Being able to sum up your own stories succinctly isn't an insult to their complexity. It means you understand what they are really about.
The mere fact that David Lynch's Dune was made at all, and in the Hollywood of the early 1980s to boot, is something of a miracle. Would that it was a better adaptation of the source material, or just a better movie, period.
Why this business of personal heroes may well be a bad idea.
On interpretation: "The experience of grappling with the thing is what makes it interesting."
How to figure out if your way is in fact a dead end.
On the art of the hatchet job, and on negative criticism generally.
The skin of a story, and what lies under it, in SF and elsewhere.
"... real talent manifests itself not in a writer's affectation but 'in the exactness of his observation [and] the justice of his situations.'"
Eraserhead is best seen, not described. And yet, in the fifteen years since first seeing David Lynch’s first feature film, thanks to a tape from a local rental place, I’ve tried to do just that over and over again for...
Here's a dichotomy for you: As entertainment, or an adaptation of a novel, or anything vaguely resembling a watchable movie, Dune just plain sucks -- but as some kind of freaky '70s-throwback movie-art head-trip experience, it's only paralleled even moderately...