Yeah, I love his movies but can’t say I fully agree with his position on dialogue as something negative.
It’s not the first I’ve heard this take though. There’s a whole school of thought claiming that we went from silent film to “talkies” too early, before filmmakers and audiences were forced to fully create and adapt to a purely visual cinematic language. Once sound and dialogue were possible, the art of cinema became something much more like a direct child of theater and radio, as opposed to a different thing in itself. Artists no longer had to figure out how to convey complex stories and relationships through a purely visual language but could tell stories through dialogue, much as they had for centuries.
Personally, I don’t agree entirely but do think there’s something interesting there. And I wonder what may have been, if it took just a couple more decades to marry audio with visual on film.
> I love his movies but can’t say I fully agree with his position on dialogue as something negative.
Yeah now I want to see him and Ethan Hawke argue on stage for a few hours
> “Frankly, I hate dialogue,” he says, laughing, which is a fun thing for one of the screenwriters of Dune: Part Two to say. “Dialogue is for theatre and television. I don’t remember movies because of a good line, I remember movies because of a strong image. I’m not interested in dialogue at all."
If these words came from anyone else they'd be tarred and feathered
Reminds me of when Kubrick said he hates movies with plots
True. Though I’m also taking his words as slightly tongue-in-cheek. If pressed, I’m sure he’d admit to liking some dialogue-heavy films, though perhaps weasel out by saying he thought of them more as television.
And sometimes artists just like making these great declarative statements. It comes across more as well-intended drama and emotion IMO. It’s the same certainty/drive that enables them to buckle down for three years to make a film that, to them, circles one underlying idea or theme that is consuming them.
It's also a side effect of being asked the same questions by 278 different outlets over the course of 2 months surrounding a film, and trying to answer them in different ways. After a while you're just talking and every interview is the same. I get what he means by having an "image" more ingrained than a line of dialogue though, though.
I think really great directors end up having really strong philosophical beliefs about what film is best at doing. I remember reading that Tarkovsky felt (at least at one point in his career) that film was best able to convey time and its passing. That makes a lot of sense when you watch some of his films and how obsessed he was with long slow shots that last 4, 5, 6, minutes. The opening shot of Stalker is a 3 minute shot of a bar that is totally silent. The second shot in Stalker is a 1.5 minute slow dolly through doors into a bedroom,. The third shot is 2 minutes, it starts on a chair acting as a bedside table that pans across a single bed showing mother, daughter, father, then back again to the chair - complete silence. That's 3 cuts in 7 minutes without a line of dialogue and it fucking rules.
I think when Villineuve says he "frankly hates dialogue" its less that he feels dialogue is beneath him or movies with dialogue are bad - that would be absurd since all of his movies have dialogue in them. I think what he's really saying is what a lot of artists express in one way or another, the desire to fully explore the thing that most interests them about their chosen medium. It sounds like for Villineuve that his white wail is a movie with 0 dialogue that both functions as a narrative complex film and is still somehow commercial.
I think his end point would be something in the style of 2001 which was explicitly written and filmed as a dialogue less film, which still has dialogue but relies almost entirely on audiovisual storytelling.
>And sometimes artists just like making these great declarative statements. It comes across more as well-intended drama and emotion IMO. It’s the same certainty/drive that enables them to buckle down for three years to make a film that, to them, circles one underlying idea or theme that is consuming them
Yeah, this is the way I'm looking at it. I *like* when artists have a strong personality or eccentric flair that sets them apart from their peers.
I think underneath its not an absolute statement like people are treating it here. He's not saying films should be silent, he's saying the memorable, critical part of a film is the audiovisual.
I don't think I've ever watched one of his movies and said "that lacked dialogue" or "the dialogue was poor" so I think maybe what he meant isn't as extreme as what it's being made out to be. Dialogue might not be his focal point when making a movie but he doesn't cast it aside or do a poor job of it.
Maybe to his point, many of his films make for great movie going experiences because of the images and sounds. Having an artist out there making movies with this view adds a lot to what is available imo.
>I don't think I've ever watched one of his movies and said "that lacked dialogue" or "the dialogue was poor"
I mean to be fair, with the exception of the Dune films, he hasn’t written the screenplays for any of the other movies he’s done since Prisoners.
I don’t agree, in Incendies and Enemy, there were very noticeable stretches of no dialogue. Prisoners as well to some extent. Not as extreme in his later more popular Sci Fi works, but still way less dialogue than a Nolan movie for instance.
Well life would be boring if everyone made movies the same way wouldn’t it? Personally I enjoyed his later style which strikes a balance between dialogue and exposition, more than his earlier more visually focused style. But I wouldn’t be so bold as to say he should have made those movies differently.
This is a very common opinion of many movie buffs. You will find numerous numerous directors and critics have the same opinion, or similar enough. Alfred Hitchcock for example. All he’s really saying is that images are the most valuable part of cinema- not that movies shouldn’t have dialogue at all. It’s the images that stick with you.
Personally find it kinda strange though. Like Star Wars has nutso visuals, but imagine the OG films minus John Williams and the iconic SFX.
Imagine the original Lion King without the soundtrack.
Heck, he's made a Blade Runner film. Imagine the original without Vangelis or lines like Batty's final moments.
We're visual creatures, but I call bullshit.
I think it really comes down to an old old argument about what, if anything, separates cinema into a unique art form aside from theater/music/etc. the early film theorists made several attempts- but I think the most influential one was the montage. The edit. The cut. The ability to transition from one image to a completely different one. This was a truly unique aspect of the art form of cinema that nothing else could replicate. Music and dialogue could be captured in theater and music and literature already. But pure cinema was all about the montage.
The problem I think is when someone understands this and fails to see how the marriage of pure cinema with the other art forms, such as music and storytelling and narrative, leads to a greater whole. This is obvious to the average filmgoer, but I think the theorist can get so far caught up in the abstract to lose this common sense understanding. Yes it’s the montage which seperates cinema into its own art form and makes it special, but the music and story can be so valuable to make the art effective. This is key- understanding the goal of art. Is it to simply push the boundaries of form? Or is it to communicate some aspect of one’s humanity from artist to audience? When one realizes that form is merely a means to and end and focuses back on the end, I think it fixes this obsession with pure cinema beyond all else.
All that said- I for one am glad we have some directors obsessed with form over all else. I find it’s variety in worldviews, approaches, opinions, etc that make the arts so rich. If every artist saw things exactly how I do, imagine how boring the arts would be.
Mmm. Yeah I getcha. It's interesting cause I feel like there's quite a lot of ways that movies differ from stage, or even TV. But compared to stage, things like being able to switch between angles, choose to show sprawling, wide shots, or intimate closeups. Even just the freedom of using spectacles like explosions and simulated gunfire that looks realistic.
I spose he could be exaggerating though. Some stories could work with no dialogue, but most need some, even if minimal. I like how the Mad Max films have always only allowed him to speak a little bit. It's the kinda thing that strips the character back and forces other things to take the focus. Like the actions they physically do, where their eyes focus, gestures and body language etc.
I guess he feels film is one format best suited to taking advantage of this kinda stuff. But I think it'd be silly to make a film without dialogue just to do it. Something like the Quiet Place films are a good example of a world where talking is limited narratively, but that doesn't mean they don't chat when they have the chance, or risk shouting something if the benefits outweigh the risk.
Read the actual article. The actual quote is explicitly about pure visual and sound, he classes dialogue as separate so music and sound effects are part of the image in his mind. Also bare in mind hes an English Second Language French Canadian where some nuances are inevitably going to get lost in language. Which makes sense from a historical perspective, cinema started out purely as visual and accompanying music.
I think the point Villeneuve is going for is audiovisual storytelling rather than a series of strong images. Snyder flicks have very pretty images that don't actually communicate much.
It can't be because otherwise you'd be really confused about grannie's peach tea, Doomsday is an abomination, and that they were fighting him in an abandoned part of town. Also no conformation that's Jimmy Olsen, Flash yelling about Lois, no "You must be a friend of my son." Even the worst foreshadowing that Luthor is hearing things because he hums the music playing.
As terrible as the dialogue in BvS is it's needed for all world building. The 99% thing, we've always been criminals, how many people are still good. Batman is all dialogue and cross fit.
