David Lynch Announced a 4-Hour Version of “Dune” in 1986
So, why didn’t the director’s cut ever come out on video?
Perhaps, you’ve heard about what happened behind the scenes of Dune (1984), the big-budget epic sci-fi flop directed by arthouse surrealist David Lynch. You might’ve heard that Lynch essentially disowned Dune because he never had the right of final cut and so was unable to realize his true vision. You also might’ve heard claims that he always hated the final product, to the point that he tried to take his name off of it and repeatedly rejected offers to make a director’s cut for home video.
What you probably haven’t heard is that there was a brief period in the mid-1980s when Lynch was enthusiastic about revisiting Dune and actively attempted to make a 4-hour-long extended version of the film for the rising videotape market. Unfortunately, plans for this revisionist authorial cut ultimately fell apart, and the writer-director subsequently stopped talking about it, as though it was never in development in the first place.
In this article, I will trace the history of the Lynch director’s cut that could’ve been and outline what I believe were the main reasons it never really got off the ground. In the process, I hope to discredit some of the pervading myths about Dune that have become widely accepted as fact.
The Director’s Cut of David Lynch’s Dune
Released in December 1984, Dune bombed at the box office, reportedly grossing less than $31 million against a reported $40 million budget. The film also had a predominantly negative cultural reception, making it both a critical and commercial flop.
In May 1985, however, