David Lynch's oeuvre, while unquestionably idiosyncratic, is also characterized and widely criticized for its obvious compromises. Kubrick puts the art above the artists, it's the only way
It's not, in fact, the only way. The alternatives are time and/or money. Not having access to the resources needed to accomplish something is not a license to resort to socially unacceptable means.
Now, there's an argument to be made that actors who accepted to work under Kubrick knew (or at least ought to have known) what they were getting into, which blurs things a lot in this specific case. But "It's the only way" is going too far imo.
Its going too far if industry is replete with Kubrick level work with above reproach behavior. Else I can just choose to not watch Kubrick films while stewing in my own moral superiority.
Denis Villeneuve is another example of a universally loved director, and he is not often criticized for obvious compromises.
Villeneuve's good friend Christopher Nolan presents as a bit more of a prickly pear, but he has a very long list of long-time collaborators on both sides of the camera so he's probably not that bad.
In fact, more than a few of those behind-the-scenes folks collaborate with both Villeneuve and Nolan. It would be interesting to hear them compare an contrast.
Chris Nolan famously drives all his production designers insane! No one has made more then one film with him. Apparently he also only shoots 3 or 4 takes per shot, and goes ballistic if somethings goes wrong.
Dune took "Show Don't Tell" the the utmost extreme that it practically inverted upon itself. There's no character development to speak of, the plot is secondary, and visual spectacle is placed front and center.
I tire of movies with lazy expositional dialogue, but this was absurd in the other direction.
> There's no character development to speak of, the plot is secondary, and visual spectacle is placed front and center.
I totally agree with this take, but I think Dennis' directing/writing is full of 'Telling' instead of 'Showing', not that he took "Show Don't Tell" to the extreme. The entire movie is full of instances where the audience is told aspects of the characters/world, but isn't shown them in the first Dune movie:
- We are told the Atreides ruled Caladan, but at no point is the audience shown who the Atreides' subjects are, or how their subjects feel about the Atreides. The only shots the film has on Caladan are beautiful yet empty areas of the Scottish Highlands. Where are the people they rule over? What does their way of life look like? None of this is shown, but it should have been.
- On Arrakis, we are only ever told how strong and powerful the Fremen are from characters like Duncan Idaho. In fact, the only time we get to see the Fremen fight is at the end of the movie when Paul, the child _who has never been in a life or death fight before_, makes a fool of a supposedly strong Fremen fighter! Dennis clearly wants the audience to perceive the Fremen as strong, yet he fails to illustrate their strength on screen. I understand that Dennis wants Paul to be seen as powerful too, but the resulting scene undercuts everything that the movie has told us about the Fremen's fighting ability.
If it isn't already clear, I don't think Dennis Villenueve is a particularly good film maker (though this is not to call him a bad one). He likes to have large empty scenery shots which are almost monochrome. I find that it makes his imagery striking but, ultimately, boring. For instance, his shots in Bladerunner 2049 mostly depict an empty wasteland that, though striking in its scale, doesn't drive one's imagination. The original Bladerunner's shots are so cluttered with detail and color that it fills every location with a unique character. This is why I think Bladerunner inspired so much other media after it; the audience's imagination can't help but linger on the sets and one off characters of the original film.
I agree with the original poster. The novel was extremely expositional, with epigraphs, italicized personal thoughts, and shifting points of view. The film is the novel with all the exposition removed. I see the film not just as an adapatation, but as a direct response to Lynch's version which includes all the exposition you could like.
> - We are told the Atreides ruled Caladan, but at no point is the audience shown who the Atreides' subjects are...
I'm not sure why this is particularly needed and it isn't really in the novel. The importance of Caladan in the novel is that it is wet (which we do see); and that the way Caladan is ruled (whatever that is) must necessarily be different than how Arrakis is ruled (air/sea versus desert power). I'll have to rewatch the film to see if this can be gleaned from it; but it seems largely irrelevant what day-to-day life is like for Caladanians not in the Duke's direct employ and if the Duke is particularly loved or hated there.
> - On Arrakis, we are only ever told how strong and powerful the Fremen are...
This is also true of the novel. The main characters know more about the Fremen than anyone and very little at that. The Duke believes the Fremen are his 'desert power' because of the comparison to the Sardaukar on Selusa Secundus and because their estimates of the number of Fremen are greater than those of the Harkonnen or Emperor. Duncan Idaho confirms these suspicions, but the Fremen are largely mysterious even then. We also have the interaction between the Shadout Mapes and Jessica to hint at their capacity for violence.
> I'm not sure why this is particularly needed and it isn't really in the novel...
I know saying this is sacrilegious to some sci-fi fans, but I think that the novel, Dune, could do with improvement. Neither the book nor the movie spend enough time fleshing out the details of their characters, which in my opinion robs both of them their ability to connect more deeply with the audience. The scene where Duke Leto explains to Paul that they will require desert power to rule Arrakis, for instance, did not have to be set such that the characters were alone on an empty cliff above the shoreline. There could have been a city full of culture upon this shoreline with great boat yards and planes over the sea to show the audience the empire that they are leaving behind on Caladan. I want both the novel and the movie to flesh out the details which make the audience engage with the fact that Caladan is a comparative paradise to the harsh, prison-like planet called Arrakis. It would suck to be forced to leave behind all the great work that the Atreides' forefathers put into Caladan. But, ultimately, both the film and the novel fail to fully engage their audience with these facts since they don't flesh out the details about the environment and people that the Atreides rule. At least that is my opinion.
There are a number of things I'd like to change or improve upon if I had the chance to edit Dune (novel or film): the story's allusions to the Cold War fight for oil in the middle east; the poor decision making by the Harkonnens; Dr. Yueh's murder of Duke Leto etc. But I don't want to ramble on too much. My point is that I think the film could have improved upon the novel in a number of places, instead of following the novel to its detriment.
Just want to say I agree about the book. I like the book, but I've never felt connected to any of the characters. There's simply no reason given to particularly care about any of them, any many simply appear to fill a role and then disappear as quickly.
The Villeneuve movie at least gives personality to Stilgar.
You're lucky, I find something like <2% enjoyable to actually give real attention to. For that reason I watch basically 0 TV or movies anymore.
And feels like the less I watch, the less I can watch anything without immediately being annoyed at cheese, cheapness, and mostly just plain unrealistic characters or dialogue (which really and truly is 99% it seems like of shows).
I need either high art or a slice of life. Ghibli or Satoshi Kon for anime, stuff like Kubrick in film, or Mad Men for TV. Mad Men especially was my turning point where after that show I couldn't stomach much else.
Call me elitist. I watch lower quality YouTube stuff much more easily (at low attention), but once you're trying to sign me up for 30 minutes or more I just give up.
Tried watching the 3 Body Problem on Netflix and in just the first scenes (cultural revolution + the scientists convo on God) were so full of cringe. I kept it on as background a bit but petered out after a few episodes.
You conveniently left out Arrival. Also, Blade Runner 2049 was not a remake, but a sequel with original content. Also, Dune was a book adaptation, not a remake. Also, that's just a weird reason to reject a director. Is it easier to direct a movie that's set in an existing universe? Should we reject all World War 2 movies as potential masterpieces since they're just remakes of a thing that happened?
Just to further your point, we are in a thread about Kubrick who did numerous book adaptations including Lolita, Dr. Strangelove, The Shining, and Clockwork Orange and this is just off the top of my head. Tons of directors adapt novels. Bringing the story to the screen is the skill.
As an aside, 2001 is an interesting case as it was produced concurrently with the novel. It's clearly not an adaptation, but I wouldn't say it's clearly original material either.
