Fell asleep during 'Dune'? Not Your Fault

Stepping out of the movie theater, I was thinking about what I’m gonna write in my review for "Dune: Part Two". Should I rave about its epic scenes? The vast golden deserts, the Harkonnen world shot in black and white with infrared cameras—though, honestly, all I've got for those is pure awe. Or maybe dive into its adaptation from the original novel? Chani, originally portrayed as loyal and somewhat submissive, is now all fiery, sometimes even slapping the protagonist Paul around. But truth be told, I haven't read the original book, so I'm a bit clueless about the other changes. Or perhaps discuss if the Bene Gesserit sisterhood serves as a feminist group? Nah, not my forte and not that interested, to be honest.

With all that in mind, I finally found that what I wanted to tell you most was just the plain truth: I dozed off a couple of times. And let's get real, the same thing happened three years back with "Dune: Part One". Embarrassing, right? I mean, here I am, as a self-proclaimed movie buff, I could say I fall asleep while watching something like "Madame Web" (after all, even the lead actress, Dakota Johnson, publicly criticized the film's quality). But now I'm telling you I snoozed through a movie by Denis Villeneuve? A movie that Warner Bros. poured $190 million into? But yeah, I did nod off.

Maybe that's the deal here (part of it, at least). The hype around "Dune" and all the rave reviews have drowned out some real voices, voices that might have just got buried deep due to their alternatives stances or questionings, much like I intended mine to. But now you know, you're not the only one catching z's during "Dune", and you're not to blame. Is the movie at fault then? No, I'm not throwing shade like that.

The story of "Dune" is quite cliché, no doubt. First off, the original novel dates back to the swinging 1960s, when it was cutting-edge, but now some of its ideas seem a bit out there. And looking at what the two movies have served up so far—it's just your basic prince seeking revenge kinda tale, maybe with a sprinkle of anti-hero vibes, nothing really original. But when you think about it, "Hamlet" is a tale about a prince seeking revenge "The Lion King" is the same but with animals, and "Harry Potter" is all about a wizard prince on a vendetta. So, the stories are all the same; the key lies in how they are told.

Is it wrong then, the way "Dune" spins its yarn? Its length and pacing indeed might turn off the regular moviegoers. I mean, it took a whopping 322 minutes (156+166) across two movies just to tell a pretty straightforward revenge story; and let's not even get started on some parts dragging on forever (like Paul's trippy visions and his back-and-forth on whether to go all revengey), while others come to an abrupt halt (like the big showdown between the Fremen and the Emperor's Sardaukar legion we were all waiting for).

But, again, I'm not calling it a "fault". It's more like a misfit, a mismatch between audiences used to certain cinematic conventions (including me truly, catching z's) and a movie that's just not playing by those rules. What's the deal with those rules anyway? It's all about sticking to the tried-and-tested Hollywood blockbuster formula: keep it under two hours, have a clear and snappy story with loads of twists, spell out the themes, make sure the characters have their arcs, keep the plot gripping, throw in some laughs every now and then... you get the picture. And "Dune" is clearly swerving away from that lane.

Orson Scott Card, who won both the Hugo and Nebula Awards, came up with the MICE Quotient in his book "How to Write Science Fiction & Fantasy", saying that the balance of "Milieu", "Idea", "Character", and "Event" decides how a novel's structured. Now it’s quite clear. Hollywood's churn-em-out scripts mostly bank on "Character" and "Event" to grab our attention, whereas "Dune" digs more into "Milieu" and "Idea". And it's not just "Dune"; many excellent sci-fi novels follow suit. It’s just that those widely-accepted sci-fi movies go for a more crowd-pleasing, popcorn-munching adaptation.

Denis Villeneuve has always been ditching the mainstream and trying to stick close to the source material or to his own conception of science fiction. That might explain why some people find themselves drifting off during pretty much every Denis Villeneuve film (like "Blade Runner 2049" and "Arrival").

In that case, falling asleep at the movies somehow is a blessing. It indicates a lot, like how we've still got directors like Denis Villeneuve, Martin Scorsese, or Christopher Nolan shaking things up and challenging the movie norms; how there are other options out there for moviegoers beyond just Hollywood; how the sound effects in movies are on point, and theater sound systems are top-notch; how movie theaters offer a chance to hit pause in this fast-paced world; and, even how you can catch some shut-eye—I once read about this insomniac who finally found peace in a movie theater after years of trying everything else.

So, don't doubt yourself. "Dune" is a good movie, and you're a happy camper. To borrow a line from "Dune: Part One": Dreams are messages from the deep. Who knows, maybe when you were snoozing in the theater, you were making some deep, hidden connection with "Dune"?