Jodorowsky's Dune : Such Arrogant BS in this film

By the gods, the pomposity in this film is almost gag worthy. Especially at the end where they try to show how Jadorowsky's ideas influenced all these other films. All these shooting ideas that any good fiction creator imagines all the time.
He acts like all these other directors saw his drawings and said Hey I'm going to do it just like that! They never saw anything like it before! Well not that it doesn't happen all the time in Hollywood, but there are just tons of sources out there and to make a bombastic claim that you were the first is just Ego Mad!
After seeing this documentary I do have even more respect for how well David Lynch's version turned out. He did a masterful job of interpreting these artistic concepts into a cohesive whole, even though his full version was edited to hell and back for a theater release, his total idea was amazing and it has all the spiritual/psychedelic aspects that you could possibly put into Dune. Why did Jodorosky hate it so much?
This is a guy that; sure Hollywood was Afraid to let helm a huge budget film, but not for the reasons he imagined or that he got other people to talk about in this documentary. They were afraid to let a madmen go nuts overbudget like when he saying OK to the complete loon; Salvador Dali, who was a spoiled brat who demanded he get paid more than any other actor ever!!! Yes he wanted $100,000/Minute. PER MINUTE! and Jodorowsky is such an unrealistic eccentric, he says OK lets do it! This is the kind of mindset that scares the hell out of Hollywood! Or anyone who is going to give this nut money to make a film.
Jodorowsky is the type of hippy modern artist that hates the thought of money to begin with. He just wants HIS vision. He finds himself to be the greatest genius of his age and a type of messiah that will bring to the poor masses enlightenment with his profound imagery, metaphors, analogies, and symbolism that only HE can understand. His ego deludes him into believing it will help the world and open everyone's eyes. His only other films were fringe oddball art films that would never ever find a mainstream audience or more than a small niche of pseudo/hipster intellectuals trying to be more avante' guard than all their peers. I think he spent a lot of time on Acid and sharing it with his little commune while they discussed the movie! Jodorowsky had the arrogance to get really pissed at Pink Floyd because they were eating Hamburgers while he was trying to meet with them saying how they should have been in awe and wonder at his "opportunity" to be in the most important film of all humanity! This guy has a raving passion, no doubt.. and so did Ed Wood!
I think he did have vision. But really this movie had to be in more capable hands like David Lynch who did an outstanding job of interpreting all these great ideas into an enjoyable and entertaining story. And if anyone says his version was pure crap, I want to hear why you thought it was crap specifically?!
I loved Lynch's idea for the Weirding modules, using sound as a special new weapon for the Fremen. I think Sting as Fade was a much better pick than Mick Jagger too. Max Von Sidow for Fedaykin, so many more. Paul too was Mysterious and seemed like a Messiah. His growing through the film was the best I've seen in any such film. The way the personal shields were done. Everything more unique and immersive than other sci-fi films which I'm glad to credit Jodorowsky for. Music by Brian Eno and Toto was awesome! I love watching Dune over and over, and I could care less about ever seeing the mundane TV version that was done terribly with all CGI green screens for everything and looking cheap.
Anyway I just had to get it out that I truly think Jodorosky is nothing but a typical modern artist eccentric with an Ego the size of a planet who still wants everyone around him to give heaps of attention and praise for his art, while he belittles everyone else idea of art to be pure crap. What an Ass! Boo on you sir.

While I haven't seen this film and thus cant comment on Jodorowsky's ideas, I would still say that Lynch's film got Dune wrong on many levels. For one, Paul is not the messiah, he's playing the role of a messiah. The bene gesserits implanted the idea of the prophecy into the Fremen and Paul just played along.

The real theme of the novel is the dangers of religious fanaticism. Paul's Jihad leads to the deaths of billions. Paul's story is one of tragedy, not heroism. He thought he could change the future for the better but ended up creating an alternate future he didn't see that would lead to a Bloody war throughout the universe. Lynch's film made Paul out to be a hero and a real messiah while the story is really about how there are no messiahs, only leaders and followers.

Also, there is much more spiritualism in the novel that Lynch doesn't address. Like how Arrakis is literally the center of the universe and how the Fremen believe that it is mans destiny to find freedom on Arrakis.

Paul should also question himself, he can see the future but changing it will lead to unknown futures he can't yet see. That is what makes Paul an interesting character, he wants to carry the torch like his father but his powers weigh on his soul. There is also the themes of believing your own lies. Paul ends up thinking that he is some kind of messiah and that he deserves the Fremen's worship.

