backwater to begin with). The Worms look very good. Fremen riding Worms are another matter. Watch Fremen mounting and riding Worms in the 1984 film, which in this matter conforms to descriptions in the book. Then watch Fremen doing the same things in this film. You’ll see the difference (and also why the technique shown hasn’t chance of actually working – pay attention to the author, guys!). The Fremen in fact appear on the fleshy side for that wiry people (but that’s also true of the 1984 flick).

Third, the acting is too often wanting. There is, overall, a sense of unnecessary restraint, as if the actors were afraid that putting too much oomph in their performances would shatter the sense of awe and wonder this archetypal drama should project. I won’t say “wooden”, but nearly everyone is so careful not to get too excited that sometimes I got the impression this was a reading rather than a performance.

I say, “nearly everyone”. Let’s give the MVP award right away. It goes to (mechanical monkey mini-drumroll, tringle tinkle) Ian McNeice for his wonderfully campy portrayal of Vladimir Harkonnen. ((By the way, I was apparently wrong when I said in Part 3 that Feyd-Rautha, although gay, avoided his uncle’s attentions. The Dune Encyclopedia states that Vladidmir forced himself on his nephew repeatedly when Feyd was a pre-teen. The film accurately shows Vladimir’s taste in playmates during the well-done scene concerning Feyd’s assassination attempt.)) Yes, Kenneth McMillan’s performance in the older film is even better – compare the scenes where Duke Leto fails to kill the Baron.

Runner-up MVP is probably Matt Keeslar, who played Feyd-Rautha (speak of the devil...). Feyd at this point is about 19 (which is why Sting, while appropriately pulchritudinous [gad! the Word spell-checker actually knows that word; I’m impressed], he’s just a tad too old). Keeslar plays him with precision: vapid, smug, over-confident, immature … and, uncharacteristically, interested in Princess Irulan. He’s no doubt putting moves on the Throne far, far more than to her as such. This film wonderfully includes a scene omitted (probably by editing) from the earlier version: the gladitorial combat in which Feyd cheats 20 ways from Sunday and still almost loses.

The star of the film is Alec Newman, Paul (“Muad’dib”) Atreides. It’s hard to put this performance in perspective. It’s very careful, very controlled, very precise, very restrained. Paul is only 15 (or 16) when his father dies, and only 17 (or 18) when he defeats the Emperor and the Harkonnens. But he’s also a genetic phenomenon, so age could easily be no key to appearance. He has already received training and education far beyond what any college graduate today might boast – in fact, nobody today can claim to have had Bene Gesserit training. He’s the sole heir of a House under siege, in a state of permanent feud with the Harkonnens … growing up in an emotional, intellectual, and physical pressure cooker. This environment is likely to make a guy unstable or prematurely and preternaturally adult. With Paul it’s the latter, and we have cause to regard his take on Paul as well considered. So he gets an “A” for accuracy … but a “C” for interest. Despite the occasional burst of color, the performance is too monochromal for this medium.

We have the same problem with William Hurt, Duke Leto (I). He is cool, calm, and collected, even under some pretty good stress. For this, I think we need to refer to (for example) the British royals from Elizabeth II back. We see the same phenomenon – and her dynasty dates back only about 1000 years, not over 11,000 as the Atreides do (earliest known member was Agamemnon d’Atreides in 175 B.G., per the Dune Encyclopedia). Again, “A” for presumed accuracy, but “C” for being on the dull side.

A more obvious problem is Reverend Mother Gaius Helen Mohiam, played with some enthusiasm by Zuzana Geislerová. The question of costuming aside (and the costuming is too, too much), there is her general appearance. The date of Mohiam’s birth is unknown, but let’s start by noting that she is the head of the whole Bene Gesserit Order … something that is achieved only by someone mature in the Order’s service. Let’s assume she was about 30 when her daughter Jessica was born in 10,154. That would make her, in 10,190, 76 years old. And probably actually older. Now, while spice retards the aging process, as do Bene Gesserit techniques, Geislerová looks and sounds like a slightly overage schoolgirl who still doesn’t have an adult wardrobe – and the aging process isn’t retarded as much as that. Siân Phillips in the earlier film had exactly the right appearance and sound … great, but hidden, maturity and power.

Another problem here is Saskia Reeves’ Lady Jessica. There’s no doubt that she displays appropriate Bene Gesserit grit, determination, and resiliancy. What bothers me is a different issue: features and bearing that don’t match what we know of Jessica. Reeves just doesn’t have the look of a woman who could aspire to be, much less be, the consort of the latest scion of the near-royal House Atreides. In the first film, Francesca Annis has this look in spades. Still, Reeves’ performance is earnest, and she grows on you.

This version of “Dune”, like the previous one, tends to treat Thufir Hawat as a throwaway character after about the first hour. In fact, in this version he simply disappears. In the earlier film, we get some flim-flam with poisons and a rat-cat hybrid to excuse his betrayal of House Atreides, actually occasioned by his belief it was extinct. Both miss an opportunity to portray the great drama of his redemption at the final confrontation with the Emperor and Feyd-Rautha at the end (in the first film, he just stands around looking helpless).

In this version, we do get to meet Hasimir Fenring (played by Miroslav Táborský), although more as an eminence gris than as an important actor in the drama. Of his equally important wife Margo, there’s still no sign. What we don’t see in either version of “Dune” is that Fenring is present at the final confrontation between Paul and Shaddam, and as a skilled assassin with Bene Gesserit training (and as very nearly a kisatz haderach himself), he could have killed Paul (who was then exhausted after his fight with Feyd-Rautha). Shaddam in fact commanded him to do so and, for the first time in his life, refused a command from the Emperor. (In essence, Paul owed his life and his victory, not to his great powers and his seemingly endless supply of Fremen, but to the free decisions of 2 men [Hawat and Fenring] to disobey commands to kill him. The films show us none of this.)

The portrayal of Shaddam IV by Giancarlo Giannini is good (if not entirely animated), but it can hardly equal Jose Ferrar’s in the 1984 version. It’s not his fault Ferrar was the absolutely perfect choice. Giannini does a fine job at being authoritatively sinister. We need to recall that Shaddam was in fact not the most competent of rulers, but he was a highly dedicated autocrat, thrust into a situation very much of his own making and over which he had quickly lost control.

Portrayals of other characters in the 2000 film are competent, but usually suffer in comparison with the same characters in the 1984 film. The story line is broadly faithful to the book, but many details are changed unnecessarily (as noted above). The film can no doubt be enjoyed on its own account if the viewer has no other frame of reference, but even then it’s not exactly a riveting experience. If you’re familiar with its 1984 predecessor, not to mention the original book, dissatisfaction is bound to escalate to some degree.

NOTE: There is now a 3-disc set of the SF Channel “Dune” out. It features about 30 minutes of additional material. With a plot as complex as Dune’s, that could only add clarity.


Recommended:
Yes

Viewing Format: DVD
Video Occasion: Good for a Rainy Day
Suitability For Children: Suitable for Children Age 13 and Older