Dune (1984) Review

        You’ve already guessed that I’ve skipped over The Elephant Man. Well, as far and wide as I tried, I simply couldn’t find an available copy to watch either on streaming or physical. Rest assured that I will come up with the funds to review it. For the meantime, I think it’s appropriate to review David Lynch’s complicated film. And by complicated, I mean something where he disowned it. Right down to wanting nothing to do with it when the home video releases came out. And after reading what he went through, I can see why it was a nightmare for him. 

1. Dune

        If you’ve been following me over the years, you’ll know that I love "Dune". So much so that I’ve talked about the two Denis Villeneuve film’s as they came out. To me, they are one of the best film adaptations and one of the best sci-fi movies to come out in this decade. Prior to that, there was the David Lynch adaptation. I think what made me so put off by it was just watching an out of context scene on YouTube. That practically explains anything by the director, watching any scene or moment out of context and you’re weirded out by it. 

        Even before Lynch took a stab at it, there were multiple attempts to adapt the book. One of the most documented attempted was when Chilean director Alejandro Jodorowsky nearly came close to shooting it. What exists now is numerous concept arts of what the whole film would look like and it’s the subject of a documentary called Jodorowsky’s Dune. It’s one of those things where the film could have worked or gone wrong. Inevitably, the artists who did the concept arts would find work in future films that would be part of the sci-fi zeitgeist. 

        I think what’s even more interesting was that David Lynch came close to directing Star Wars: Return of the Jedi. After the success with The Elephant Man, he was fielding multiple offers for his next picture and he was invited to direct the third entry by George Lucas. He turned it down in favor of working with Italian producer Dino de Laurentiis, who had produced one of Lynch’s favorite works from director Federico Fellini. The initial deal was that Lynch would make Dune, it’s sequel and a third film where he would have total control. 

2. Exposition Dump

        You can say that I’ve been spoiled with the recent releases of the Dune duology. So much so that I reviewed them and why I think they’re each one of the best. I found myself seeing this adaptation on Netflix on a lazy day. I think it’s one of those things where everything that I saw was so wrong. And it’s another thing where I don’t want to be too biased and try to be as objective as I can. Which is easier said, since there’s the right way and well what’s presented from what I’ve seen. 

In case you don’t know your “Dune”, or you have no idea what’s so special about the spice. Here’s the basic plot that the film covers. In the distant future, humanity is ruled by an intergalactic empire with planetary fiefdoms. Spice is the substance that all the ruling houses want and trade as it’s resourceful for galactic travel. We follow Paul as he’s part of House Atreides as they are assigned to rule over the fief where the spice is located called Arrakis. Behind the scenes, rival houses seek to eliminate the Atreides and to take over the planet. 

        I mostly skimmed the basic plot. There was no way I was going to mention the Bene Gesserit or the humans that ingest too much Spice, looking like a slug and a dolphin combined. I think it would turn people off when being bombarded with too much detail. And that’s what I feel is one of the biggest problems with the film. Before I elaborate on that, during the premiere there was a booklet that contained a glossary of words and definitions in case the audience wouldn’t understand what a Gom Jabbar is and what a Kwisatz Haderach is. For you, there’s the internet and a great book to investigate when reading what those things are.  

        With everything going on in the film, it’s unfortunate that there’s a lot of explanation of what’s going on. Like, the opening moments in the film start with Princess Irulan explaining what’s going on. She appears, fades out and appears once again which I have no clue what David Lynch was going for. And it’s compounded with the Guild Navigators, the slug people explaining their plan to the Emperor. Now, exposition works when it’s presented visually or read out loud. When it’s done in a sequential manner, it’s a real big problem. 

        Another factor that makes the movie bad is the fact that it tried to do everything within a two hour limit. Now, it’s a thing with Lynch that he initially envisioned the film to be three hours, but the studio overruled him and made David condense the film. So there’s moments where we don’t see everything played out and have Irulan’s narration telling the audience what they could already assume by just watching. It’s even bad when the second half of the film feels extremely rushed. In a sense where everything wraps up when Paul assembles the planet natives to fight against the rival houses. 

        One more detail that I noticed is that the characters have inner monologues. They mostly appear when something urgent or intriguing occurs. It’s one of those things that appears in the book, giving them more of a thought and what they’re listening can be of benefit to them. It works in a written way since we can infer what’s going on, and it’s sloppy when presented visually. When you establish the characters more or use creative shots to infer something visually, you don’t need inner monologues to explain what exactly is going on. 

