Jump to content

Villeneuve's DUNE


A24

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Yeah I'm fine without a lot of action early on, I like build up.

 

Sure, but one of the reviews says it involves waiting for over an hour in a 2.5-hour film.

 

By comparison, Braveheart makes you wait 45 minutes (which is a while) for the first action scene, and after that, there's still a lot of movie left and a lot of action setpieces to be had. This, though...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knowing the book and the story as I do, it really isn't easy to squeeze a big action sequence in before the one hour mark. Besides, at least in my experience, action sequences have been the most boring parts of recent hollywood blockbuster filmmaking

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Romão said:

action sequences have been the most boring parts of recent hollywood blockbuster filmmaking

 

And yet they are the stuff that us unwashed masses have consistently been flocking to the theaters for since time immemorial...

 

You know what's the issue with all that rhetoric that props this film as "the next Star Wars/Lord of the Rings"? That both Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings are action movies, and they owe much of their success to that. People came to those movies for the action and spectacle - they may have stayed for other reasons, but it took the appeal of the action to get them to sit down for it, first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

And yet they are the stuff that us unwashed masses have consistently been flocking to the theaters for since time immemorial...

 

What is it with this connection between a love of action films and aversion to bathing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Romão said:

Movies like Gone With the Wind, Wizard of Oz, Sound of Music, Doctor Zhivago, Exorcist, the Graduate what have you

 

Movies like Doctor Zhivago or Gone With the Wind may not have a lot action, per se, but they sure have a lot of spectacleThe Exorcist is a horror film: its scares are the equivalent of action setpieces in an action film, and the same analogy is true of the musical numbers in musicals like Sound of Music.

 

Point is, the casual audience members wants chills, thrills and/or laughs, first and foremost. If you give it to them, they may be willing to stay for the story, the characters and the ideas, but you need that kind of "hook" to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Chen G. said:

 

Movies like Doctor Zhivago or Gone With the Wind may not have a lot action, per se, but they sure have a lot of spectacle.

 

The Exorcist is a horror film: its scares are the equivalent of action setpieces in an action film, and the same analogy is true of the musical numbers in musicals like Sound of Music.

 

Point is, the casual audience members wants chills, thrills and laughs, first and foremost. If you give it to them, they may be willing to stay for the story, the characters and the ideas, but you need that kind of "hook" to begin with.

 

I agree with everything you said, but I really doubt Dune will be lacking in spectacle or massive scale. It might not be a particularly "warm" movie (Dune is really not a particularly warm novel nor is Villeneuve a sentimental director), but I'm pretty sure it will feel massive and grandiose

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Romão said:

I really doubt Dune will be lacking in spectacle or massive scale.

 

I think nowadays audiences expect a marriage of spectacle and action. I sometimes get very tired of movies that are all spectacle but no actual action.

 

Like I said, we shall see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

Sorry, @Romão, but when first released, THE WIZARD OF OZ was not a box office success. It only started to gain a following on its 1949 reissue.

Best to think of THE WIZARD OF OZ, as the BLADE RUNNER of its day :)

 

My bad, then, thank for pointing that out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/30/2021 at 2:24 PM, Nick1Ø66 said:

"If the film is a success most of those who go out and buy the book will give up long before page 200. This is exactly what happened to Seven Pillars Of Wisdom, Doctor Zhivago and, to a lesser extent, Passage To India." -Sir David Lean

Sorry, Dave, I love your films, but what you just said is a crock.

I read A PASSAGE TO INDIA in high school, then saw the film (which I love, btw :)), and have reread the book, several times.

I happen to think that it is the finest novel ever written, in the English language.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lawrence of Arabia has spectacle and action and succeeded brilliantly, it's one of the greatest films ever made.

 

Doctor Zhivago has lots of spectacle, but not so much action. But it's also one of the greatest films of all time. And my personal Lean favourite (even if objectively Lawrence is a better film). Though at the time audiences and critics weren't blown away with Zhivago, its reputation has increased over the years, and now I believe it's regarded as a classic.

