Dune: Part One — A Perfect Adaptation

Denis Villeneuve’s Dune left me in awe.

I haven’t been so mesmerized by any movie since the time I watched Stanley Kubrik’s Space Odyssey in cinema (for its 50th anniversary).

I know some people who read and loved the book have certain issues with this adaptation, but for me there was no better way to bring Dune to the big screen and here is why.

First of all, the previous adaptations of Dune tried too hard to explain the mechanics of the world and the significance of symbols and ideas. They did so at the expense of cinematography. Villeneuve’s Dune is aimed at captivating the viewer from the very first sounds and movements. It’s visually and auditory astonishing.

The main problem with Dune as a novel is that it basically overwhelms the reader with all the terms, intrigues, relationships and hierarchy. Trying to unfold all of this in a movie without loosing tempo or confusing the audience to the point of complete frustration is virtually impossible. One must understand that books and cinema are two different languages and movies usually greatly suffer from too much unnecessary detail. Things that look self-evident and natural on paper are sometimes very difficult to bring on screen. This concerns inner monologues, precise explanation of what mentat or Bene Gesserit training implies, the intergalactic political hierarchy, etc.

Villenueve’s masterpiece is a fascinating example of how to use cinematic language to assure emotional involvement and logical associative chains. My main advice if you haven’t watched the movie yet, regardless of whether you’ve read the novel or not, – disengage. Set aside the aspect of expectations and enjoy every little trigger the music and picture have prepared for you.

---

Movie & novel spoiler alert!

From here on I’ll be laying out some ideas that cannot be explained without spoilers. You’ve been warned :)

---

I have to mention that I reread the novel prior to watching the movie and didn’t regret it a bit. For some it may be difficult to get rid of the expectations set by the book, but I felt like every decision in this movie was so justified and perfectly handled that Dune surpassed all my most daring expectations! The two only things I might regret not getting are seeing Gurney play the baliset and witnessing Lady Jessica bringing drunk Duncan Idaho back to consciousness.

Anyway, the thing that stood out clearly for me while I was rereading the book was the explanation of the Dune logo. I’ve seen many attempts to match it with certain religious symbols like the Star of David, but, as I see it, the blackness with golden rings has a simpler place of origin.

“Paul's consciousness flowed through and around her and into the darkness. She glimpsed the place dimly before her mind blanked itself away from the terror. Without knowing why, her whole being trembled at what she had seen—a region where a wind blew and sparks glared, where rings of light expanded and contracted, where rows of tumescent white shapes flowed over and under and around the lights, driven by darkness and a wind out of nowhere”

This is what Jessica sees when Paul shows her the place where no Reverend Mother could look. This place is the destructive masculinity which only the Kwisatz Haderach is not afraid to look into. The Bene Gesserit needed the Kwisatz Haderach, because he is the one who could turn to both destructive masculine and creative feminine beginnings. Such an ability enables him not only to see the future, but to shape it.

More to the movie. I really liked how Liet-Kynes was presented. Sharon Duncan-Brewster’s acting was top notch! The idea of how the movie character is more of a planet-lover, how she is one with the desert, is ridiculously satisfying. After all, Kynes is a planetologist in the first place, not a god to fremen. I see why some people say this character was got rid of too quickly, but taking the limited screen time into account I’m convinced that the most important aspects of Kynes’s nature were made very clear.

Another novelty I really liked about the movie is the visions and their messages. We don’t really get a closer look at Paul’s prescience in the novel. All we know is him experiencing constant fear and seeing the multitudes of his deaths. Yet, in the movie we actually get a glimpse of how the paths differ, how every tiny decision changes the future. When stranded in the desert in one of his visions Paul sees Jamis as a friend and guide. This could have been, but the reality was that Paul had to kill Jamis. This shows us how terrifying it is to live with sight of so many ways of how the future could unfold and not even knowing what decision would shatter a certain future.

For now, I stop here. There many more things to say but I may elaborate on them in further texts. I’ll be happy to see you share your experience with Dune in the comments below ;)