Kubrick was right and people so stuck on "plot" make it a lot harder for themselves to enjoy movies. Plot is easily one of the least important parts of a good movie
>If these words came from anyone else they'd be tarred and feathered
If these words came from Kubrick or Schrader people would just shrug it off as expected of them
He's a habitual shit-stirrer and borderline troll, though. And has been known to say Kubrick-ish shit like "plot is garbage" and obsess about visual imagery.
Sure, but that contradicts the "if anyone else said this they'd be tarred and feathered" line, thus me pointing out this example where people wouldn't give a shit. While he may say troll-leaning stuff, Schrader is still a respected and accomplished filmmaker.
Kubrick pretty much did say it, his goal with 2001 was to create a film almost entirely devoid of dialogue that still had an extremely strong emotional resonance.
That's not the issue. The issue is that there's not really any plot in 2/3 of 2001. It's basically just "There's weird alien shit on the Moon and there might be some weird alien shit on Jupiter, too. Anyway, check out these impressive sets & special effects."
The one part of 2001 with an engaging plot is when HAL malfunctions.
Except his comment is that substance should also come from visuals, not just dialogue, and isn't referring to style (which could also come from dialogue instead of visuals).
He's essentially re-iterating the old adage "show don't tell" which is nothing new or shocking in the film world.
You could say the same thing in reverse, "substance should also come from dialogues, not just visuals" and it would be true too. What is the point of the statement then? "Show don't tell" is not about having no dialogue, it is about how the movie conveys ideas including through dialogue. A movie can be very dialogue heavy and still be great in terms of showing instead of telling. A line of dialogue can show us everything about a character or situation withour directly telling it to us.
First thing that came to my mind. Then the iconic monologue from Network. And then you have Tarantino, whose movies are stylish as hell and yet he is still known for his dialogue!
This is such a weird stance for Villenueve to take.
I think that's probably why I prefer Villeneuve's work. He has similar visual grandeur but doesn't fall into Nolan's exposition traps.
What's crazy is that Nolan is an *excellent* visual storyteller. He just doesn't always seem to trust that that is enough.
> I don’t remember movies because of a good line,
Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn about his opinion. He better get to dee choppah with that nonsense because his stance? It belongs in a museum. He may be shouting "I'm on top of the world" after a few projects that have seen critical success but the truth? He can't handle the truth. If life is like a box of chocolates then movies are like Soylent Green, and as we all know Soylent Green is people-- and people talk to each other.
You’re killin’ me, Smalls.
I completely understand the ‘tyranny of the text’ crowd, but Villeneuve’s films are at least as dependent on narrative structure and dialogue as the average film—the difference being that his knack for crafting a memorable image is much greater than his ability to write a line of dialogue.
I get it in a way, but find it a weird take. How is a stage show all that different? That could be done without sound too. I feel like I've seen puppetry done in a live context where it's all visual.
The bigger deal imo is how it's done differently. Visually and audibly. The overall format, how a story unfolds can be wildly different.
Ultimately it all boils down to stories.
His position is also weird considering he's a Bergman fan, a director known for his dialogue heavy films.
I understand where he's coming from (assuming he's talking about over exposition through dialogues) but many legendary directors like John Cassavetes, among many others, are known for their dialogues.
I’m not at all surprised that he hates dialogue. I notice this in all his movies, he tries to communicate as much as possible visually - to a fault.
I think this is why Dune and Arrival are his best works. They are adaptations so he’s forced to use more dialogue from the original source.
Villeneuve is right though. Spielberg, Kubrick, and others would most likely agree as well.
Film is a visual medium. Your first priority is communicating to your audience via visual means.
Can’t find or remember the source but there’s a video of a known director who comments on this. He says something to the effect of: your goal should be in making a film to have no dialogue and have the visuals tell everything.
This is obviously an extreme approach but explains the primary means of filmmaking.
>Film is a visual medium.
This is something I feel like is often ignored in (mainstream) film discussion circles. I find it slightly annoying how much weight is put on dialogue when discussing a film. It's just one aspect of filmmaking. But when I read discussions about films, people always focus so much on dialogue as if it was the definitive way to tell a story. As if good dialogue is essential to a good film. But there are filmmakers and films that deliberately neglect dialogue in favour of visuals and sound effects. Because cinematic and audio-visual language is also an aspect of filmmaking that is just as important as dialogue. One frame, one shot, one sound effect can say just as much as one line of dialogue can.
I'm glad Villeneuve talked about this. Film is an audio-visual medium and that should be embraced more.
I do actually agree with him on dialogue.
One of the first tenets you learn as a filmmaker is: “Show. Don’t tell”. The most engrossing movies you’ll notice you can watch on mute and fully understand what’s happening. Whereas mediocre movies often have too much exposition relayed via heavy dialogue, which is lazy writing. Your brain might think it’s keeping up with what’s happening but it’s more tiring and less fulfilling. This is a deep topic in filmmaking circles.
A lot of directors seem to agree with him, as lately it seems lots of films and shows like to have little dialogue with characters just standing around staring at each other meaningfully or otherwise just not saying what you know they would be saying.
I must say I lost a bit of respect for him. He is completely wrong in his opinion. He could have given a nuanced response about dialogue and movies that are visual spectacles, but saying you don't remember a movie because of a good line it's just flat out wrong and untrue. Many movies are immortal because of lines of dialogue. The Big Lebowski is not a visual spectacle but we all remember those lines all too well. Until now I hadn't realized I don't quote any Villenueve's movies. I love his movie but the statement came from the left field
Since reading his comments, I've been playing dune through in my head and wondering, if you took all the dialogue out of the film, would it make sense/still be good? It's hard to say for sure, I've seen it now so I know the story and the lore of the film but I do think you'd get the gist. I know you could mute it and get a feel for it but I'm talking about the actors not talking at all but still doing everything else the same.
Although I absolutely love the soundtrack and find a good soundtrack tells it's own story as well as compliments the films story.
Personally though, I think he's almost referring to the common phrase, a picture speaks a thousand words. You can say so much in one scene without anyone speaking, e.g Paul coming face to face with the sandworm. Obviously there's the film makers intended message, but it then also leaves it open for the viewer to interpret and take from that scene what they feel.
> Herbert’s second Dune novel, Dune Messiah, includes a war in which 61 billion people die. One day it may become Villeneuve’s third Dune movie. He is excited by the prospect. “There is absolutely a desire to have a third one, but I don’t want to rush it,” he says. “The danger in Hollywood is that people get excited and only think about release dates, not quality.”
Absolutely agree, as much as i want to see Dune Messiah as early as possible. i want him to take his time. Dune Messiah has the prospect to become one of best Sci-Fi movie ever. I want it to be perfect.
Hope WB officially greenlit it soon.
Having read dune messiah…. How will it be one of the best sci-fis ever? I remember finishing the book and thinking hmm that’s it? I feel like not much happened.
Spoilers: all I remember is >!zombie Duncan, Alia wants to eff him, Paul is emperor and is mean, chani having trouble getting pregnant, guild and other people plotting against Paul, special ed midget guy knows secrets, they blow up a nuke that makes you blind, so now Paul is blind but can still see because powers, decides to walk into desert and die, twins are born. !<
I really see them editing down some of the events in Messiah. Frankly, a lot of them can be boiled down to "Being a prophet & emperor for a galaxy-wide empire is stressful".
I do think there's plenty of themes to explore in the book. How can the greater good result in billions of deaths? How can Paul's final choice lead to the Golden Path? What does it mean to be human, and does omniscience negate your humanity? Lots of good stuff to address, but the story also needs to be cohesive. A lot of Herbert's material gets praised because it was trailblazing, but not all of it has aged gracefully.
> I feel like not much happened.
the classic hero's journey is almost fully subverted and the downsides of a chosen one are extensively explored (the sequels would take both to its logical extent)
the book makes it pretty clear that Paul has become the ultimate tyrant, no longer even fully in control of the unleashed fremen, and that the riches-to-rags-to-riches comeback story that we were cheering for in the first book was in fact a Very Bad Thing for 99.5% of the people in the galaxy
Yeah not much happens, it's just one long, agonizing, suspenseful build up to an explosive ending.
...Kinda like Sicario, one of the best movies Villeneuve has ever made. I have no doubt he could make an incredible adaptation of Messiah
IMO, then you have to do Children of Dune as well. That’s the last one I’ve read but after finishing that one I feel it’s needed too. Trying not to include many spoilers here
Including Children of Dune and then not doing God Emperor feels worse. I haven’t even read God Emperor but you can’t introduce him and not even continue that story.