 

I guess the point is, I don't think you need action for a film full of spectacle to be a great film. A good story and strong characters can take you a long way. To be sure, @Chen G. may be right, contemporary audiences may not feel that way, but as far I'm concerned that's the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Lawrence of Arabia has spectacle and action and succeeded brilliantly, it's one of the greatest films ever made.

 

Actually, I'd cite Lawrence (which I love) as an example of more spectacle than action. Its very deliberate, too: Lean specifically asked his writers to not "make a Western." All the would-be action setpieces are played more as big crowd scenes than as scenes of actual fighting. I recall an interview of Omar Sharif where he shared the same observation "there's no romance, no action really."

 

But that was the age of Cinerama - when big-crowds and large vistas (and, in Biblical epics, pageantry) - counted almost as much as a good, exciting fight scene. We live in a completely different cinematic landscape in this regard. You need the vistas, but you also need the fighting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Lawrence of Arabia has spectacle and action and succeeded brilliantly, it's one of the greatest films ever made.

@Chen G.

One critic called LAWRENCE OF ARABIA "an intimate epic". That pretty much sums it up. For all its spectacle, it is, at its heart, a character study.

As for ...ZHIVAGO, Lean once said that it made more money than all his other films, put together.

Go figure...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

Sorry, Dave, I love your films, but what you just said is a crock.

I read A PASSAGE TO INDIA in high school, then saw the film (which I love, btw :)), and have reread the book, several times.

I happen to think that it is the finest novel ever written, in the English language.

 

Never have these words been written before in the annals of history, and never will they be written again, but let it be known on this day, on this matter, Sir David Lean, Knight of the British Empire is wrong and "Naïve Old Fart" is right. Lean was out of his mind when he said that about adaptations.

 

You sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

As for ...ZHIVAGO, Lean once said that it made more money than all his other films, put together.

 

 

That's because it did. By several orders of magnitude more than Lawrence.

 

Lean also liked to say this as a kind of self-defense, because - as we tend to forget nowadays - critics didn't react favourably to Zhivago in its day. I, too, like it a lot less than Lawrence or Kwai, I have to confess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only recent movie that succeeded at the box office and almost didn't had any action scene, was Joker, and that movie only made a billion dollars because it's connected to the Batman mythos.

 

On the other hand, Blade Runner 2049 didn't had much action scenes either and, since it's not an adaptation of a comic released by either Marvel or DC, it bombed spetacularly at the box office.

 

So yeah, if Dune wants to get butts into seats, it will need something that makes the trip to the theater worthwile.

 

I mean, I'm gonna watch it anyway, but the average joe who only watch comic book movies is the guy they need to convince.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly I don’t think the big suits in charge of marketing etc for Dune 2021 are enticed by having the next Lawrence of Arabia/ Dr Zchivago on their hands. They won’t get that sweet  money making “18-30” demographic that will go back and see a film 5 times.


While I personally love the idea of a grand epic that takes its time. I worry for this films success when the overall moviegoing audience is perhaps expecting a Marvel/Star Wars-paced zippy action adventure. But perhaps I can hold out a little faith that audiences may appreciate its different vibe. We’ll see…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, WampaRat said:

I personally love the idea of a grand epic that takes its time. I worry for this films success when the overall moviegoing audience is perhaps expecting a Marvel/Star Wars-paced zippy action adventure.

 

Its all the more detrimental since the Star Wars parallels are so strong, and the marketing really hadn't been doing enough to delineate the two.

 

But you can have a patient epic that's also action-packed: they're not mutually exclusive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

That's because it did. By several orders of magnitude more than Lawrence.

 

Lean also liked to say this as a kind of self-defense, because - as we tend to forget nowadays - critics didn't react favourably to Zhivago in its day. I, too, like it a lot less than Lawrence or Kwai, I have to confess.

 

Of his historical epics...

  1. Zhivago
  2. Lawrence
  3. Kwai
  4. Passage

Though again, I'll concede Lawrence is his best film, but Zhivago is closest to my heart.

 

Kwai's a little episodic, and the Alec Guinness character annoys me. Still a brilliant film that I love, mind you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

Hey! So what's RYAN'S DAUGHTER, then? Chopped liver?

 

It would be #5, I just wouldn't classify it as a historical epic, and it's not fair to compare it to those other films, each of which is a classic. But it's a beautiful (though somewhat flawed) film in its own right. Gorgeous cinematography.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love Lawrence of Arabia. I do think (as did Lean) that the second part isn't as good, and its an issue that's been exacerbated by Lean chopping-up a crucial scene between Lawrence and Allenby in the process of the restoration, because they couldn't redub Hawkins' lines convincingly in the close-ups. Still, the overall effect is a positive one.

 

I definitely see @Nick1Ø66's issue with Guinness' character in Kwai. It all just gets a little to unbelieveable and absurd. But its the leanest (heh) of Lean's epics, has the most straightforward action setpieces (as opposed to just crowd scenes) and has pretty complex character dynamics. I like it a lot.

 

I generally don't like the kind of "soap opera writ large" premise of films like Doctor Zhivago. For me, true historical epics are about historical events as more than just backdrops. Like, in Lawrence the main character is a chief leader in the Arab revolt, whereas neither Zhivago nor Lara are actual players in the Russian revolution - their lives just happen to coincide with it. That's not the kind of thing I'm interested in watching for 3.5-hours. The exact same could be said for Ryan's Daughter.

 

I will say this for A Passage to India: When I started watching it I thought I would love it, and I was engaged just fine for the first hour to ninty minutes. It was only by the end that I realized I was bored out of my mind. I dunno what it was: there's nothing in the film that I can point to as being weak or innately boring, but somehow the overall effect was numbing.

 

So to me its probably:

  1. Lawrence of Arabia ****1/2 out of *****
  2. The Bridge on the River Kwai ****
  3. A Passage to India ***
  4. Doctor Zhivago ***
  5. Ryan's Daughter ***
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, SilverTrumpet said:

So I don't know the first thing about Dune.

 

Why is this particular film adaptation of it seemingly expected to be the be all end all of the story?

 

Because it's the one that is happening right now. It's certainly a serious movie made with a respectable amount of money. If you love the book then this is the best bet at a successful adaptation. If this fails then nobody will touch this again for another 40 years if ever. And I'll be damned old if that happens.

 

Villeneuve seems to have an affinity for the material. (Although his statement that if there is a part 2 then Chani will be the protagonist is a little weird.)

 

So sure, hopes are high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

I generally don't like the kind of "soap opera writ large" premise of films like Doctor Zhivago. For me, true historical epics are about historical events as more than just backdrops.

 

I sort of see your point, but I disagree. The revolution in Zhivago is omni-present, and informs everything that happens and every action the characters take. You can call it a "backdrop" if you like, but I think it's a bit more than that in Zhivago. It's enough in a historical epic, in my opinion, for the characters to be swept up into history, they need not make the history. A big part of the history of the Russian revolution were stories of people like Yuri, Lara and Tanya. Zhivago need not feature Lenin to be a historical epic.

 

I do agree its a fine line, and what constitutes a "historical epic" is of some debate.  But in my judgement, Zhivago qualifies.

 

That said, I will concede that Zhivago engages in melodrama (what you call "soap opera"), but Lean makes it work.  In any event, as I said, my love of the film is personal, something I'm sure you can understand as I suspect your love of, and defence of, The Hobbit is personal as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

as I said, my love of the film is personal, something I'm sure you can understand as I suspect your love of, and defence of, The Hobbit is personal as well.

 

Sure. I get and respect that.