---

While I haven't seen this film and thus cant comment on Jodorowsky's ideas, I would still say that Lynch's film got Dune wrong on many levels. For one, Paul is not the messiah, he's playing the role of a messiah. The bene gesserits implanted the idea of the prophecy into the Fremen and Paul just played along.

---

It is the same in Lynch's adaptation, but would have been a bit clearer if the editing was better a bit. The first novel is only a bit more clear on that point, unlike 'Dune Messiah' which majorly highlights the fact that he is not really the Messiah.

---

The real theme of the novel is the dangers of religious fanaticism.

---

Actually that message is not as clear in the first one, just like the movie. It gets clearer in the second novel.

---

Paul's Jihad leads to the deaths of billions.

---

True. Over 60 billion, if I remember.

---

Also, there is much more spiritualism in the novel that Lynch doesn't address. Like how Arrakis is literally the center of the universe and how the Fremen believe that it is mans destiny to find freedom on Arrakis.

---

Movies are a different medium to novels. Lynch had to sacrifice some of the discussions of the theology and spiritualism in the novel for running time, because they are easy to excise, but he did keep a lot of it in there and such things put off more casual viewers.

I am sure the latter part is addressed in the movie, actually.

---

Paul should also question himself, he can see the future but changing it will lead to unknown futures he can't yet see. That is what makes Paul an interesting character, he wants to carry the torch like his father but his powers weigh on his soul. There is also the themes of believing your own lies. Paul ends up thinking that he is some kind of messiah and that he deserves the Fremen's worship.

---

That belongs more to 'Dune Messiah' than 'Dune', though, but I do get your point. But at the end of the day Lynch couldn't have put every facet of the novel on the screen, it just wasn't possible, but we did get a good movie and one that was very close to the novel even with some changes, unlike most adaptations of similar novels. The film versions of Tolkien's 'The Lord of The Rings' are not as close as David Lynch's adaptation of 'Dune'. Not many adaptations of fantasy novels are. The newer Narnia novels? No they aren't. Versions of Frankenstein? Nope, only about two are quite close.





Formerly KingAngantyr

Herbert himself said that Paul was not a god, but a man playing god. The coming evil is also never explained to be remnants of the machines, unless you take Hebert's son's novels as fact. Herbert wanted to make Paul the opposite of the types of heroes popular in 60's sci-fi. So instead of being a perfect super powered hero, he is a flawed man who uses his powers to take on a religion of himself.

The golden path wasn't in the first novel, it showed up latter. The path itself is a way to make sure humans survive but it is Leto 2 that follows it, not Paul. Paul's story is one of tragedy. He didn't mean for his jihad to happen the way it did. Besides, one of the main things the golden path was supposed to do was to make sure humans never again follow a religious leader. The path was to scare humans away from such leaders as they control and stagnate the species. The path was to make sure we wouldn't be followers to anyone anymore.

The themes of the series is about leaders and how they affect us and our futures. Taking this theme from any of the novels, including the first, would be turning dune into a stereotypical sci-fi story of its time where the chosen one saves the day. Herbert did not want that.

But to be fair - Paul foresees the consequence of him being the "Muaddip" in the first book, but thats it and what really happens is only told later in the following books. Plus, despite the concept of the "Muaddip" has elements of a political scheme in the Dune world, he is in fact the Messiah and has those special powers. But he is a tragic hero.

---

They were afraid to let a madmen go nuts overbudget like when he saying OK to the complete loon; Salvador Dali, who was a spoiled brat who demanded he get paid more than any other actor ever!!! Yes he wanted $100,000/Minute. PER MINUTE!

---

I think it was per hour, actually. And they never intended to pay him more than $100,000 in total. He would've been in only one scene, and Jodorowsky planned to shoot all his lines at once in one hour and use a double for the reverse shots.

It was per hour initially, but then they changed it to minutes, although it was real minutes of film footage (which apparently would only be between 3 to 5 minutes).
So, they basically tricked Salvador Dali, the guy who loves to trick others.

I saw Jodorowsky first time in this movie and he is a stupid lunatic SOB, screaming and shouting wasted 2 million on a stupid book hahahahah I am happy he didnt get to make his crappy movie.

Cool story, bro.




No, Schmuck! You are only entitled to your INFORMED opinion!!
Harlan Ellison

I so agree. I think it is a common knee jerk reaction to 'knock' the Lynch film, particularly by those who have read the books and watched the movie (which is now 30 years old) decades after they were released/published.

I liked the actual documentary on its own merits, alternately telling the story of a failed film and pairing the music, art and talk with the storyboards to "tell" the Dune Jodorowsky pictured. I was especially mesmerized listening to Giger reminisce :)

None of us will ever get our true "Dune", I think mostly because you get so lost in Herbert's world and his work is so imagination-inspiring (didn't know a better way to put that. This is why I believe it is so difficult to make it, also why I think, with such incredible source material, why so many want a crack at it.


