Skip to main content

"Did you find, in your life, a clock in the sand?"

Jodorowsky’s Dune
(2013)

The overriding response elicited by this documentary on Alejandro Jodorowsky’s ultimately doomed attempt to make a version of Dune in the mid-70s is amazement that it got as far as it did, that he managed to assemble so many talents and stars and two-thirds of financing before the behemoth went belly-up. Because what he was attempting seemed impossible, particularly with hindsight.


Jodorowsky’s budget was about $15m, $70m in today’s terms, and the lately-disgraced Devin Faraci (one of the talking heads) notes the director wanted to do things technically George Lucas wasn’t even attempting with the Star Wars prequels. In addition to filling out the cast with the kind of quirky, idiosyncratic choices of one not making a movie that needed massive box office appeal if it was to pay off (his son as Paul Atreides, graphic violence). 


On top of which, Jodorowsky didn’t play by any standard version of the rules, opting for Dan O’Bannon as the special effects supervisor (after seeing Dark Star) over Douglas Trumbull on the basis that the latter “was a big technician. But for me, he was not a spiritual person. He have nothing to do in the creation of a film who was a prophet”. He wasn’t, basically, Jodorowsky’s “spiritual warrior”, a criterion any boarding his project had to meet. O’Bannon referred to his initial impression of the director as “a very erudite lunatic”, and the Jodorowsky we see here – unsurprising given his body of finished work – does nothing to dispel that. He duly hired his twelve-year-old son Brontis and had him go through six hours of training a day for the next two years in preparation for the part; it’s interesting that he’s quite ambivalent about how “I sacrificed my son” because, on the other hand, “I opened his mind”.


But then, Jodorowsky is nothing if not idiosyncratic in every sense. Referring to the changes he made to Frank Herbert’s novel – Dune attains planetary consciousness at the end, as part of an “I’m Spartacus” moment in which Paul overcomes death and transfers his consciousness from mind to mind of the populace – he suggests “If you respect the woman, you will never have child”; he was “raping Frank Herbert” as you “rape the bride”, “But with love, with love”. 


Nicolas Winding Refn thinks the film didn’t get made because the Hollywood studios, vital in securing the last $5m of financing, were scared, but I doubt they even got that far emotively; they would have simply seen the proposal as uncommercial nonsense, as a money pit, and that’s always the yardstick; there’s even a scene in Frank Pavich’s film where Jodorowsky pulls out his wallet and says “This money. This shit” as if he refuses to understand that’s the way the movie world works (on the level he wished to enter it, anyway). He responded to the suggestion that it be ninety minutes by saying it would be fourteen hours; no one in Hollywood was going to work with that kind of personality. So it was cancelled at the point where he was ready to go from concept work to shooting (in Algeria). 


Being mad, though, the director is sanguine about the project falling apart (“Dune is in the world like a dream, but dreams change the world also”) and about David Lynch’s version (“I became happy because the picture is awful… It’s a failure”), and his suggestion that his massive Dune book of concept art and storyboards may one day become the basis for an animated film is probably right. We’ll have to see how Denis Villeneuve’s version goes first. Richard Stanley suggests Jodorowsky’s Dune was ahead of its time, but I’d only agree with that in the sense that it remains so; getting to the point where a film this demented gets financed is a long way away.


On the other hand, his assembly of talent has had a profound influence on subsequent science fiction, from Chris Fosse (Star Wars) to Moebius and Giger (Alien)… I’m not so sure about the merits of referencing Cannon’s Masters of the Universe, however. Jodorowsky’s use of different artists and musicians to characterise different planets feels particularly inspired (Giger would be doing Baron Harkonen’s sphere, as “Your art is, for me, is an ill art”). He had Pink Floyd and Magma involved, David Carradine, Mick Jagger, Udo Kier, Salvador Dali as the Mad Emperor of the Universe and Orson Welles as Harkonen (the latter promised that, every day of the shoot, he would be able to eat as he did at a fine French restaurant, as Jodorowsky would employ the chef).


The answer Pavich presents as to how the picture got as far as it did is that Jodorowsky was able to instil in his spiritual warriors a genuine passion for his project and a vision that “They are making something important for humanity”. As Fosse puts it “You were transported”. But if Jodorowsky was going to seize his moment, it probably needed to be a few years earlier, before Hollywood began to regroup following the bewilderment the collapse of the classic studio system caused. 


2001: A Space Odyssey became a hit with the hippy crowd by accident; Jodorowsky explicitly wanted to produce an experience like taking LSD (“The film was going to change the public’s perceptions” and he hadn’t even read it when he decided he wanted to make it, as “I have a friend who say me it was fantastic”; it was a convenient material to project his ideas onto); that moment might already have passed even as he thought of it. He claims “I was opening the mind of the industry” but he really only confirmed what they didn’t want. Jodorowsky’s Dune is a fascinating document of a never-to-be, and it makes one eager for more on other doomed or development hell projects. I’ve always had a hankering to find out how far Nicolas Roeg’s Flash Gordon got before Mike Hodges took over. Of course, someone needs to make that definitive Roeg doc, period.