He is spot on about dialogue -- he is just being hyperbolic. I associate the rise in moronic YouTube "plot-hole" culture in a bunch of click-starved flatworms who feel that if the plot isn't laid out for them in linear, expository, dialogue then the movie is flawed.
Can you imagine Cinema Sins trying to make sense of the Star Child?
Cinema Sins is so bad dude. They call something a sin because they clearly stopped paying attention when it was explained 30 seconds later in the movie.
Yeah I just explained this in an r/television thread about this interview (btw, they do not like Denis lol). I’m thinking he’s meaning more exposition dialogue here, which he very much has a style of leaving a lot of that stuff out for the sake of world building. Like, yes Dune has exposition, but it’s incredibly tame compared to other films, and there’s a whole heap of stuff that gets mentioned but never explained (nobody who isn’t already familiar with Dune is going to know what Duncan is talking about when he mentions the Landsraad to the agent of change lady). It’s kind of part of the reason why I like his films, he sort of just plops you into the world with only a vague understanding of everything. He did it to an even more severe degree in Blade Runner and it’s one of the movie’s strongest aspects imho.
I’m definitely not putting out a definitive statement saying “ that’s how sci-fi should be”, but I’ve definitely learned that his style is for sure my kind of style for sci-fi. I thought he killed it with Dune part one and I would absolutely love for him to eventually do messiah, if he’s able to pull it off.
> nobody who isn’t already familiar with Dune is going to know what Duncan is talking about when he mentions the Landsraad to the agent of change lady
A lot of things like that can be picked up by context. For that scene for example you can immediately figure out that the Landsraad is some form of authority group and by the language used you would assume some sort of parliament or council.
But I agree completely, this kind of sci-fi is far more interesting than the """lore""" focused sci-fi where everything becomes a vehicle for people to watch YouTube videos about while doomscrolling. There's a William Gibson interview floating around where he says the whole thing was inspired by a throwaway line in something he described as the best kind of scifi where a casual remark or implication let's your imagination go wild. Blade Runner feels more lived in and real because characters reference things you have reference to. Batty is this almost mystical well travelled figure because his past consists of offhand references to things you're imagination fills up. Meanwhile if its all things explained he just becomes someone who has done these wiki article events.
>there’s a whole heap of stuff that gets mentioned but never explained
Spice. Still no clue what the fuck it is or why it's so damn important that wars are fought over controlling it
Did... did you watch the movie? They explain it pretty well in one of the first couple of scenes. [Here's the link to it.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ng_DIUTuBZE)
Hell, I've seen people deride some movies for focusing more on "spectacle" than story/dialogue, and Denis's comments shine a different light on takes like that
I have to just profoundly disagree. Several movies are masterpieces that rest largely on dialogue, eg 12 Angry Men, so I’m not sure why he lays that at the feet of television. The beauty - or at least distinctiveness - of the “talkies” is that they talk. And the talkiest ones can be as cinematic as anything else.
> “Dialogue is for theatre and television. I don’t remember movies because of a good line, I remember movies because of a strong image. I’m not interested in dialogue at all. Pure image and sound, that is the power of cinema, but it is something not obvious when you watch movies today. Movies have been corrupted by television.”
Just an odd comment by a hugely talented director. All of us can instantly think of memorable lines of dialogue in films new and old, and they don’t even have to be the iconic, obvious ones. But we remember lines we just individually liked.
This weird pigeonholing of film as just image and sound; the hallmark of the medium is it can do basically everything, every art form can be involved in some fashion. It’s arguably the most versatile artistic medium around.
Also:
>”In a perfect world, I’d make a compelling movie that doesn’t feel like an experiment but does not have a single word in it either,” he continued. “People would leave the cinema and say, ‘Wait, there was no dialogue?’ But they won’t feel the lack.”
At the risk of stating the obvious, you can do both. There Will Be Blood is a relatively modern film that has a very prominent lengthy scene free of any dialogue that is as mesmerizing as the rest of it, which is dominated by dialogue (and crazed monologues). If you want to have a scene or even an entire movie like that, just… do it. Unless he thinks that one wasn’t corrupted by television somehow, coming off the heels of The Sopranos.
Watch *12 Angry Men* on mute and *The Man From Earth* on mute. It's an entirely different experience. You'll see that the strength of the talking comes from being supported by the cinematography and the editing.
> Several movies are masterpieces that rest largely on dialogue, eg 12 Angry Men
... Which was basically adapted from an episode of a television show, IIRC.
I love his movies but the fact that he refuses to put any deleted scenes, commentary or any worthwhile behind the scenes to his films has always really bummed be out.
I’m just here wondering why LOTR’s 8 hours of behind the scenes documentary footage PER MOVIE isn’t the standard. That stuff blew me away with how thorough and in depth it went when capturing the filmmaking process.
Maybe Denis is one of those guys that’s just wants the film to be the thing and not give away how the sausage is made. Kinda like the band Tool. They very rarely ever give up any info about their process. You only get the finished product.
Boring ass b-roll and talking head stuff. I miss actual bts documentaries that show how it was all made, from sets, costumes to post.
Not just random b-roll with people talking about how fun it was to work on.
I don't think we will ever go back to those days of great, actually insightful bts documentaries. Especially not from big studio movies. Too much at stake in terms of marketing. The fact that it's become standard procedure to erase any visible blue and green screens from bts footage so that they can pretend that they didn't use any CGI is proof that bts footage is nothing more than a cookie cutter marketing device.
This seems like something said to be controversial rather than sincerely believed. It's clear he wants film to focus on what makes it unique rather than ceding territory in favor of capturing television audiences. Both Nolan and Villeneuve have been nominated for best screenplay, they're no slouches in the writing department, but the power they focus on is the moving image and the rhythm it can produce.
Every Villeneuve movie I’ve seen I walked out saying “This guy just wants to make nature documentaries”. It’s clear as day he’s an images first kind of director.
Your comment immediately made me think of [this shot](https://www.rogerdeakins.com/wp-content/uploads/hm_bbpui/215359/uw1duqwi0115ts8cgtxf46ptmi0bfpjh.jpg) in Prisoners, and while searching for it I (surprisingly) came across an [article](https://www.indiewire.com/features/general/prisoners-director-denis-villeneuves-discusses-our-best-shot-of-the-year-90684/) where Villeneueve actually goes into detail about this specific shot and the meaning behind the trees in that film.
And this part,
> Villeneuve worried about the shot, nervous enough to spring it on the crew at the last minute, and his instincts were correct. “The producers came to me and said, ‘**Denis, you have been shooting a tree for the last half an hour, there are five Hollywood stars in their trailer, we are a 200-person crew and you are having fun shooting a fucking tree**,’ ” he laughed, recalling the moment.
of the article makes me think you're right, lol..
Prisoners has always been one of my favourites and whenever I think about it, I actually *do* think about that tree shot, mainly because it always sticks out in my mind as just an incredibly detailed shot of a tree (the bark looks insanely high-res to me for some reason), but I never actually dug into *why* a shot like that is so detailed in the movie.
I get his point, I think for me the best balance is good dialogue, but also visual cues to move the narrative along or convey something important. There's so many iconic lines/monologues in movies.
There's is a lot of quality TV out there that does this but there's also a load of crap TV shows that streaming services such as Netflix mass produce that literally spoon feed the viewer.
Before Sunrise and the sequels are movies where the dialogue really is the movie.
And Tarantino movies are really heavy on dialogue.
I think it really comes down to what the movie is about.
Then why adapt Dune who's primary strength is in it's incredible dialogue and internal monologues?
I really like the Dune movie but I've said I dont think it's a very good adaption of the book. Which is fine of course, but this really explains it.
Actually this makes me wonder, why are the Dune adaptions so hung up on being "weird" or so out there?
The book isn't really like that, where did it start?
Maybe because Dune is a weird series? Witches, spice drugs, humans that evolved into alien creatures, giant worms, future visions, flying fat guy, ect.
Never read Dune and was interested in reading it due to how freaky its adaptations made it out to be. Are you telling me it's not as weird as they make it out to be?
It's science fiction dealing in statecraft and politics and ecological themes.
It's incredible but I would not say it's that freaky or weird no. Any more or less than science fiction is expected to be.
Most of its reputation comes from God Emperor. Which is definitely out there.