 

My preferences in historical epics are ones where the main characters are the ones responsible for instigating events of historical significance, so that by the end of the film you feel that the characters have achieved something momentous. A few examples of what I mean:

  1. T.E. Lawrence in Lawrence of Arabia is responsible (not on his own, obviously, but partially) for the succes of the Arab revolt.
  2. Sir William Wallace in Braveheart is responsible for the liberation of Scotland.
  3. Maximus in Gladiator (obviously more fictionalized than the others) is responsible for turning Rome back into a republic and stopping Commodus' selling of the grain reserves upon which the fate of the whole empire lies.
  4. Balian of Ibelin in Kingdom of Heaven is instrumental in the events of the downfall of the first Crusader kingdom.
  5. In a fantasy context, Frodo, Aragorn, Gandalf et al in The Lord of the Rings are responsible for the defeat of the global threat of Sauron, the rise of the world of Men (and, likewise, Thorin and company are responsible for the reinstatement of the Dwarven nation).
  6. Yet again in a fantasy context, Brunhilde redeems the whole of mankind from the curse of Alberich's Ring, and brings about the downfall of the Gods...
  7. etc...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

My preferences in historical epics are ones where the main characters are the ones responsible for instigating events of historical significance

 

I get it, and that's a valid way of looking at it, and one I agree with. I just don't think it's necessarily to the exclusion of historical epics with a different focus. As I'm sure you know, there's no consensus on what constitutes a historical epic (my favourite genre) in the film community.

 

I don't know man, its like pornography, I can't define what it is, but I know it when I see it. For example, while I think Zhivago is a historical epic, I wouldn't describe Casablanca as one. Even though they're both stories about doomed love set against a historical backdrop. In Zhivago I can feel the weight of history, and the history is central to the story. Casablanca just doesn't have that feel, which is why most people wouldn't call Casablanca a historical epic, whereas Zhivago is typically classified that way. You just sort of recognize the genre when you see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

As I'm sure you know, there's no consensus on what constitutes a historical epic (my favourite genre) in the film community.

 

Yes, the epic in general is a very elusive genre to define, because its defining character is that its "big" and that a pretty amorphous criterion if ever there was one...

 

As a counterpoint, I do love Titanic, which is also a kind of 3.5-hour melodrama. I suppose it helps that its not an adultery story like Zhivago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

most people wouldn't call Casablanca a historical epic

 

Casablanca was also a contemporary story. It wasn't historical then, it just is now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets dispense with the "historical" qualifier and just think in terms of epic: I agree with Nick, we don't tend to think of Casablanca as an epic because its not a "big" film.

 

Now, what consistutes a "big" film is very amorphous, but you know it when you see it. Zhivago is certainly a big film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chen G. said:

 

Yes, the epic in general is a very elusive genre to define, because its defining character is that its "big" and that a pretty amorphous criterion if ever there was one...

 

As a counterpoint, I do love Titanic, which is also a kind of 3.5-hour melodrama. I suppose it helps that its not an infidelity story like Zhivago.

 

I think Titanic ticks the "historical" box, but not the "epic" box.

 

Zhivago takes place over a period of years. During this time, World War I is fought and "won", the Bolsheviks have their revolution, the Romanov Empire falls, the Soviet Republic is born, and a bloody civil war was fought. They're all portrayed in one way or another on screen. Yuri, Tanya and Lara were there for all of it. Dunno, sounds like it ticks the "epic" and "history" box to me. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Zhivaga takes place over a period of years.

 

Yeah, I was fairly struck by that quality of the film: it takes place over a much longer period (around seven years) than Lawrence (two years), Ryan's Daughter (one year) and certainly Kwai (five months, I believe).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Guardian's spoiler free review is gushing. In fact in general it looks like the British critics are more positive than their American counterparts, probably because the Brits have better taste.

 

But I digress. If this review accurately describes the film, it's exactly what I'm hoping it will be. I want it to be this good, in this way.

 

Quote

 

Dune reminds us what a Hollywood blockbuster can be. Implicitly, its message written again and again in the sand, Denis Villeneuve’s fantasy epic tells us that big-budget spectaculars don’t have to be dumb or hyperactive, that it’s possible to allow the odd quiet passage amid the explosions. Adapted from Frank Herbert’s 60s opus, Dune is dense, moody and quite often sublime – the missing link bridging the multiplex and the arthouse. Encountering it here was like stumbling across some fabulous lost tribe, or a breakaway branch of America’s founding fathers who laid out the template for a different and better New World.

Good heavens, what a film. The drama is played out with relish by an ensemble cast (Rebecca Ferguson, Charlotte Rampling, Jason Momoa) and Villeneuve is confident enough to let the temperature slowly build before the big operatic set-pieces eventually break cover. He has constructed an entire world for us here, thick with myth and mystery, stripped of narrative signposts or even much in the way of handy exposition.

He has handed us a movie to map out at our leisure and figure out on the run: apparently spitting on someone is an gesture of respect, while walking sideways like a crab is the safest way to proceed. After that we’re on our own, wandering in the desert, wonderfully immersed. It’s a film of discovery; an invitation to get lost.

 

 

I wonder, however, if this might generate some controversy...

 

Quote

If the tale’s real-world relevance was not clear enough, Villeneuve has taken the decision to put the local women in hijabs and make the bulk of his interiors look like north Africa. On their arrival, Paul and the Duke tramp down the gangplank wearing golden livery, serenaded by bagpipers. They could be a pair of old-style colonials, come to impose civilisation on the natives and fill their coffers with plunder.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, I live in among all the hijab-clad folk, so fine by me...

 

I do suppose I'm slightly more numb with regards to the grandeur of all those desert vistas: I mean, Wadi Rum is a mere six-hour drive from my house...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah but in Dune some "hijab-clad folk" eventually become...

Spoiler

hijab-clad Jihadists

...hence, the possibility for controversy.

 

Under normal circumstances I'd say a discussion of Dune could easily turn into politics, but I think Villeneuve (like Lynch) is probably going to steer clear of this aspect of the story, and in the first film at least it won't be an issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Chen G. said:

 

That's not the point: the point is that it makes those people analogous of Arabs...

 

As opposed to in the book where they are... Arabs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Marian Schedenig said:

 

Sand is overrated. It's just tiny little rocks.


Yeah but tiny little rocks float. Any witch can tell you that (preferably the Bene Gesserit variety).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

But I digress. If this review accurately describes the film, it's exactly what I'm hoping it will be. I want it to be this good, in this way.

 

+1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Chen G. said:

When I started watching it I thought I would love it, and I was engaged just fine for the first hour to ninty minutes. It was only by the end that I realized I was bored out of my mind. I dunno what it was: there's nothing in the film that I can point to as being weak or innately boring, but somehow the overall effect was numbing.

 

 I wasn't a big fan of Arrival either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's been quite a while since I've seen A Passage To India but I did enjoy the movie each time I watched it. That being said, I never been a fan of Lawrence Of Arabia, which was the favorite movie of my mother. Did my mother have a better taste in movies than me? Probably. She also loved Titanic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, AC1 said:

It's been quite a while since I've seen A Passage To India but I did enjoy the movie each time I watched it. That being said, I never been a fan of Lawrence Of Arabia, which was the favorite movie of my mother. Did my mother have a better taste in movies than me? Probably. She also loved Titanic.

 

I love Titanic (well, I did the last time I saw it) and Lawrence is probably my favorite movie. So I'm siding with your mom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will say that Lawrence of Arabia isn't for everybody in today's world. I can't imagine seeing it with my mates, and in a way that's a fault.

 

The movie's first trekking sequence is ostensibly eight minutes during which the plot is left completely to the side: its bordering on being a semi-travelogue. I think it works (in fact, works remarkably well) but most casual filmgoers today will probably still find it to be too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.