Dune

French-Canadian filmmaker Denis Villeneuve has a well-earned reputation as one of filmdom’s more visionary and ambitious practitioners. He has trod the path of the science-fiction epic before, with Arrival (2016) and Blade Runner 2049 (2017), and Dune was reportedly a long-term passion project for him; so much so that he was willing to commit to two full-length films just to cover the first novel, with the production of the sequel being conditional on the box-office success of the first instalment.  His vision for the project is all the more laudable when one considers that the inherent density and scope of Frank Herbert’s source material has defeated more than one gifted and eminent filmmaker before him. The most noteworthy example of this failure was probably David Lynch, whose bold, eccentric and largely unsuccessful 1984 attempt to film the ‘unfilmable’ was, perhaps unsurprisingly, largely unwatchable.

Of course, Herbert’s original novel presents an immense challenge to Villeneuve and Lynch and others who have attempted to translate his work to the screen. There is the far-reaching scope of Herbert’s vision; perhaps only Tolkien and Asimov have presumed to create an entire universe complete with alien cultures, ecosystems, and mythology. But to add a further degree of difficulty, there is the challenge presented by Herbert’s dense, circular prose style; the author himself openly admitted that he conceived and wrote large parts of his novel whilst under the influence of ‘magic mushrooms’. This is an insight which sheds new light on the novel’s elaborate faux mysticism, premised on the mysterious and much-coveted substance known as “spice” which, among other things, somehow makes interstellar navigation possible. This enigmatic theme might help to explain Dune’s status as a counter-culture classic dating from its halcyon days in the 1960s, and its frequently impenetrable prose has cemented its status as possibly the most celebrated, ubiquitous yet unread book in the English language, at least until the publication of Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History Of Time.

In his previous ventures in the realm of the science fiction epic, Villeneuve has revealed a deft hand in storytelling on a very broad canvas whilst simultaneously evoking character and internal conflict on a far more intimate, personal level. There exists the danger that in a large-scale sci-fi epic such as Dune individual characters and actors can get lost and overshadowed; this was certainly the case in Lynch’s ill-fated 1984 version, where otherwise accomplished actors such as Kyle McLachlan and Francesca Annis looked profoundly ill at ease. But here Villeneuve’s cast generally serves him well. Timothee Chalamet has hitherto made his name in much smaller independent or “art house” films such as Lady Bird and Call Me by Your Name, but in the pivotal role of Paul, the scion and heir apparent to the Atreides house, he exhibits an intriguing mixture of brooding Hamlet-like diffidence (when contemplating his seemingly predestined role) and caught-between-worlds angst and curiosity (as he begins to explore his alternative destiny as a kind of alien messiah to the Fremen, the long-suffering indigenous desert dwellers of Arrakis).

The enigmatic Fremen woman Chani, portrayed with a beguiling combination of mystery and allure by Zendaya, appears in Paul’s premonitory dreams and her relationship with Paul serves as a gateway for him into his new alien home; her role promises to become more significant in the upcoming second instalment. She also serves to frame the narrative from the opening scenes, and to give explicit expression to the theme of colonialism and exploitation; it is Chani who initially gives voice to the perception that oppression by off-world powers is all that she has ever known. This theme is present in Herbert’s novel but is very much in the background, with the initial focus more occupied with the political machinations between the all-powerful Imperium and the rival ducal houses of Atreides and Harkonnen. Villeneuve’s screenplay, which he co-wrote with Eric Roth and Jon Spaihts, places this theme squarely in the foreground, and the portrayal of the Fremen as desert dwelling pseudo-Arab tribespeople with their own distinctive cultures, language and customs, makes the parallels with our own contemporary real world all too obvious.

As Lady Jessica, Paul’s mother and consort to the doomed Duke Leto Atreides (a stoic Jason Isaac), Rebecca Ferguson has the more difficult assignment; the film makes gives her a more ambiguous role. As Paul’s mother and erstwhile protector, her adherence to the obscure Bene Gesserit religion means that she has divided loyalties, clearly on display when she and Paul are forced to fight for survival in the aftermath of the violent Harkonnen coup. Ferguson’s performance as a conflicted mother, who seemingly knows more than she is able to say, is finely calibrated and certainly whets the appetite for her further character development in the sequel.

Villeneuve’s previous experience with cinematic sci-fi epics certainly helps to ensure the success of his version of Dune, in particular his eye for detail, essential to any convincing evocation of an alien world. The cinematography by Greg Fraser is exceptional, and the film’s seamless combination of big canvas spectacle and intimate character study is a rare commodity indeed. If the film’s strengths are many and obvious, so is the main defect.  The film’s pacing is leisurely to say the least; sci-fi aficionados might be inclined to compare the film’s stately rate of progress to Stanley Kubrick’s 2001 A Space Odyssey (1969). This is perhaps an inevitable consequence of Villeneuve’s choice to divide Herbert’s first novel across two films. In doing so, he has given Herbert’s vision the time and space to be realised on-screen like never before. The overall end result is that the viewer is left with an authentically novel experience; to actually look forward, with genuine enthusiasm, to a “blockbuster” sequel.