        Among the many problems, including the characterization of everyone that is presented. Like, what the film failed to do is to adapt the very aspect of what made the book different from it’s contemporaries. When reading “Dune”, it’s not about the typical chosen one narrative where they rise and beat the enemy. The story subverts it where Paul leads an intergalactic Jihad and not wanting a war in his name. With the film, it’s basically a feel-good story where evil is defeated and Paul makes the planet rain. Which doesn’t make sense in the least bit since the rain is deadly to the sandworms. 

3. Legacy

        With everything that I listed, it’s no wonder that it was a commercial and financial flop. While I wouldn’t list the director as the main culprit, he gets part of the blame along with the producers and higher ups. The failure of the film also led to the cancellation of the follow-up film that was supposed to adapt the sequel "Dune: Messiah". I couldn’t imagine how David Lynch was going to present Paul’s son Leto II. Decades later, the Sci-Fi channel would adapt the first three books as a miniseries. They were received better than the film, but it wasn’t as good as the source material.

        The film has gained a significant cult following even after it came out. It’s one of those things where “Dune” fans hate the adaptation and Lynch fans love his unique take. Universal released an extended cut on TV, but it had no input on the director. He was so incensed by it that he had his name written out and replaced by a pseudonym for his credit as writer and director. After the fact, there has been dedicated fans that have assembled a cut that it supposed to represent what David Lynch was going for. From what I gathered, it’s like putting a band aid on an open wound. When he was alive, he referred to the whole ordeal as a nightmare and didn’t want to talk or elaborate on it when asked. 

        It’s unfortunate that David Lynch had to experience the brief fall that he had. From reaching critical acclaim and even be nominated by the Academy with The Elephant Man, it’s a directors passage to experience the moments of rise and humbleness. I think every director has gone through it and still manage to have a decent filmography. Some don’t, but Lynch managed to bounce back with his next film. From there, he would have total control over his works and where we would see his style permeate. To which it is mostly referred to as “Lynchian” in his subsequent works. 

4. Overall

        Dune is not a good adaptation, but essential when appreciating the works of David Lynch. 

Eraserhead Review

        I think it’s appropriate to talk about a director for the whole summer. Years past, I dedicated a month of a specific director by talking about their best movies within a four week span. While it’s good to go over their best films, I feel it’s a disservice to not dedicating the time to go over their whole work and see how far they have come. With the recent news on the passing of David Lynch, I’ve decided to dedicate the whole summer season on the man. All 10 movies for May, June and July to see how much his whole craft is representative of his whole style. Of course, I will be talking about his weaker material, but I’ll try to be objective and not be too wax poetic on him.

1. Life of Henry

        When looking at the poster for this film, I remember a moment way back during my high school years. During art class, there was a girl that was wearing an Erasherhead shirt and just looking at it I didn’t think much of it. Just seeing the guy’s face on the shirt didn’t really make me look it up online since nothing about it popped. It’s black and white like the poster and it just stuck with me as an odd thing to put on a shirt. Years later, that same face popped up in a montage that the Academy Awards put out celebrating the movies. As time passed, I’ve encountered people that hold the film in high regard and the director himself. 

        This is an unorthodox film for any casual movie enthusiast to watch. One would think that it would be a stereotypical arthouse film with a lot of abstract imagery that doesn’t appear to connect with anything. It’s a tricky thing where if you lean into the abstract too much, it’ll take away from the movie having any sort of focus or story. With David Lynch, his work is defined by the abstract and we’ll talk about it as go over his entire filmography. While a minority of his films have the basic structure down, his motif of abstract is his staple but manages not to overdo it.

        So, if you can get pass the first 10 minutes of the movie and not be weirded out with what’s on display, the film is easy to follow. If you’re down to watching something different than what you usually watch that is. We follow Henry who has a weird haircut that would rival Sam Bankman-Fried as having some odd follicles. He lives in a mostly dilapidated industrial area as he’s the father of a deformed newborn that his fling pushed out. While he wrestles with the newborn and his girlfriend, we see what he goes through as he tries to make sense of his new life. 

        Now, that’s the CliffsNotes of the whole story. There are loads to take away when discussing David Lynch’s first film. It’s mostly in black and white, and I feel that the lack of color sells the idea that Henry is isolated in his own world. We don’t see the city where he lives, but we can assume that it’s in a bad neighborhood since it looks bleak beyond belief. As well as having a film being shot in black and white is significantly cheaper than shooting it on color. 

        Henry is a peculiar character when we see him. Played by Jack Nance, who would be a regular for David Lynch’s subsequent films after the fact. To define him as a character, if you were to look at him just briefly, he looks like a sad sack. Basically, not being good enough at anything but somehow managing to have it in him to get laid. We see that he’s not ready for adulthood and being incredibly awkward when he comes to dinner with his girlfriend’s parents. 

        I feel like that whole scene involving him and his girlfriend Mary’s parents is indicative of who he is. The whole conversation pre, during and post dinner is awkward for Henry. Especially when he tries to carve out the chicken and it moves and bleeds. Of course, it’s to be inferred that it’s not really happening in the sense that a person is there, but Henry sees it convulsing as it’s inferred that he’s losing his sense of reality. And I love that it’s not entirely clear and to have it be played straight, I think is just perfect with establishing with how everything is weird. 

        Lastly, I should at least acknowledge the weird stuff that we see. Most of it is up to interpretation since the director had a penchant of not telling any audience or interviewer just what it all means. I’ll give Lynch that he’s entirely secretive of it and allows for anyone to come in and to give their own interpretation. It’s a double-edged sword since you must at least make something compelling and have the intelligence to get away with it. Give it to any unknown director who decides to be abstract for the sake of it, it loses its luster and is deemed forgettable. 

2. Fatherhood

        Given what the whole film presents as far as having Henry raising a weird looking baby and having a girlfriend who is not in a parental mood, I feel that the whole film is indicative of fatherhood. Looking up at the available sources, it seems to me that Lynch based the whole movie on his life when he had his daughter. Now, his daughter had clubbed feet which required extensive procedures and I feel that moment partly inspired him to make the film. More so we see both Henry and Mary just fearing the baby and being annoyed by it. 

        With the opening moments in the film, it’s entirely inferred that it’s about Henry having sex with Mary. With the abstract images making it so as we see Henry’s mind working as a man pulling some levers and something coming out of Henry’s mouth. It’s creative in a sense where if it was just a sex scene, then the whole film wouldn’t have that weirdness to it. Having it be where it’s artistic and giving it a chance makes the film at least creative by establishing it’s own weird world. 

        I forgot to mention this other character that appears in the film. As Henry uses a radiator in his apartment to dry off his wet socks, he hears a noise radiating from it. Even having visions of a woman with extremely puffy cheeks dancing and singing towards him, and of course Henry being weirded out by the whole thing. With everything that he sees, it’s like he’s scared of the whole facets of reproduction. Even with the whole wider scope of it such as his dinner with his girlfriend’s parents and the baby itself. 

3. Legacy

        It’s interesting to read that this is David Lynch’s most spiritual film. He refuses to elaborate what he means by that, but one can infer just how much of a labor it went through. Lynch spent five years making the film, due to repeat loss of funds and having the scope be bigger than what he initially pitched to the American Film Institute as he was a student of the organization. Right down to having the actor for Henry maintain that hairstyle as filming was delayed and then restarted. Even during it’s release, it was lambasted which I think affected him as something where he worked so hard on the project. Only to have some critics dislike it at the time. 

        Inevitably, time has passed as a new crop of film critics and even some curious film enthusiasts started to see the genius that David Lynch had. Little did I know that the film had some influence with other films after that. Stanley Kubrick used the film as influence for his adaptation of Stephen King’s The Shining. Right down to having the cast watch it to have them be put in a mood that was needed to capture Kubrick’s vision. Another film that I watched back in high school was also influenced by Eraserhead. Darren Aranofsky’s Pi definitely has some of Eraserhead’s fingerprints, I still have no idea why my teacher put that on in class during a dance. 

4. Overall

        David Lynch’s Eraserhead is one of the film’s to get into when exploring the director. And one of the most underrated films of the 70s. 

Tombstone Review

        I think it’s appropriate to wrap up my look into the Western by talking about the one that represented that last bit of mainstream that the genre was in. After the critical acclaim of Dancing with Wolves and with Clint Eastwood’s Unforgiven, the genre was in another swing of relevancy. With Tombstone I believe epitomized the last hurrah of the genre. It’s an action movie when you get down to it, and probably the rare Disney movie where it’s surprisingly good for live-action. You probably didn’t think it is a Disney movie. Let’s get down to it. 