Jodorowsky lost me in his "Dune flick sales pitch" at a couple of key points; his son as Paul, a castrated Leto, bloody immaculate conception, giraffes? (blame that one on Dali), and an effeminate, colorful Feyd. Morbid plurality & the universal consciousness was too cosmic/interpretive for me, a conscious planet? Please murder my suspension of disbelief. The Holy Mountain multicolored set w/a golden egg-poop was also a little unnerving.

Agreed.

I was enjoying the movie up until it implied that his failed movie influenced star wars, raiders, terminator and all the others using the flimsiest reasons. Although he I do credit him with bringing together the far more talented H R Geiger, Dan O'Bannon, and Mobius onto one project.

I agree that we fans will likely never get the DUNE movie we all really want.

David Lynch's Dune actually got me interested in reading Frank Herbert's novel, and all of the sequels (and even Brian Herbert & Kevin J. Anderson's lesser Dune novels), and I still enjoy it to this day, and think it is much better than the cable series that came after, IMO.

To do real justice to a movie of Dune, it would have to be a trilogy, like Lord of the Rings (and with a like-minded director-team, that totally gets the feel of the book).

Jodorowsky's Dune is one of the best documentaries I have seen in a while, and I am grateful to Frank Pavich for making it! Whether a mad genius, or whatever label you want to give him, I admire Jodorowsky's passion for his art, even if he admits to 'raping' Dune 'with love'. His vision is really 'out there', and I can see why the Hollywood studios probably did not want to finance a 12-20 hour 'sci-fi art film', but this documentary still shows how magical 'the Dune that might have been' could still be Someday.

I agree with your assessment of Lynch's Dune entirely. Where was the vitriol over the bastard plots of the Fargo or Hannibal 're-imaginings' that Lynch suffered at the hands of book purists (much like the inexplicable hatred the Game of Thrones series receives today)?

I get the sense that the end product of Jodorowsky's vision would have been a 4-hour long rendition of Lucifer Rising.

Having said that It is impossible not to admire his ambition and devotion to his project. Jodorowsky really IS the premier avant-garde filmmaker of his day and deserved more than most to have briefcases full of money thrown at his big shot. It's truly sad he never got that chance. Consider that if all the elements fell into place the way he envisioned them, it very well could have been the birth of the science fiction blockbuster for the masses, if not the most widely accepted cult film in history.

You realize that the Lord of the Rings films were harshly criticized by a lot of fans of the book series too, don't you? Book and film are two very different genres, with two very different dynamics. It ranges between difficult and impossible to translate a book to film without changing some things, a fact that book people have a hard time grasping at times.

That's cool. A lot of people have terrible taste.

Rubbish. The movie was spot on in every respect,there is ZERO doubt in my mind that everything was stolen from Dune as was stated in the movie. Anyone who was around at that time ( myself) knows it all to be true,suck it up,Jodorowsky was first,be happy that he was.

Come on guys, movies are movies, books are books. There are always differences.

I enjoy all of them, if done well. Lynch did it well. It was different from the first novel at some degree but still very good in general. I assume it is just a different vision about Dune.

What Jodorowsky intended to do, was just another vision of Dune. True, too different, but still somewhat Dune.

And from this perspective I honestly wish he did it. It would have been interesting to see.

Otherwise, the documentary itself was very well done. I recommend the blu-ray version, which I own - contains additional bonus material - Seydoux and Jodorowsky do tell some more on Dune. On few moments I felt little shocked on how Jodorowsky talks, such as "I was raping Herbert", every artist with his own madness.

This is what makes them artists after all.

So despite the craziness, I wish I was able to watch his "Dune".

"The sleeper must awaken!"

Not quite - Bannon and Giger worked on some of the films mentioned so not outrageous.

It's not "Sci-Fi", it's SF!

"Calvinism is a very liberal religious ethos." - Truekiwijoker

---

Salvador Dali, who was a spoiled brat who demanded he get paid more than any other actor ever!!! Yes he wanted $100,000/Minute. PER MINUTE! and Jodorowsky is such an unrealistic eccentric, he says OK lets do it!

---

that's totally not what happened, so i'm inclined to think you didn't pay much attention.

Yes it is exactly what happened. Tell me YOUR version of what happened if I'm so wrong.

I got annoyed listening to his broken English after about 10 minutes of him waffling on about something or other.. whatever, wasn't interesting enough to hold my attention. This movie was crap.