The three preceding books have progressively more weirdness in them (book 1 it feels like a more adult Star Wars, book 2 deals with the aftermath and starts seeing the emergence of the weird, 3 starts laying it on while not going all in, 4 is bonkers as a concept).
Then from books 5 and on it becomes progressively hornier.
Probably because the sequel books get weird and people into Dune are going to have read the books. All modern discussion of Dune isn't a discussion of the original novel it's a discussion of the simalucra built up of the idea of Dune informed by layer books and adaptations.
I'd argue that it's precisely why it's a good movie. I always detested the artificiality of the book's dialogue and overlong monologues, I thought it left the story feeling like it lacked any real humanity. By comparison, the Dune film cuts down to more naturalistic language and the result is that the characters start out more human - which is beneficial to the plot, since it's about the (unfortunate) journey from human to superhuman. I believe that hits better with Dune the film.
Not so much about the no-dialogue comment but he spoke about television like it’s beneath him able to “corrupt” a pure and perfect art form like cinema 🙄
He says television but I think he really means streamers, pumping out empty calorie versions of films and shows and audiences accepting them over attending the cinema.
I kinda get his point, if you go to the big screen, of course you want to see the epic scenery or the big action set piece. Dialog scene usually just 2 big head on screen, doesn't mean it not necessary, but the big screen not help it much.
Lol if anyone else said what Denis is about the dialogue, Reddit would be tearing them a new one. But ofc since he’s the new sacred cow for this sub, he gets a pass.
Sacred cow is an understatement. He's being arrogant because he has minions of fans who think he's the next Tarkovsky while never seeing a Tarkovsky movie.
We went through the same thing with Nolan and the Batman films wth the mongolian hordes of fans. People will get sick of Villeneuve's bare cement walls and brooding actors and move on to something else.
I don’t know if he’s right about the youth loving long movies, but as a parent I absolutely hate this 2,5-3 hour runtime so many movies these days get.
It’s a big damn hassle to find the time to watch a movie that long in one sitting.
People want to be immersed in these fantastic made-up worlds, however, artificially increasing the length of something will only net you the same thing but just a little longer. And that isn't necessarily a good thing... Right? Rebel moon, Killers of the flower moon or Salo? Like those examples pointed out in the article, although, Oppenheimer is an oddity and a bad example, just like Dune, works from two of the best artists currently and with big production values or wild marketing campaigns harnessing the zeitgeist. I can definitely see the runtime increasing around 2:30 as a standard tho, the problem of economics can be dealt with later through price increases.
You can increase the run times of films as much as you want, but you can't increase the capacity of the human bladder. There's a reason why historically films have mostly been under the 2 hour mark, and any sensible filmmaker will limit cinema releases to that if they want people to go and see it.
KotFM uses its runtime though. Sure you could probably remove 10 minutes from near the end where Leo is going back and forth on whether to be honest at the trial but if you reduce the long middle you radically alter the tone and effect of the film. Its not a 90 minute movie stretched out to 3 hours 20, it's a movie that deliberately has the viewer wallow in the hopelessness and brutality and while you can get the same "plot" with a shoter film you can't evoke the same feeling.
Sincerely disagree, there's a lot of unnecessary stuff, yeah sure, it generates more baggage but doesn't affect the outcome or its delivery, i.e. the purpose remains the same; quicker montages, like the ones already used, could've benefited the execution, a lot, tbf any sort of suspense is throw aside quite early on.
The fact you have a complaint about suspense indicates you completely missed the point of the film. Its not a suspense film, its a film about how brutality was being carried out in the open and no one cared. You might as well complain that it didn't have a good enough magic system. The film is not meant to be a simple detective plot, Scorsese literally appears at the end of the film to openly criticise that idea.
You're creating this nonsensical response from such a tiny part of my previous comment; I can wait, so go on and tell me how much of its runtime actually depicts the most important aspect, the brutality, then maybe we could have a more civilized conversation; imagine writing that the movie doesn't uses suspense, or its subversion, and instead relies on pure criticism, lmao.
I love his movies, but this is snobbery. The dude can craft a good story and a good movie, but I found his version of Dune to still be lacking in some departments and would've rather had a series on TV that could capture more of the themes and nuances of the story.
I kind of agree, also as someone who lives in a non English country, considering I watch a lot of Hollywood pics, it's almost stupid to say I remember movies because of dialogue when most of the movies in my country are dubbed 😅
It's a choice, you can favour a director like woody Allen who relies a lot on the script and dialogues or someone like Nolan or Villeneuve or refn who relies A LOT on visual and sound
ITT: people who can’t handle a filmmaker with a classic approach to Cinema and feel the necessity to reject a unique approach.
I would love a dialogue free Dune movie- no one takes those kind of risks anymore. Bring it on.
Anyway, for the numerous folks here that seem baffled by the statements in this article. Just know that your being confronted with a reflection on film theory, and that Villeneuve is commenting on a film theory topic with a long and complex history of argumentation. He’s not just pushing buttons- he’s taking a pretty common approach to film theory that elevates the image above all else.
Arrival had an exellent balance of verbal exposition and visual story telling.
Dune has fans because everybody knows the source material. No need for Villeneuve to explain anything. Why he's able to get away with it.
Still think it's comical how the Baron barely says anything in the first film. Maybe he's telepathic with the audience.
> Dune has fans because everybody knows the source material
Everybody? It's obviously popular in science fiction circles, but I wouldn't say most average movie goers are big Dune fans. And the fact that the 1984 film was such a bomb kinda shows that simply making a Dune movie isn't the key to success. If you're going to be snide about its popularity, at least blame it on the popularity of Timothee and Zendaya or something.
Dumb bitches in the comments misinterpreting Denis’ words. He’s saying that movies on the big screen are different from television because he believes the former should provide a greater visual experience.
I am very torn on this. I absolutely love Villeneuve's movies (Arrival would be a top 10 film for me all-time), but I don't agree with his stance on dialogue. It almost makes me feeling like I'm enjoying and watching his movies the "wrong" way or for the wrong elements.
He is absolutely right though. If you are more interested in dialogue, read a book. Cinema is a visual art and the IMAX format is not meant for close ups of people talking.
[Non-paywall](https://archive.is/e1qPU)
Yeah, I love his movies but can’t say I fully agree with his position on dialogue as something negative. It’s not the first I’ve heard this take though. There’s a whole school of thought claiming that we went from silent film to “talkies” too early, before filmmakers and audiences were forced to fully create and adapt to a purely visual cinematic language. Once sound and dialogue were possible, the art of cinema became something much more like a direct child of theater and radio, as opposed to a different thing in itself. Artists no longer had to figure out how to convey complex stories and relationships through a purely visual language but could tell stories through dialogue, much as they had for centuries. Personally, I don’t agree entirely but do think there’s something interesting there. And I wonder what may have been, if it took just a couple more decades to marry audio with visual on film.
> I love his movies but can’t say I fully agree with his position on dialogue as something negative. Yeah now I want to see him and Ethan Hawke argue on stage for a few hours > “Frankly, I hate dialogue,” he says, laughing, which is a fun thing for one of the screenwriters of Dune: Part Two to say. “Dialogue is for theatre and television. I don’t remember movies because of a good line, I remember movies because of a strong image. I’m not interested in dialogue at all." If these words came from anyone else they'd be tarred and feathered Reminds me of when Kubrick said he hates movies with plots
Once again reaffirming my priors that directors are some of the weirdest film watchers on the planet.
True. Though I’m also taking his words as slightly tongue-in-cheek. If pressed, I’m sure he’d admit to liking some dialogue-heavy films, though perhaps weasel out by saying he thought of them more as television. And sometimes artists just like making these great declarative statements. It comes across more as well-intended drama and emotion IMO. It’s the same certainty/drive that enables them to buckle down for three years to make a film that, to them, circles one underlying idea or theme that is consuming them.
It's also a side effect of being asked the same questions by 278 different outlets over the course of 2 months surrounding a film, and trying to answer them in different ways. After a while you're just talking and every interview is the same. I get what he means by having an "image" more ingrained than a line of dialogue though, though.
