Who Did It Best? Dune - David Lynch Vs. Denis Villeneuve

First published in 1965, Frank Herbert’s Dune novels were a global hit. As such, the 1984 movie adaption by director, David Lynch, met with a hell of a lot of hype and the movie was quick to garner the title of cult classic. And it’s no surprise, really. In its time, David Lynch’s Dune was an extremely cutting edge piece of cinema.

But how does it compare now?

Enter Denis Villeneuve thirty-seven years later in 2021.

A brand new, clean-cut version of the beloved story, complete with all the embellishments of modern cinema, Villnauve’s Dune has captured the attention of both brand new audiences and old-time fans - and it’s not hard to see why. The first major revival of the Dune franchise in decades, Villeneuve presents a take on Dune that feels as fresh as it does classic.

But how does Villenauve’s rendition hold up next to that of David Lynch?

First of all, I don’t think it’s particularly fair to go off on a massive tangent about comparing visuals; each movie is a product of its time and technology that was readily available to Villeneuve simply didn’t exist during the 1984 production of Lynch’s Dune.

Aesthetics aside, though, there were some other notable differences in terms of presentation, style and storytelling.

Something that struck me upon the first viewing of Villeneuve’s Dune was the difference in exposition. Lynch used more of Herbert’s original text in the form of voiceovers; a nice little touch for fans of the book, who doubtless would have been thrilled to hear some of their favourite Herbert passages read aloud through the big speakers of the silver screen. Villeneuve, on the other hand, takes a more naturalistic approach through visuals and tactful weaving of exposition into dialogue. Villeneuve shows, Lynch tells.

Generally speaking, the former is considered the more effective technique when it comes to immersive world-building. But in the case of a classic, which you prefer is also dependent on how much of the source material you are hoping to see and hear.

Other things stuck out too, such as differences in presentation when it came to certain characters and settings.

The increased presence of Caladan is one that stuck out from the very start.

Lynch portrayed the prosperous planet of Caladan mostly through darkened shots of cliffsides beset with angry tides, giving it a cold, mysterious and almost bleak feel.

In Villeneuve’s, however, the presence of Caladan is far more prominent. With the beautiful landscapes of Norway serving as the backdrop for Paul’s oceanic home planet, Caladan was presented as a place of high mountains, lively seas and bright skies, making for a beautiful contrast against the parched landscapes of Arrakis. This, along with the increased amount of time spent on the planet of Caladan, made the move to Arrakis feel like just as much of a culture shock to the audience as it likely did for Paul - a beautifully understated way of immersing us into the characters life experience.

While the characters in both versions were written with great respect to the source material, there were certainly examples of their acting counterparts taking some very different directions in terms of performance.

One of the most notable examples is the portrayal of Baron Vladimir Harkonnen, played by Kenneth McMillan in Lynch’s version and Stellan Skarsgård in Villeneuve’s.

Both portrayals were conniving, grotesque and villainous, as per Herbert’s original description.

However, while McMillan went for a more over-the-top, almost comical approach, Skarsgård’s version was far more quiet, understated and intimidating.

McMillan’s Baron Harkonnen was a character you love to hate and likely spent the entire movie wishing death on. Skarsgård’s Baron, on the other hand, had a gravitas that left you wishing for more; out of morbid curiosity, if nothing else.

Of course, as just one person, I can’t define which version was objectively better. That depends more on whether you have an eye for vintage movies, or if you prefer to immerse yourself in all the visual splendour that modern cinema has to offer. Maybe it’s both?

Either way, both movies qualify as faithful adaptations, with solid scripts and casts that do their characters justice, each with stark contrasts as interesting as they are unique. Kyle MacLachlan and Timothée Chalamet both embody the role of the beloved protagonist, Paul, with equal amounts of love, depth and feeling, each while adding their own distinctive flair.

Put simply, these adaptations are different. While they do have things in common, they nevertheless choose different aspects of Herbert’s classic SciFi to either emphasise or leave by the wayside.

My recommendation?

Watch both and see for yourself!

Do you have a favourite of the two? Perhaps you like both? Or if you’ve only seen one, would you like to see the other? Or maybe you just prefer the books?

Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below!

Editor's Picks:

Dune (2021) Review - If You Think Dune Is Boring You're Wrong

When Film And TV Does Time Travel Right