MovieChat Forums > Jodorowsky's Dune (2016) Discussion > I loved the documentary, but...

I loved the documentary, but...


The ending to Jodorowsky's interpretation of Dune is a fascist, totalitarian wet dream.

Paul gets killed, and his spirit takes over the body of everyone, transforming the planet into some kind of green ball of planetoid hypnotist that flies through the universe doing to planets what Paul did to the people.

Gone is every ideal of individuality. No, the only way to be an individual is if you are like Jodorowsky's vision of an individual. If not, then you are an acceptable piece of collateral damage that is only standing in the way of "progress".

For a man who obviously prides himself on his creativity and own sense of individuality, Jodorowsky is surprisingly antagonistic to anyone not like him. Just look at the scene where he describes how Trumbull treated their meeting. It could be seen as Trumbull is a professional who has his eye on the technical details of everything in his life, not letting small things past him. That's not the kind of person Jodorowsky wanted to work with, which is fine. If he doesn't want to be around people who obsess with the details at the expense of the larger vision, then he really should go and hang out with Dan O'Bannon. But when he writes a film that comes to the conclusion that if you are not like Jodorowsky or Dan O'Bannon then you should be replaced (and there's nothing you can do to stop it because they will force you to accept it no matter your wishes), then that's scary.

I really wish the movie had been made (with his ending). I would love to see it completely. It would be weird and possibly wonderful, but it would leave an awful bitter aftertaste once the implications of the ending settled in.

reply

I got the impression that it was an allusion to Jesus. Name having power, dying but not dying, new creation, etc.

reply

Well that's the intent of the books at least.

reply

There's a difference between choice and force. No one in that described ending chose to become Paul. They became Paul by force. Jesus did not force anyone to follow him. Paul forces the universe to follow him.

Jodorowsky says that he deliberately changed the ending of the novel to fit his own vision, and if he was trying to get it closer to Jesus (I really don't think he was since he never mentions it), then he has a rather fundamental misunderstanding of Jesus. It's the kind of misunderstanding that can lead to (or stems from) totalitarian thinking.

Ends do not justify means.

reply

And there you have the crucible of the Auteur; at at least it's 'only' art.
Science fiction (as opposed to sci-fi) should offer ideas taken to extremes. Their very right or wrongness is all a matter of debate, ideas should exist well past the frame.

reply

I agree with OP here, also adding the fact, that jodo never read the actual book. Thats how much he cared about the original story.

reply

Next time pay more attention. He hadn't read the book BEFORE he
started the project.



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

reply

next time u pay ettention because he never sais he read the book, so- ergo sum

reply

I got the the idea that he made it 100 pages into the book, but not any further.

reply

From what I understood in the documentary, he only said the first 100 pages weren't very descriptive so he had to create the visual style of the movie instead of relying on the book.

reply

He wasn't slavishly attached to the book but then neither was David Lynch. Lynch made all sorts of changes and even left out lots, as any screen version of a book must; in one instance three years of plot are covered by a single sentence. Frank Herbert even gave his blessing to Lynch for him to change things, so the question really is does the fact the fans like having a good whinge that it's just not what they read really matter, if even the author isn't particularly precious about it? So why can't Jodo take a seed of an idea and run with it in a whole different medium and whole new direction?

reply

In fact maybe it's fair to say that Jodorowskys high concept and the Lynchian madness were far more gallant approaches than the dry TV movies that were more slavish to the source material and don't exactly fly or linger in the mind.

reply

adding the fact, that jodo never read the actual book. Thats how much he cared about the original story.


Excellent review of this thankfully never made film. 😊

reply

I think the ending is just a parable of an artist living on through his work to inspire future generations. He fights the critical establishment and fails to gain the recognition from some people, but he is proved a success in the end through the love of his fans. His works then live on to influence and change the world. I think that is all Jodorowsky was thinking, which would be very reflective of the world in which he was living and his relationship with it. That is what I interpret from the ending.

reply

It is a strange idea but not against the theme of the book. 'Dune' doesn't have a fairytale ending. Paul, whilst good at heart, becomes a totalitarian tyrant and even calls himself a despot (he hates his role as emperor of the Known Universe). His Jihad cost over 60 billion lives, sterilization of ninety planet and the destruction of 40 different religions.

Formerly KingAngantyr

reply

[deleted]

A famous, German film-critic called David Lynch's Dune fascist... for similar reasons - but in the end because of what the source material (Frank Herbert's novel) simply is...

Also: http://www.gnooks.com/discussion/frank+herbert.html

NightAxe - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJzZ4jkYd40

reply

Much as I like it I can see why - nationalism, militarism and genetic superiority in a dictatorship.

reply