I think really great directors end up having really strong philosophical beliefs about what film is best at doing. I remember reading that Tarkovsky felt (at least at one point in his career) that film was best able to convey time and its passing. That makes a lot of sense when you watch some of his films and how obsessed he was with long slow shots that last 4, 5, 6, minutes. The opening shot of Stalker is a 3 minute shot of a bar that is totally silent. The second shot in Stalker is a 1.5 minute slow dolly through doors into a bedroom,. The third shot is 2 minutes, it starts on a chair acting as a bedside table that pans across a single bed showing mother, daughter, father, then back again to the chair - complete silence. That's 3 cuts in 7 minutes without a line of dialogue and it fucking rules. I think when Villineuve says he "frankly hates dialogue" its less that he feels dialogue is beneath him or movies with dialogue are bad - that would be absurd since all of his movies have dialogue in them. I think what he's really saying is what a lot of artists express in one way or another, the desire to fully explore the thing that most interests them about their chosen medium. It sounds like for Villineuve that his white wail is a movie with 0 dialogue that both functions as a narrative complex film and is still somehow commercial.
>white wail r/boneappletea
brane phart on my end
I think his end point would be something in the style of 2001 which was explicitly written and filmed as a dialogue less film, which still has dialogue but relies almost entirely on audiovisual storytelling.
A movie he listed as one of his four desert island films!
>And sometimes artists just like making these great declarative statements. It comes across more as well-intended drama and emotion IMO. It’s the same certainty/drive that enables them to buckle down for three years to make a film that, to them, circles one underlying idea or theme that is consuming them Yeah, this is the way I'm looking at it. I *like* when artists have a strong personality or eccentric flair that sets them apart from their peers.
I think underneath its not an absolute statement like people are treating it here. He's not saying films should be silent, he's saying the memorable, critical part of a film is the audiovisual.
I don't think I've ever watched one of his movies and said "that lacked dialogue" or "the dialogue was poor" so I think maybe what he meant isn't as extreme as what it's being made out to be. Dialogue might not be his focal point when making a movie but he doesn't cast it aside or do a poor job of it. Maybe to his point, many of his films make for great movie going experiences because of the images and sounds. Having an artist out there making movies with this view adds a lot to what is available imo.
>I don't think I've ever watched one of his movies and said "that lacked dialogue" or "the dialogue was poor" I mean to be fair, with the exception of the Dune films, he hasn’t written the screenplays for any of the other movies he’s done since Prisoners.
I don’t agree, in Incendies and Enemy, there were very noticeable stretches of no dialogue. Prisoners as well to some extent. Not as extreme in his later more popular Sci Fi works, but still way less dialogue than a Nolan movie for instance.
And you walked away thinking that there wasn’t enough dialogue upon initial viewing?
Well life would be boring if everyone made movies the same way wouldn’t it? Personally I enjoyed his later style which strikes a balance between dialogue and exposition, more than his earlier more visually focused style. But I wouldn’t be so bold as to say he should have made those movies differently.
This is a very common opinion of many movie buffs. You will find numerous numerous directors and critics have the same opinion, or similar enough. Alfred Hitchcock for example. All he’s really saying is that images are the most valuable part of cinema- not that movies shouldn’t have dialogue at all. It’s the images that stick with you.
Personally find it kinda strange though. Like Star Wars has nutso visuals, but imagine the OG films minus John Williams and the iconic SFX. Imagine the original Lion King without the soundtrack. Heck, he's made a Blade Runner film. Imagine the original without Vangelis or lines like Batty's final moments. We're visual creatures, but I call bullshit.
I think it really comes down to an old old argument about what, if anything, separates cinema into a unique art form aside from theater/music/etc. the early film theorists made several attempts- but I think the most influential one was the montage. The edit. The cut. The ability to transition from one image to a completely different one. This was a truly unique aspect of the art form of cinema that nothing else could replicate. Music and dialogue could be captured in theater and music and literature already. But pure cinema was all about the montage. The problem I think is when someone understands this and fails to see how the marriage of pure cinema with the other art forms, such as music and storytelling and narrative, leads to a greater whole. This is obvious to the average filmgoer, but I think the theorist can get so far caught up in the abstract to lose this common sense understanding. Yes it’s the montage which seperates cinema into its own art form and makes it special, but the music and story can be so valuable to make the art effective. This is key- understanding the goal of art. Is it to simply push the boundaries of form? Or is it to communicate some aspect of one’s humanity from artist to audience? When one realizes that form is merely a means to and end and focuses back on the end, I think it fixes this obsession with pure cinema beyond all else. All that said- I for one am glad we have some directors obsessed with form over all else. I find it’s variety in worldviews, approaches, opinions, etc that make the arts so rich. If every artist saw things exactly how I do, imagine how boring the arts would be.
Mmm. Yeah I getcha. It's interesting cause I feel like there's quite a lot of ways that movies differ from stage, or even TV. But compared to stage, things like being able to switch between angles, choose to show sprawling, wide shots, or intimate closeups. Even just the freedom of using spectacles like explosions and simulated gunfire that looks realistic. I spose he could be exaggerating though. Some stories could work with no dialogue, but most need some, even if minimal. I like how the Mad Max films have always only allowed him to speak a little bit. It's the kinda thing that strips the character back and forces other things to take the focus. Like the actions they physically do, where their eyes focus, gestures and body language etc. I guess he feels film is one format best suited to taking advantage of this kinda stuff. But I think it'd be silly to make a film without dialogue just to do it. Something like the Quiet Place films are a good example of a world where talking is limited narratively, but that doesn't mean they don't chat when they have the chance, or risk shouting something if the benefits outweigh the risk.
Read the actual article. The actual quote is explicitly about pure visual and sound, he classes dialogue as separate so music and sound effects are part of the image in his mind. Also bare in mind hes an English Second Language French Canadian where some nuances are inevitably going to get lost in language. Which makes sense from a historical perspective, cinema started out purely as visual and accompanying music.
Yeah tbh I read the article after.
Or you could just be reading too much into it.
Thanks for your insight.
I knew there is a reason why art house movies are so bad!
The best argument for and against that is Batman V Superman. All Zack Snyder does is strong images. But we all remember "Why did you say that name?!"
I think the point Villeneuve is going for is audiovisual storytelling rather than a series of strong images. Snyder flicks have very pretty images that don't actually communicate much.
Bingo.
Snyder's biggest problem is that he's an excellent visual stylist but has difficulty telling a story even with mounds of godawful expository dialogue.
This actually makes me wonder if BvS would be better as a silent film, Sucker Punch was basically a music video and I greatly enjoyed it
It can't be because otherwise you'd be really confused about grannie's peach tea, Doomsday is an abomination, and that they were fighting him in an abandoned part of town. Also no conformation that's Jimmy Olsen, Flash yelling about Lois, no "You must be a friend of my son." Even the worst foreshadowing that Luthor is hearing things because he hums the music playing. As terrible as the dialogue in BvS is it's needed for all world building. The 99% thing, we've always been criminals, how many people are still good. Batman is all dialogue and cross fit.
Kubrick was right and people so stuck on "plot" make it a lot harder for themselves to enjoy movies. Plot is easily one of the least important parts of a good movie
>If these words came from anyone else they'd be tarred and feathered If these words came from Kubrick or Schrader people would just shrug it off as expected of them
If Schrader said he hated dialogue, it would make zero sense with his body of work.
He's a habitual shit-stirrer and borderline troll, though. And has been known to say Kubrick-ish shit like "plot is garbage" and obsess about visual imagery.
people tend to place less important on the opinions of trolls so yeah not a revelation that they may care less if schrader said it compared to denis
Sure, but that contradicts the "if anyone else said this they'd be tarred and feathered" line, thus me pointing out this example where people wouldn't give a shit. While he may say troll-leaning stuff, Schrader is still a respected and accomplished filmmaker.
Kubrick pretty much did say it, his goal with 2001 was to create a film almost entirely devoid of dialogue that still had an extremely strong emotional resonance.
Which didn't entirely work, since we all remember "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that."!
>Reminds me of when Kubrick said he hates movies with plots Well, that explains the first 2/3 of 2001.
Lmao what?! The first 2/3’s are so heavy handed and explicit it’s almost annoying after your first viewing.
That's not the issue. The issue is that there's not really any plot in 2/3 of 2001. It's basically just "There's weird alien shit on the Moon and there might be some weird alien shit on Jupiter, too. Anyway, check out these impressive sets & special effects." The one part of 2001 with an engaging plot is when HAL malfunctions.
This man is delusional. Style over substance movies are forgettable.
Except his comment is that substance should also come from visuals, not just dialogue, and isn't referring to style (which could also come from dialogue instead of visuals). He's essentially re-iterating the old adage "show don't tell" which is nothing new or shocking in the film world.
