Opinion | Fans, skeptics of ‘Dune’ film adaptation should read the original book

Greatness is a transitory experience. It is never consistent. It depends in part upon the myth-making imagination of humankind. The person who experiences greatness must have a feeling for the myth he is in. He must reflect what is projected upon him. This is what uncouples him from belief in his own pretensions.

– FROM “DUNE”

BY FRANK HERBERT

Jake Needham, junior television writing and production major

In October of my freshman year, my partner ー an avid reader ー gifted me a copy of Frank Herbert’s 1965 novel “Dune.” Prior to this, I knew very little about “Dune,” but she asserted that it would keep me hooked. Having not read a book for fun since middle school, I was somewhat skeptical of my ability to make it through 794 pages of Herbert’s characteristically nontraditional prose. 

And I won’t lie, I almost gave up towards the beginning. However, it wasn’t long before I found myself utterly engrossed in the world Herbert had created and the complex themes that lay within. I came to find that continuing to read was truly one of the best decisions I ever made.

Naturally, I was beyond excited for Denis Villenueve’s film adaptation of the first half of the book. My excitement faded into disappointment when the film was delayed an entire year due to the pandemic, but as soon as that first trailer dropped, I was right back on the hype train. Yet despite my fervent anticipation, I couldn’t help but feel somewhat slighted as I walked out of the theater last weekend.

While this piece is decidedly not a film review, I feel it necessary to touch on some aspects of the film that I was critical of in order to better distinguish it from its source. 

The screenplay ー penned by John Spaiths, Eric Roth and Villeneuve himself ー was dreadfully underwritten. The rich characters of Herbert’s novel were reduced to one-dimensional imitations, offering the undeniably talented cast very little to work with. 

The once-nuanced characters Paul, Jessica and Leto Atreides now only serve to animate a relatively straightforward retelling of only half of Herbert’s novel. Villeneuve and his cohorts have taken no liberties with the writing to make the story work better through the medium of film, depriving “Dune” (2021) of any semblance of structure, and more importantly, a satisfying narrative conclusion. 

Additionally, I would describe both the cinematography and sound design as loud. While the world of “Dune” is certainly enormous, the story that takes place within that world is often very intimate, which makes the in-your-face nature of the picture and sound feel incongruent with the story they are in service of.

As harsh as those critiques may be, I would be remiss to say I completely disliked the film. I did feel that certain scenes and creative touches were effective both on their own merits and in context as an adaptation. 

On a broader level, there was a certain part of me that was simply satisfied to see a visual representation of the book I love. But by the end of its 155-minute runtime, the negatives ultimately outweighed the positives. I was left feeling disappointed, unenthused and even bored. 

Herbert’s “Dune” was monumental in shaping the landscape of modern science fiction; for a film adaptation of such an important work of fiction to elicit boredom is perhaps the worst outcome it could achieve.

Beyond these specific filmmaking choices that I disagreed with, I found that this adaptation’s biggest flaw was in how it handled the book’s thematic content. Herbert’s novel is full of prescient, multifaceted themes, some of the strongest being the relationship between humanity and the planet’s natural resources, power struggles, political oppression and the danger of blindly trusting individuals in positions of power. 

These themes were clearly Herbert’s focus, as in the book, the plot often takes a backseat in favor of them. It saddened me to see this was not the case for the film. While it felt as if the screenwriters were aware of this interior meeting, the film was so dense with plot that only small allusions to this content made it through for fear of overwhelming the audience. It felt as though the plot in the film only existed for the sake of itself, rather than spending valuable screen time to say something meaningful.   

It is this exact lack of thematic depth that makes me urge you to read Frank Herbert’s “Dune.” Through the book’s meticulously crafted world, Herbert provides readers with a wholly unique lens through which to view our own. For a book published in 1965, the way in which it speaks to the modern day in both environmental and sociopolitical terms is astonishing. 

There is something on every page you can apply to your own life experience. The book effortlessly challenges readers to think critically about our own planet Earth from the unique vantage point of planet Arrakis — a world so detailed that both its laws and its inhabitants that it feels truly real. 

I can promise you that if you read this book and press on through its sometimes challenging structure, you will be rewarded. It may even change the way that you view our own world, as it did for me.

If you, like many others, saw this film and loved it, you will find even more to love in the book. If you, like some others, really did not like this film, you will find the book has much more to offer. And if you, like me, were simply underwhelmed by this film, there is certainly a lot more story to sink your teeth into when reading the book. With “Dune,” Frank Herbert created something that truly defies any adaptation; you owe it to yourself to give it a shot.