1. Wyatt Earp and Brothers. 

        Little did I know that I made a pattern when I scheduled the films that I’ve been discussing. Two fictional and historically based which I feel now with the benefit of hindsight helps expand just the scope of the Western. As far as this movie goes, it’s been with me my whole life. It’s one of my Dad’s favorite movie, although I doubt that he knows it’s a Disney movie. I keep harping on that studio like it’s a punching bag. 

        Anyways, we follow the exploits of the Earp family as they have moved to Arizona to start their new life. Wyatt is the lead guy of the family and was a former lawman. Inevitably, as far as any story goes, trouble comes as the Cowboys gang having control of the town of Tombstone as Wyatt acknowledges that he must now become a lawman once more. And that’s basically as far as the gist of it since it’s loosely based around the two events that happen in the town: the famous or infamous shootout and Wyatt’s Vendetta Ride.

        The thing that makes the film successful is the chemistry between the brothers and when Doc Holliday show up. Now, I know that Val Kilmer’s passing led to a lot of screenings of his movies to get a sense of what kind of actor he is. I feel that he works best as a leading guy and a supporting character, but manages to be just as good as the leads. Kilmer does a good job with portraying Holliday, and it’s sort of surreal to have his looks be haggard. I wouldn’t know what a person with tuberculosis looks like, but Kilmer’s pale face and sweaty shirt practically sells that he’s slowly dying. 

        The camaraderie between Wyatt and his brothers is also great to see. With a small ensemble like this one, Kurt Russel, Sam Elliot and Bill Paxton have that chemistry to sell that these are brothers. Their moustaches are something else. More so that we see Wyatt almost immediately take charge in a saloon as he manages to kick out a Cowboy who’s been abusive as the gambling house. Like, even though the brothers are the main characters, it’s ultimately Wyatt’s movie as this whole era is what he’s mostly remembered by to anyone who’s an enthusiast for Western stories. 

        The action is very good, considering that it’s gunfights galore. It’s mostly grounded in the sense where it’s not a bloody affair. It’s very quick which is something I noticed since most of the gunfights end in a quick matter. I think out of all the action scenes, my personal favorite is when we see the creek battle. It seems like a real stretch that Wyatt somehow doesn’t have any bullet penetration but kills some of the Cowboys. And when he is shouting out “No” as he killing just makes the scene work. And you’d believe that in real life, he was unscathed in any crossfire. 

2. Fall of the Western

        One last thing I want to commend the movie is that I do love how historically immersive it is. Most of the clothing looks to be about period accurate and I couldn’t imagine wearing the wool in the dry Arizona heat. Which is perhaps one of the reasons why there was a turnover at the director chair. Right down to even Kurt Russell taking control of the film and finishing it. Even though he doesn’t have his name on the credit, Val Kilmer stated that Russell did most of the job just to finish the film. 

        So, you’d think that with the resurgence that the genre would still be relevant about decades after the fact. Not to say that it’s dead or anything, but it’s interesting to see just how the genre changed and to just up and disappear. Like disappearing in a mirage so to speak. I think one of the reasons that the genre went dormant is that audience tastes has changed. More so that there’s been more info about the Western way of life that contradicts what’s been display in the visual medium. Making the Native Americans more sympathetic than their portrayals suggest and how the expansion was all about. 

        In some way, I wouldn’t say that the Western is gone per say. It’s birthed some sub-genres that have the iconography of the genre but is more contemporary setting wise. You got films like Sicario, Logan and No Country For Old Men that are Neo-Westerns in a sense where most of the stuff that make a Western are now replaced with things that we know of today. In any sense, nothing is dead but evolved to keep the tradition of what came before. 

3. Overall

        Tombstone is one of the last great Westerns to be released. 

Unforgiven Review

        I’m halfway through with my look into Westerns. It’s more like a hodgepodge than an actual look into the genre as the decades came and went. Now, what I will say is between Butch Cassidy and this film was that the genre was in two different phases. Around the time of Butch Cassidy was when we see a different type of Westerns pop up. Dubbed Spaghetti Westerns since there was a lot of Italian influence and that’s where Clint Eastwood made a name for himself. The second half was when the genre was waning in popularity. One such film Heaven’s Gate is partly responsible for that and even ending a phase in Hollywood where director’s had total control of their films. Just at the start of the 90s is when the genre swung back into relevancy. 