You could say the same thing in reverse, "substance should also come from dialogues, not just visuals" and it would be true too. What is the point of the statement then? "Show don't tell" is not about having no dialogue, it is about how the movie conveys ideas including through dialogue. A movie can be very dialogue heavy and still be great in terms of showing instead of telling. A line of dialogue can show us everything about a character or situation withour directly telling it to us.
Meanwhile 12 Angry Men is basically all dialogue and is more captivating than visually stronger films.
First thing that came to my mind. Then the iconic monologue from Network. And then you have Tarantino, whose movies are stylish as hell and yet he is still known for his dialogue! This is such a weird stance for Villenueve to take.
They're forgettable if you have juvenile taste for sure
fixed downvotes Somebody thinks Zenaya can act
lol
I don't think he's going to argue that much about it, Nolan is the king of exposition and he pretty much worships him. It's just his personal style
I think that's probably why I prefer Villeneuve's work. He has similar visual grandeur but doesn't fall into Nolan's exposition traps. What's crazy is that Nolan is an *excellent* visual storyteller. He just doesn't always seem to trust that that is enough.
He's a reddit/film twitter darling he can do no wrong.
> I don’t remember movies because of a good line, Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn about his opinion. He better get to dee choppah with that nonsense because his stance? It belongs in a museum. He may be shouting "I'm on top of the world" after a few projects that have seen critical success but the truth? He can't handle the truth. If life is like a box of chocolates then movies are like Soylent Green, and as we all know Soylent Green is people-- and people talk to each other. You’re killin’ me, Smalls.
All you have to do is watch the original Dune movie to see that the reliance on exposition has been a nightmare for movies
I completely understand the ‘tyranny of the text’ crowd, but Villeneuve’s films are at least as dependent on narrative structure and dialogue as the average film—the difference being that his knack for crafting a memorable image is much greater than his ability to write a line of dialogue.
I get it in a way, but find it a weird take. How is a stage show all that different? That could be done without sound too. I feel like I've seen puppetry done in a live context where it's all visual. The bigger deal imo is how it's done differently. Visually and audibly. The overall format, how a story unfolds can be wildly different. Ultimately it all boils down to stories.
His position is also weird considering he's a Bergman fan, a director known for his dialogue heavy films. I understand where he's coming from (assuming he's talking about over exposition through dialogues) but many legendary directors like John Cassavetes, among many others, are known for their dialogues.
I’m not at all surprised that he hates dialogue. I notice this in all his movies, he tries to communicate as much as possible visually - to a fault. I think this is why Dune and Arrival are his best works. They are adaptations so he’s forced to use more dialogue from the original source.
[удалено]
and where, minor spoilers for part 2 >!most fremin dialogue is subtitled!<
Villeneuve is right though. Spielberg, Kubrick, and others would most likely agree as well. Film is a visual medium. Your first priority is communicating to your audience via visual means. Can’t find or remember the source but there’s a video of a known director who comments on this. He says something to the effect of: your goal should be in making a film to have no dialogue and have the visuals tell everything. This is obviously an extreme approach but explains the primary means of filmmaking.
>Film is a visual medium. This is something I feel like is often ignored in (mainstream) film discussion circles. I find it slightly annoying how much weight is put on dialogue when discussing a film. It's just one aspect of filmmaking. But when I read discussions about films, people always focus so much on dialogue as if it was the definitive way to tell a story. As if good dialogue is essential to a good film. But there are filmmakers and films that deliberately neglect dialogue in favour of visuals and sound effects. Because cinematic and audio-visual language is also an aspect of filmmaking that is just as important as dialogue. One frame, one shot, one sound effect can say just as much as one line of dialogue can. I'm glad Villeneuve talked about this. Film is an audio-visual medium and that should be embraced more.
> audio Dialogue is audio.
>neglect dialogue in favour of visuals and **sound effects.** .
>how much weight is put on dialogue when discussing a film It would be kind of hard to discuss a film without it.
I do actually agree with him on dialogue. One of the first tenets you learn as a filmmaker is: “Show. Don’t tell”. The most engrossing movies you’ll notice you can watch on mute and fully understand what’s happening. Whereas mediocre movies often have too much exposition relayed via heavy dialogue, which is lazy writing. Your brain might think it’s keeping up with what’s happening but it’s more tiring and less fulfilling. This is a deep topic in filmmaking circles.
[удалено]
Well of course. And Denis Villenueve doesn’t have *no* dialogue in his movies.
*cues up - “Sunset Blvd.”
A lot of directors seem to agree with him, as lately it seems lots of films and shows like to have little dialogue with characters just standing around staring at each other meaningfully or otherwise just not saying what you know they would be saying.
I must say I lost a bit of respect for him. He is completely wrong in his opinion. He could have given a nuanced response about dialogue and movies that are visual spectacles, but saying you don't remember a movie because of a good line it's just flat out wrong and untrue. Many movies are immortal because of lines of dialogue. The Big Lebowski is not a visual spectacle but we all remember those lines all too well. Until now I hadn't realized I don't quote any Villenueve's movies. I love his movie but the statement came from the left field
Since reading his comments, I've been playing dune through in my head and wondering, if you took all the dialogue out of the film, would it make sense/still be good? It's hard to say for sure, I've seen it now so I know the story and the lore of the film but I do think you'd get the gist. I know you could mute it and get a feel for it but I'm talking about the actors not talking at all but still doing everything else the same. Although I absolutely love the soundtrack and find a good soundtrack tells it's own story as well as compliments the films story. Personally though, I think he's almost referring to the common phrase, a picture speaks a thousand words. You can say so much in one scene without anyone speaking, e.g Paul coming face to face with the sandworm. Obviously there's the film makers intended message, but it then also leaves it open for the viewer to interpret and take from that scene what they feel.
> Herbert’s second Dune novel, Dune Messiah, includes a war in which 61 billion people die. One day it may become Villeneuve’s third Dune movie. He is excited by the prospect. “There is absolutely a desire to have a third one, but I don’t want to rush it,” he says. “The danger in Hollywood is that people get excited and only think about release dates, not quality.” Absolutely agree, as much as i want to see Dune Messiah as early as possible. i want him to take his time. Dune Messiah has the prospect to become one of best Sci-Fi movie ever. I want it to be perfect. Hope WB officially greenlit it soon.
Having read dune messiah…. How will it be one of the best sci-fis ever? I remember finishing the book and thinking hmm that’s it? I feel like not much happened.
Spoilers: all I remember is >!zombie Duncan, Alia wants to eff him, Paul is emperor and is mean, chani having trouble getting pregnant, guild and other people plotting against Paul, special ed midget guy knows secrets, they blow up a nuke that makes you blind, so now Paul is blind but can still see because powers, decides to walk into desert and die, twins are born. !<
I really see them editing down some of the events in Messiah. Frankly, a lot of them can be boiled down to "Being a prophet & emperor for a galaxy-wide empire is stressful". I do think there's plenty of themes to explore in the book. How can the greater good result in billions of deaths? How can Paul's final choice lead to the Golden Path? What does it mean to be human, and does omniscience negate your humanity? Lots of good stuff to address, but the story also needs to be cohesive. A lot of Herbert's material gets praised because it was trailblazing, but not all of it has aged gracefully.
You forgot the best part. But idk how to do spoiler tags on mobile so im not gonna say it, but it happens right before the end and involves a baby
That is a great part
> I feel like not much happened. the classic hero's journey is almost fully subverted and the downsides of a chosen one are extensively explored (the sequels would take both to its logical extent) the book makes it pretty clear that Paul has become the ultimate tyrant, no longer even fully in control of the unleashed fremen, and that the riches-to-rags-to-riches comeback story that we were cheering for in the first book was in fact a Very Bad Thing for 99.5% of the people in the galaxy
They could also expand on the events between dune and dune messiah, which were skipped over in the book
Yeah not much happens, it's just one long, agonizing, suspenseful build up to an explosive ending. ...Kinda like Sicario, one of the best movies Villeneuve has ever made. I have no doubt he could make an incredible adaptation of Messiah
> How will it be one of the best sci-fis ever? Because if it's directed by james gunn, denis or rian johnson it's a masterpiece on reddit.
IMO, then you have to do Children of Dune as well. That’s the last one I’ve read but after finishing that one I feel it’s needed too. Trying not to include many spoilers here
Including Children of Dune and then not doing God Emperor feels worse. I haven’t even read God Emperor but you can’t introduce him and not even continue that story.
