rcosgrove at 2011-09-28 10:57:07:

@Debbie: I'd say it's bad exposition because it's job is purely explaining stuff to the reader. It's information the viewer doesn't need. And it doesn't add any tension or drama to the film. The opening scene of the film was a long chunk of exposition (although, better written) that tells the viewer - in excruciating detail - that the Harkonnens would take Arrakis from the Atriedes(sp?) by force, and it's a fait accompli. The hatred between the two families, and that the Atriedes are doomed, is confirmed later by (at least) two other characters - one of them is the Duke - before this scene occurs with the Baron. So this bit of dialogue doesn't give the viewer any new information, except for that there is a traitor in the Atriedes. This ruins any surprise of the betrayal, as the Baron isn't likely to lie about this, and because the Atriedes' fate is predetermined. However, in a later scene Paul Atriedes is later told there is a traitor in his home by another character, in return for saving her life. This character is a Fremen, whose alliances are unclear at that time, so this statement does create suspense, because you end up asking, "Is she telling the truth? Is she the traitor? How does she know? Is this a bluff? Bad information? What if it's good information? Who is her loyalty to?" Also this bit doesn't really add anything to the Baron's character either, as we're already aware he's a psychopathic loon with operatic tendencies. Which, to be fair, is a perfect recreation of him from the original novels. Incidentally, the "traitor in our midst" angle isn't capitalised on in the film. Which helps make this bit of dialogue poor. For me the biggest flaw in Dune was that it stuck too closely to the source material - a similar flaw to Watchmen. But it's still a film I enjoy. It is an amazing recreation of the worlds of Dune (second only to Blade Runner in my book), and has some fantastic performances from a couple of the actors (especially the Duke, Lady Jessica and Patrick Stewart). And it has 200 foot worms.

Michael Bahr at 2011-09-28 17:00:43:

Agreed with @rcosgrove that Jurgen Prochnow, Francesca Annis, and Patrick Stewart were fantastic in this movie. I guess one of the major problems with Dune, and the bad exposition in today's post is a clear example, is that there is just too much story to fit into 120 minutes while still conveying some sense of the layers of intrigue in play. The traitor is just one of those elements that, really, they had no choice but to include, but no time to develop better. The movie's most audacious ambit is also its most pointless: making the Weirding Way a sonic technology instead of a martial art. Sure, the sonic tech was very cinematic... but SO ARE MARTIAL ARTS. There's an entire film genre based on them. If that ain't cinematic enough for you -- and it clearly was for the Wachowski Brothers in 1999 -- then maybe your perspective on filmmaking isn't quite sound. Pun intended. But to keep it on point, here's a quick sampling of Things I Learned From Dune The Novel That Really Add To The Story But That The Lynch Film Adaptation Did Not Convey: 1. Liet Kynes, the Imperial Steward (Max von Sydow's character) was actually a visionary ecologist who had spent decades setting up an eons-long process to terraform Arrakis to a more Earthlike state, and was revered by the Fremen in a religious way for basically pulling this off (a process still underway at the time of the events of the book/movie). All those underground caches of water beneath Fremen sietches were Kynes' work. And oh yes, Chani is his half-Fremen DAUGHTER. Seems relevant, yet you only find that out in the Alan Smithee cut, and even then only as a throwaway bit. 2. The entire mythology of the Orange Catholic revolution is only touched upon, when it's really central to much of the story's conceits. "Thou shalt not make a computer in the likeness of a man" -- this is why there is no computational software, per se, in the Dune universe, only referential. And most electronic devices are primarily mechanical. And this is why Mentats exist, and is crucial to understanding just what made Paul Atreides such a moonshot for House Atreides, a house in danger of being marginalized -- to be a human computer and a Landsraad Duke would have given him a crushing political advantage over rival houses in assessing hostile exigencies and determining optimal plans of action. 3. For that matter, the dynamic of the oversight of Arrakis itself was never really conveyed clearly. Atreides winning the "contract" was a huge coup in the War of Assassins, a way to position their house to become a major player like the Harkonnens. This also plays into the plotline, barely touched upon, that the Spacing Guild doesn't move military troops and materiel because it dares not lose access to the spice by virtue of a Landsraad backlash if it got out that the Guild had broken its neutrality. So for the Harkonnen to have bribed the Guild heavily enough to move its entire force to Arrakis, they wagered their house's entire future existence. In the novel, the Baron tells his nephew Rabban that it might take sixty YEARS of Arrakis spice profit just to break even. The film never gives us that much insight into the absolute desperation that motivates the villains, so they become much more cardboard, mustachioed Snidely Whiplash types as in the example today.

rcosgrove at 2011-09-29 11:30:30:

At the risk of turning this into a Mutual Appreciation Society, I agree with all of @Michael's points above. Although I would add the film also skips over the fact that Paul is part Harkonnen. Hardly a minor point. Yet those points - and any more - were all factors that were present in the Dune TV series. That was a very accurate adaptation of the book, that also attempted to build on the novel - especially when it came to the role of Princess Irulan. Yet the miniseries was, in my view, still poorly executed. And Children of Dune little better. I think that when adapting the work screenwriters should tell the story, not try to copy it. I do think that some of the pantomime performances - such as the Baron's - came from the actors not understanding what was really going on. And that is failure of the director and screenwriter. Jurgen Prochnow, Francesca Annis and Patrick Stewart, all had characters with backstories that can be understood relatively quickly: a noble, doomed father; a wife torn between her duty to her son and her religion; and a loyal mentor/henchman. But the Baron is a far more complex character than the film - and the book, on a first read - presents. Giving the actor on-the-nose exposition-packed speeches packed like means the actor's going to take the character along the MWU-HA-HAAA! villain route, as the script has failed to detail the character's underlying emotions.