1. Will’s Last Bounty

        Of course, I had to have one of Clint Eastwood’s films when I’m discussing Westerns. I haven’t talked about him in a long time. It was between this one and another he had released back in the 70s, but the Oscar winner intrigued me. Honestly, I thought he had just one Oscar winner with Million Dollar Baby. And it seemed appropriate where he was the face of the genre in a specific time frame that it made sense that he would be honored with a win. And becoming the select few where the director does the double duty of making the film and acting in it. 

        With that, we follow William Munny as he’s living his life as a widowed husband caring for his two kids. He’s visited by a new young outlaw named Scofield Kid who asks him to join him on a bounty. Just earlier, we see that a prostitute was attacked at a brothel and that the sheriff decided not to pursue any judgement on the assailants. Thus, kicking off the initial action of the prostitutes creating the bounty to get their retribution. 

        There’s a lot to unpack with this one since I think it’s a very unorthodox Western. Usually with the stuff that we’ve seen is mostly either a journey to find someone or a story of two outlaws coming to grip with the changing times. With this one, there’s no sense of awe or wonder when taking in the setting. It’s not shot on camera with Vistavision where we get this grand sense of the environment, but we see a real down-to-earth, gritty story of an outlaw going back to what he was doing in the past. 

        I think of all the characters that Eastwood has portrayed in his ever-sprawling filmography; this one is very suitable to what he’s been defined for. In the event where no one has seen his prior work, most of his portrayals in his Westerns were that he was a drifter and imbued a sense of justice where he saw fit. Basically, an anti-hero as we see Will once again answers his calling to get the bounty that he was told about. 

        What makes him interesting is that he’s old and has some experience with what he did. More so that he wasn’t initially open to the idea but as we see as he has that idea in his head. And I love how we see just what he’s been doing as a pig farmer and he’s not good at it, even with his kids giving him a hand is not enough. It establishes that he’s not content with his way of life but is more comfortable and adept with how he went about as an outlaw. 

        Moreover, I feel that with his character type has been echoed in some sense after the film came out. I think the famous example that everyone can point to is in Hugh Jackman’s performance in 2017’s Logan. Basically, we have a has been that is content with his life, until an offer is presented where he chooses to don the prior job in order to help out someone in need. With how Eastwood presents is more attributable to his prior work in the Dollar’s Trilogy and how he became the new recognizable face in the Western genre. 

        Side character wise I feel that the movie does a great job with giving us a lot of great characters that help Will and give us an awful sheriff in the small town. I initially didn’t plan or expect that Gene Hackman would pass away when I was going to talk about this film. One thing that is great about him is that he’s such a duplicitous character that he deserved to win the Academy Award that was bestowed to him. Hackman portrays Sheriff “Little” Bill Dagget who is running the small town of Big Whiskey. 

        The first time that we see who he really is sets him up to be the one where we just hate his guts. He doesn’t equally serve the town when he doesn’t punish the men who attacked the prostitutes. More so that he belittles anyone who wants to collect the bounty that the women had assembled. In one specific scene where we see an Englishman enter the town, Sheriff Bill beats him down as his whole posse surrounds him. In the next tab, one of his scenes is where I think the movie excels with deconstructing the whole genre. 

2. Deconstruction

        In any medium, whenever you hear the word deconstruction used in any sense typically means that whatever thing you like either a genre or a type of hero in a movie, is broken down in a sense of adding something new to something that already has a set of rules. The only example I can think of is in a horror movie where it has loads of rules depending on the type of horror film. While you have the ones that are a basic by the numbers film, you have the outliers like Scream that deconstructed the whole slasher sub-genre. 

        With Unforgiven, Clint Eastwood masterfully does so by having it be a bleak picture where the character that we are following practically undoes his own sense of life in order to go back to his old life. As I mentioned earlier, there’s no wonder or a grand scale in the film. It’s mostly grounded in a mostly realistic take of the genre. There’s no honor in what is being done such as killing someone or the need to elevate a person through a story and having it be a notoriety. One such scene basically represents the whole movie. 

        The moment I’m talking about is in the jail when we see Sheriff Bill talking to the Englishman’s biographer. The sheriff is looking over the booklet that details the Englishman’s exploits and tells the biographer that he was there. Explaining to him what really happened and demeaned the subject since the tall tale isn’t fact and he had a coward way to kill someone. Just his whole performance inside the jail perfectly illustrates why the Western is very grandiose in a sense. 

3. Overall 

        Unforgiven is one of Clint Eastwood’s best and one of the best films of the 90s.