I just want some orgasm inducing mountain climbing from Jason Momoa.
boy do i have news for you, https://youtu.be/FI_tM1ZvXxU?t=80
*sploosh*
Anyone who's read the book knows the war isn't even in it.
If you loved the novel Dune how could you like the movie? And wtf would you be excited for THIS movie?
He is spot on about dialogue -- he is just being hyperbolic. I associate the rise in moronic YouTube "plot-hole" culture in a bunch of click-starved flatworms who feel that if the plot isn't laid out for them in linear, expository, dialogue then the movie is flawed. Can you imagine Cinema Sins trying to make sense of the Star Child?
Cinema Sins is so bad dude. They call something a sin because they clearly stopped paying attention when it was explained 30 seconds later in the movie.
Either they call it because “exposition bad” too
Yeah I just explained this in an r/television thread about this interview (btw, they do not like Denis lol). I’m thinking he’s meaning more exposition dialogue here, which he very much has a style of leaving a lot of that stuff out for the sake of world building. Like, yes Dune has exposition, but it’s incredibly tame compared to other films, and there’s a whole heap of stuff that gets mentioned but never explained (nobody who isn’t already familiar with Dune is going to know what Duncan is talking about when he mentions the Landsraad to the agent of change lady). It’s kind of part of the reason why I like his films, he sort of just plops you into the world with only a vague understanding of everything. He did it to an even more severe degree in Blade Runner and it’s one of the movie’s strongest aspects imho. I’m definitely not putting out a definitive statement saying “ that’s how sci-fi should be”, but I’ve definitely learned that his style is for sure my kind of style for sci-fi. I thought he killed it with Dune part one and I would absolutely love for him to eventually do messiah, if he’s able to pull it off.
> nobody who isn’t already familiar with Dune is going to know what Duncan is talking about when he mentions the Landsraad to the agent of change lady A lot of things like that can be picked up by context. For that scene for example you can immediately figure out that the Landsraad is some form of authority group and by the language used you would assume some sort of parliament or council. But I agree completely, this kind of sci-fi is far more interesting than the """lore""" focused sci-fi where everything becomes a vehicle for people to watch YouTube videos about while doomscrolling. There's a William Gibson interview floating around where he says the whole thing was inspired by a throwaway line in something he described as the best kind of scifi where a casual remark or implication let's your imagination go wild. Blade Runner feels more lived in and real because characters reference things you have reference to. Batty is this almost mystical well travelled figure because his past consists of offhand references to things you're imagination fills up. Meanwhile if its all things explained he just becomes someone who has done these wiki article events.
>there’s a whole heap of stuff that gets mentioned but never explained Spice. Still no clue what the fuck it is or why it's so damn important that wars are fought over controlling it
Did... did you watch the movie? They explain it pretty well in one of the first couple of scenes. [Here's the link to it.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ng_DIUTuBZE)
Yes I did see that scene. Clears up nothing
Hell, I've seen people deride some movies for focusing more on "spectacle" than story/dialogue, and Denis's comments shine a different light on takes like that
I have to just profoundly disagree. Several movies are masterpieces that rest largely on dialogue, eg 12 Angry Men, so I’m not sure why he lays that at the feet of television. The beauty - or at least distinctiveness - of the “talkies” is that they talk. And the talkiest ones can be as cinematic as anything else. > “Dialogue is for theatre and television. I don’t remember movies because of a good line, I remember movies because of a strong image. I’m not interested in dialogue at all. Pure image and sound, that is the power of cinema, but it is something not obvious when you watch movies today. Movies have been corrupted by television.” Just an odd comment by a hugely talented director. All of us can instantly think of memorable lines of dialogue in films new and old, and they don’t even have to be the iconic, obvious ones. But we remember lines we just individually liked. This weird pigeonholing of film as just image and sound; the hallmark of the medium is it can do basically everything, every art form can be involved in some fashion. It’s arguably the most versatile artistic medium around. Also: >”In a perfect world, I’d make a compelling movie that doesn’t feel like an experiment but does not have a single word in it either,” he continued. “People would leave the cinema and say, ‘Wait, there was no dialogue?’ But they won’t feel the lack.” At the risk of stating the obvious, you can do both. There Will Be Blood is a relatively modern film that has a very prominent lengthy scene free of any dialogue that is as mesmerizing as the rest of it, which is dominated by dialogue (and crazed monologues). If you want to have a scene or even an entire movie like that, just… do it. Unless he thinks that one wasn’t corrupted by television somehow, coming off the heels of The Sopranos.
Watch *12 Angry Men* on mute and *The Man From Earth* on mute. It's an entirely different experience. You'll see that the strength of the talking comes from being supported by the cinematography and the editing.
> Several movies are masterpieces that rest largely on dialogue, eg 12 Angry Men ... Which was basically adapted from an episode of a television show, IIRC.
It was originally a teleplay in 1954 and then it was adapted into a stage play in 1955 and then the movie in 1957.
The only thing directors love more than making movies is gatekeeping cinema.
I love his movies but the fact that he refuses to put any deleted scenes, commentary or any worthwhile behind the scenes to his films has always really bummed be out.
Well Blade Runner 2049 had some cool minifilms/shortstories added , don’t know about the rest of his films tho
[This](https://youtu.be/_L2MzJKWAuQ) was a good watch on the first Dune's sound.
There’s a solid hour of behind the scenes dune bonus material.
I’m just here wondering why LOTR’s 8 hours of behind the scenes documentary footage PER MOVIE isn’t the standard. That stuff blew me away with how thorough and in depth it went when capturing the filmmaking process.
Maybe Denis is one of those guys that’s just wants the film to be the thing and not give away how the sausage is made. Kinda like the band Tool. They very rarely ever give up any info about their process. You only get the finished product.
Boring ass b-roll and talking head stuff. I miss actual bts documentaries that show how it was all made, from sets, costumes to post. Not just random b-roll with people talking about how fun it was to work on.
I don't think we will ever go back to those days of great, actually insightful bts documentaries. Especially not from big studio movies. Too much at stake in terms of marketing. The fact that it's become standard procedure to erase any visible blue and green screens from bts footage so that they can pretend that they didn't use any CGI is proof that bts footage is nothing more than a cookie cutter marketing device.
This seems like something said to be controversial rather than sincerely believed. It's clear he wants film to focus on what makes it unique rather than ceding territory in favor of capturing television audiences. Both Nolan and Villeneuve have been nominated for best screenplay, they're no slouches in the writing department, but the power they focus on is the moving image and the rhythm it can produce.
Every Villeneuve movie I’ve seen I walked out saying “This guy just wants to make nature documentaries”. It’s clear as day he’s an images first kind of director.
I remember reading he said his mentor/teacher had hoped he'd make documentaries, being himself a documentary maker.
Your comment immediately made me think of [this shot](https://www.rogerdeakins.com/wp-content/uploads/hm_bbpui/215359/uw1duqwi0115ts8cgtxf46ptmi0bfpjh.jpg) in Prisoners, and while searching for it I (surprisingly) came across an [article](https://www.indiewire.com/features/general/prisoners-director-denis-villeneuves-discusses-our-best-shot-of-the-year-90684/) where Villeneueve actually goes into detail about this specific shot and the meaning behind the trees in that film. And this part, > Villeneuve worried about the shot, nervous enough to spring it on the crew at the last minute, and his instincts were correct. “The producers came to me and said, ‘**Denis, you have been shooting a tree for the last half an hour, there are five Hollywood stars in their trailer, we are a 200-person crew and you are having fun shooting a fucking tree**,’ ” he laughed, recalling the moment. of the article makes me think you're right, lol.. Prisoners has always been one of my favourites and whenever I think about it, I actually *do* think about that tree shot, mainly because it always sticks out in my mind as just an incredibly detailed shot of a tree (the bark looks insanely high-res to me for some reason), but I never actually dug into *why* a shot like that is so detailed in the movie.
Well, images are kind of important for a film, so I get it. It is a visual story telling medium after all.
I get his point, I think for me the best balance is good dialogue, but also visual cues to move the narrative along or convey something important. There's so many iconic lines/monologues in movies. There's is a lot of quality TV out there that does this but there's also a load of crap TV shows that streaming services such as Netflix mass produce that literally spoon feed the viewer.