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

You're waterboarding me.

The Upside (2017)
(SPOILERS) The list of US remakes of foreign-language films really ought to be considered a hiding to nothing, given the ratio of flops to unqualified successes. There’s always that chance, though, of a proven property (elsewhere) hitting the jackpot, and every exec hopes, in the case of French originals, for another The Birdcage, Three Men and a Baby, True Lies or Down and Out in Beverly Hills. Even a Nine Months, Sommersby or Unfaithful will do. Rather than EdTV. Or Sorcerer. Or Eye of the Beholder. Or Brick Mansions. Or Chloe. Or Intersection (Richard Gere is clearly a Francophile). Or Just Visiting. Or The Man with One Red Shoe. Or Mixed Nuts. Or Original Sin. Or Oscar. Or Point of No Return. Or Quick Change. Or Return to Paradise. Or Under Suspicion. Or Wicker Park. Or Father’s Day.

What about the meaningless line of indifference?

The Lion King (2019)
(SPOILERS) And so the Disney “live-action” remake train thunders on regardless (I wonder how long the live-action claim would last if there was a slim hope of a Best Animated Feature Oscar nod?) I know I keep repeating myself, but the early ‘90s Disney animation renaissance didn’t mean very much to me; I found their pictures during that period fine, but none of them blew me away as they did critics and audiences generally. As such, I have scant nostalgia to bring to bear on the prospect of a remake, which I’m sure can work both ways. Aladdin proved to be a lot of fun. Beauty and the Beast entirely tepid. The Lion King, well, it isn’t a badfilm, but it’s wearying its slavish respectfulness towards the original and so diligent in doing it justice, you’d think it was some kind of religious artefact. As a result, it is, ironically, for the most part, dramatically dead in the water.

Would you like Smiley Sauce with that?

American Beauty (1999)
(SPOILERS) As is often the case with the Best Picture Oscar, a backlash against a deemed undeserved reward has grown steadily in the years since American Beauty’s win. The film is now often identified as symptomatic of a strain of cinematic indulgence focussing on the affluent middle classes’ first world problems. Worse, it showcases a problematic protagonist with a Lolita-fixation towards his daughter’s best friend (imagine its chances of getting made, let alone getting near the podium in the #MeToo era). Some have even suggested it “mercifully” represents a world that no longer exists (as a pre-9/11 movie), as if such hyperbole has any bearing other than as gormless clickbait; you’d have to believe its world of carefully manicured caricatures existed in the first place to swallow such a notion. American Beauty must own up to some of these charges, but they don’t prevent it from retaining a flawed allure. It’s a satirical take on Americana that, if it pulls its p…

You know what I think? I think he just wants to see one cook up close.

The Green Mile (1999)
(SPOILERS) There’s something very satisfying about the unhurried confidence of the storytelling in Frank Darabont’s two prison-set Stephen King adaptations (I’m less beholden to supermarket sweep The Mist); it’s sure, measured and precise, certain that the journey you’re being take on justifies the (indulgent) time spent, without the need for flashy visuals or ornate twists (the twists there are feel entirely germane – with a notable exception – as if they could only be that way). But. The Green Mile has rightly come under scrutiny for its reliance on – or to be more precise, building its foundation on – the “Magical Negro” trope, served with a mild sprinkling of idiot savant (so in respect of the latter, a Best Supporting Actor nomination was virtually guaranteed). One might argue that Stephen King’s magical realist narrative flourishes well-worn narrative ploys and characterisations at every stage – such that John Coffey’s initials are announcement enough of his …

Kindly behove me no ill behoves!

The Bonfire of the Vanities (1990)
(SPOILERS) It’s often the case that industry-shaking flops aren’t nearly the travesties they appeared to be before the dust had settled, and so it is with The Bonfire of the Vanities. The adaptation of Tom Wolfe’s ultra-cynical bestseller is still the largely toothless, apologetically broad-brush comedy – I’d hesitate to call it a satire in its reconfigured form – it was when first savaged by critics nearly thirty years ago, but taken for what it is, that is, removed from the long shadow of Wolfe’s novel, it’s actually fairly serviceable star-stuffed affair that doesn’t seem so woefully different to any number of rather blunt-edged comedies of the era.

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.

Is CBS Corporate telling CBS News "Do not air this story"?

The Insider (1999)
(SPOILERS) The Insider was the 1999 Best Picture Oscar nominee that didn’t. Do any business, that is. Which is, more often than not, a major mark against it getting the big prize. It can happen (2009, and there was a string of them from 2014-2016), but aside from brief, self-congratulatory “we care about art first” vibes, it generally does nothing for the ceremony’s profile, or the confidence of the industry that is its bread and butter. The Insider lacked the easy accessibility of the other nominees – supernatural affairs, wafer-thin melodramas or middle-class suburbanite satires. It didn’t even brandish a truly headlines-shattering nail-biter in its conspiracy-related true story, as earlier contenders All the President’s Men and JFK could boast. But none of those black marks prevented The Insider from being the cream of the year’s crop.