No Time To Die

The American director Cary Joji Fukunaga faced an exacting and unenviable task when chosen to helm the 25th instalment of cinema’s most enduring franchise, James Bond. The film entitled  No Time to Die, (courtesy apparently of the random title/word generator used on these occasions) is the latest, long (pandemic) delayed, and the fifth and last to feature Daniel Craig in the eponymous role. As a filmmaker (and co-writer with Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and Phoebe Waller-Bridge), Fukunaga had to pay due homage to the franchises’ six decades of history, studded with some of the most familiar (dare one say overused) cliches in cinema) to avoid alienating the franchise’s long-established fan base. He also faced the competing demand to somehow strike out and find fresh territory in such a perennial and familiar film universe. His efforts in this regard centred on Bond’s accumulation of emotional baggage through his five-film journey. Prior to Craig’s tenure in the 007 tuxedo, every portrayal of Bond, even those featuring the same actor, began each film as essentially a blank slate, carrying no physical or psychological scars forward from the various traumas he negotiated in the previous film. Craig’s Bond is supposed to be different.

As a result, Fukunaga’s film is a rather patchy compromise. There are the all-too familiar large scale action sequences, which are staged expertly and are never less than extremely watchable but nonetheless highly improbable. Bond as ever manages to defy death, serious injury and logic in these sequences (at least until the film’s climax, when Fukunaga’s film does find genuinely new territory). But the film’s unsatisfying compromise is always apparent.  The entire Bond franchise has never really recovered from the damage incurred in the 1990s when the Austin Powers films so effectively demolished its cliches (with an honourable mention going to “You Only Move Twice”, the 1996 Simpsons ‘Bond spoof’ episode which featured the wonderfully named Hank Scorpio (pictured), a moniker which would sit easily in the rogue’s gallery of Bond villains.) Many of these cliches are still on show in the latest film; the chief villain of the piece (Rami Malek) rejoices in the first name Lucifer, and a last name, Safin, that evokes the indeterminate Eastern European origins of many of Bond’s Cold War era nemeses.  Safin even devises his dastardly plot in a remote island lair (yes, really) protected by a loyal yet somewhat incompetent private army. Which, like so many previous Bond adventures, provokes the obvious yet unanswered question: how exactly does the average supervillain source and recruit an army of skilled henchpeople? Is there a website named Goons R Us or somesuch?

His name and choice of hideout location are not the only implausible aspects of Safin’s villainy. In a plot twist that stretches credulity to breaking point, Safin’s motivation metastasizes from a quest for personal revenge to a vastly more ambitious goal of widespread genocide. It as if the screenplay’s writers felt an imperative to raise the stakes, to produce a climax worthy of Craig’s 007 swansong. It is a gambit that might have succeeded if Safin’s character were more developed, but Malek’s performance in the role is uncertain at best.  There are similar problems with Bond’s grand romance with Dr Madeline Swann (Lea Seydoux). The latter enjoys the extraordinary privilege of being the first female protagonist (it is probably high time to formally retire the outdated, misogynistic term “Bond girl“)  Seydoux seems an odd choice for such a distinction, if only because her performance is so thoroughly anodyne and uninvolving, and there is so little chemistry between them, that she seems an unlikely object of Bond’s grand passion, which supposedly provides the rationale for his ultimate act of self-sacrifice. Their supposed mutual devotion suffers by comparison with the much spikier and engaging interplay between Bond and his doomed former flame Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) in Casino Royale (2006). And Bond in return seemingly has little to offer such a relationship. Many critics have written approvingly of the greater insight we are given into Bond’s emotional hinterland, but this character evolution seems to me only marginal at best; at his core, the Bond of No Time to Die appears to be largely unreconstructed from the “blunt instrument” to quote the memorable early assessment offered by M (Judi Dench) in Casino Royale. For all the greater willingness to exhibit his emotional side, he is still the stern-visaged, unsmiling assassin familiar from virtually every Bond incarnation, who spends much of the film casually despatching a large array of faceless henchpeople without the merest sign of remorse or even hesitation.

Despite the oversold and overhyped attempts to project greater emotional sophistication in the leading character’s persona, the formula for success in a Bond film hasn’t really changed that much over the years. You need at least a plausible chemistry to exist with the main female protagonist, and a singular villain who is both believably mendacious and charismatic without lapsing into a “Doctor Evil” style caricature.  Without these crucial elements, No Time to Die is left to rely on the essential silliness of the plot which makes just too many demands on the audience’s willingness to suspend disbelief.

No Time To Die’s shortcomings are by no means unique to this particular film. Other long-running cinematic series have fallen victim to the exact same syndrome of ”franchise fatigue”; certainly Star Wars ,Star Trek, Mission: Impossible and the ironically interminable Terminator series, among many others, have similar problems. No Time To Die remains a very watchable and engaging film, and its surprising and quite spectacular denouement does pack a wholly unexpected emotional punch. But regrettably it is not a patch on Casino Royale, and the energy and sheer chutzpah with which Craig revitalised the franchise in that film have largely dissipated over his five-film tenure behind the wheel the 007 Aston Martin. It is unquestionably the right time for him to depart.