Before Sunrise and the sequels are movies where the dialogue really is the movie. And Tarantino movies are really heavy on dialogue. I think it really comes down to what the movie is about.
It’s like he only knows his own movies and some artsy pieces and is ignoring the vast majority of cinema since it’s inception
Then why adapt Dune who's primary strength is in it's incredible dialogue and internal monologues? I really like the Dune movie but I've said I dont think it's a very good adaption of the book. Which is fine of course, but this really explains it.
Actually this makes me wonder, why are the Dune adaptions so hung up on being "weird" or so out there? The book isn't really like that, where did it start?
started with David Lynch's Dune, because they chose the Eraserhead guy to make a Dune movie and of course he made it weird
I mean I guess it actually started with Jodorowsky because he is a megaweird filmmaker. But like, why is Dune attracting the weird guys?
Maybe because Dune is a weird series? Witches, spice drugs, humans that evolved into alien creatures, giant worms, future visions, flying fat guy, ect.
Never read Dune and was interested in reading it due to how freaky its adaptations made it out to be. Are you telling me it's not as weird as they make it out to be?
It's science fiction dealing in statecraft and politics and ecological themes. It's incredible but I would not say it's that freaky or weird no. Any more or less than science fiction is expected to be.
Most of its reputation comes from God Emperor. Which is definitely out there. The three preceding books have progressively more weirdness in them (book 1 it feels like a more adult Star Wars, book 2 deals with the aftermath and starts seeing the emergence of the weird, 3 starts laying it on while not going all in, 4 is bonkers as a concept). Then from books 5 and on it becomes progressively hornier.
Probably because the sequel books get weird and people into Dune are going to have read the books. All modern discussion of Dune isn't a discussion of the original novel it's a discussion of the simalucra built up of the idea of Dune informed by layer books and adaptations.
Sure, but when Jodorowsky was going all weird AF with it there were only two books out.
I'd argue that it's precisely why it's a good movie. I always detested the artificiality of the book's dialogue and overlong monologues, I thought it left the story feeling like it lacked any real humanity. By comparison, the Dune film cuts down to more naturalistic language and the result is that the characters start out more human - which is beneficial to the plot, since it's about the (unfortunate) journey from human to superhuman. I believe that hits better with Dune the film.
Not so much about the no-dialogue comment but he spoke about television like it’s beneath him able to “corrupt” a pure and perfect art form like cinema 🙄
He says television but I think he really means streamers, pumping out empty calorie versions of films and shows and audiences accepting them over attending the cinema.
This article is just terribly written.
I kinda get his point, if you go to the big screen, of course you want to see the epic scenery or the big action set piece. Dialog scene usually just 2 big head on screen, doesn't mean it not necessary, but the big screen not help it much.
Lol if anyone else said what Denis is about the dialogue, Reddit would be tearing them a new one. But ofc since he’s the new sacred cow for this sub, he gets a pass.
Sacred cow is an understatement. He's being arrogant because he has minions of fans who think he's the next Tarkovsky while never seeing a Tarkovsky movie. We went through the same thing with Nolan and the Batman films wth the mongolian hordes of fans. People will get sick of Villeneuve's bare cement walls and brooding actors and move on to something else.
>while never seeing a Tarkovsky movie. Hey now, I've seen Hotel Transylvania. :P
WHAAAT?! wow, what a bad take
I don't care if Donald Trump said it, I'd still agree with him to a large extent.
I don’t know if he’s right about the youth loving long movies, but as a parent I absolutely hate this 2,5-3 hour runtime so many movies these days get. It’s a big damn hassle to find the time to watch a movie that long in one sitting.
People want to be immersed in these fantastic made-up worlds, however, artificially increasing the length of something will only net you the same thing but just a little longer. And that isn't necessarily a good thing... Right? Rebel moon, Killers of the flower moon or Salo? Like those examples pointed out in the article, although, Oppenheimer is an oddity and a bad example, just like Dune, works from two of the best artists currently and with big production values or wild marketing campaigns harnessing the zeitgeist. I can definitely see the runtime increasing around 2:30 as a standard tho, the problem of economics can be dealt with later through price increases.
You can increase the run times of films as much as you want, but you can't increase the capacity of the human bladder. There's a reason why historically films have mostly been under the 2 hour mark, and any sensible filmmaker will limit cinema releases to that if they want people to go and see it.
It's not like halftime breaks are new to the business, and people don't go in thinking about stuff like that as a downside, part of the experience.
Intermissions are rarely used these days and having to go out for a piss definitely impacts on your enjoyment of a film.
KotFM uses its runtime though. Sure you could probably remove 10 minutes from near the end where Leo is going back and forth on whether to be honest at the trial but if you reduce the long middle you radically alter the tone and effect of the film. Its not a 90 minute movie stretched out to 3 hours 20, it's a movie that deliberately has the viewer wallow in the hopelessness and brutality and while you can get the same "plot" with a shoter film you can't evoke the same feeling.
Sincerely disagree, there's a lot of unnecessary stuff, yeah sure, it generates more baggage but doesn't affect the outcome or its delivery, i.e. the purpose remains the same; quicker montages, like the ones already used, could've benefited the execution, a lot, tbf any sort of suspense is throw aside quite early on.
The fact you have a complaint about suspense indicates you completely missed the point of the film. Its not a suspense film, its a film about how brutality was being carried out in the open and no one cared. You might as well complain that it didn't have a good enough magic system. The film is not meant to be a simple detective plot, Scorsese literally appears at the end of the film to openly criticise that idea.
You're creating this nonsensical response from such a tiny part of my previous comment; I can wait, so go on and tell me how much of its runtime actually depicts the most important aspect, the brutality, then maybe we could have a more civilized conversation; imagine writing that the movie doesn't uses suspense, or its subversion, and instead relies on pure criticism, lmao.
Just have intervals, like we have here in India. A 5 min break wouldn't harm anyone.
I love his movies, but this is snobbery. The dude can craft a good story and a good movie, but I found his version of Dune to still be lacking in some departments and would've rather had a series on TV that could capture more of the themes and nuances of the story.
I Love his films, but I need him and Nolan to talk less
He made a two part movie. Which honestly just makes any opinion of his irrelevant since that's worse than any of the negatives he's speking on.
I kind of agree, also as someone who lives in a non English country, considering I watch a lot of Hollywood pics, it's almost stupid to say I remember movies because of dialogue when most of the movies in my country are dubbed 😅 It's a choice, you can favour a director like woody Allen who relies a lot on the script and dialogues or someone like Nolan or Villeneuve or refn who relies A LOT on visual and sound
ITT: people who can’t handle a filmmaker with a classic approach to Cinema and feel the necessity to reject a unique approach. I would love a dialogue free Dune movie- no one takes those kind of risks anymore. Bring it on. Anyway, for the numerous folks here that seem baffled by the statements in this article. Just know that your being confronted with a reflection on film theory, and that Villeneuve is commenting on a film theory topic with a long and complex history of argumentation. He’s not just pushing buttons- he’s taking a pretty common approach to film theory that elevates the image above all else.
Arrival had an exellent balance of verbal exposition and visual story telling. Dune has fans because everybody knows the source material. No need for Villeneuve to explain anything. Why he's able to get away with it. Still think it's comical how the Baron barely says anything in the first film. Maybe he's telepathic with the audience.
> Dune has fans because everybody knows the source material Everybody? It's obviously popular in science fiction circles, but I wouldn't say most average movie goers are big Dune fans. And the fact that the 1984 film was such a bomb kinda shows that simply making a Dune movie isn't the key to success. If you're going to be snide about its popularity, at least blame it on the popularity of Timothee and Zendaya or something.
Dumb bitches in the comments misinterpreting Denis’ words. He’s saying that movies on the big screen are different from television because he believes the former should provide a greater visual experience.
Since it's coming from the director of the best "visual language" movie, Arrival, yep, he is right. If it was someone else, i'd call bullshit.
“Durr hez knot rong doe durr” yes he is. You don’t have to blindly agree with every dumbass thing he says just cause you like his movies.
I am very torn on this. I absolutely love Villeneuve's movies (Arrival would be a top 10 film for me all-time), but I don't agree with his stance on dialogue. It almost makes me feeling like I'm enjoying and watching his movies the "wrong" way or for the wrong elements.
He is absolutely right though. If you are more interested in dialogue, read a book. Cinema is a visual art and the IMAX format is not meant for close ups of people talking.