“A bit more camp”: the 1984 movie Sting called a “misunderstood masterpiece”
It’s always been a challenge for a well-established musician to jump ship and suddenly try to gain respect in the film world. Look at anyone who has attempted to do just that recently, and you’ll see that it’s no easy game. Sting is no different, having collected a handful of acting credits at the peak of fame in the 1980s, one being David Lynch’s 1984 classic Dune.
To Sting’s credit, there was no reason for him to have such a role in Lynch’s action epic other than the fact that it was Lynch directing. In Sting’s eyes, any opportunity to work with the quirky filmmaker was a no-brainer. In fact, he even once said as much, telling Rolling Stone, “I’m doing Dune because of [Lynch] and for no other reason.”
He also said that he went along “dragging my heels” because he didn’t actually want to be in a movie quite as big, but that Lynch’s name being plastered all over it was enough for him to effectively put up and shut up. Suppose it’s just as well that he wasn’t that bothered about the project itself, though, given that it achieved nowhere near the same level of cult status as its Timothée Chalamet-fronted reboot not 40 years later.
In fact, despite not boasting the likes of Patrick Stewart, Sting, or Kyle MacLachlan in Denis Villeneuve’s Dune, both share many of the same characters and themes, with Austin Butler stepping into the same shoes as Sting all those moons ago. Playing Sting’s role as the cunning Feyd-Rautha, Butler essentially transformed the entire character, creating an iconic sci-fi villain that gave the entire instalment its edge.
By contrast, Sting’s portrayal was a little more controversial, some claiming it to be the perfect portrayal of the psychopathic character and others saying he went far too over-the-top to be taken seriously. However, considering the cultural contexts, with Sting playing into the familiar rock-star archetype and Butler giving a more quintessential cinematic edge, the two really can’t be compared in a way that indicates which is better than the other.
For starters, Lynch’s Dune already has a reputation as one of the rare ‘flops’ in his filmography, immediately placing it at a disadvantage. People might not always be the biggest fans of Villeneuve’s franchise, but the 1984 film is certainly more often dismissed as a try-hard sci-fi adventure epic that did little to actually pull off the mechanics to bring Frank Herbert’s 1965 novel to life.
However, those campy elements were, according to Sting, what made them “misunderstood masterpieces”. As he later discussed, Lynch’s vision worked because it was its own thing, and it incorporated elements of humour and quirkiness that Villeneuve’s more serious adaptation lacks. He enjoyed the reimagined versions, of course, and even praised the talents of Butler and how he put his own spin on the character of Feyd-Rautha.
But he ultimately said that Lynch’s versions were more special. “I think our movie was funnier,” he said. “Had a bit more camp, and I think it was a misunderstood masterpiece. Not because of me, but because of David Lynch. I think people will look back on it and see something that they hadn’t seen originally.”
In some ways, he might be right. After all, there’s far more discourse now than ever about whether Lynch’s 1984 classic is more symptomatic of accidental genius than a poor reimagining of Herbert’s sci-fi novel. Some even say it’s now unironically one of the greatest epics ever made, and yet, it still gets overlooked largely due to the ongoing noise generated by Villeneuve.
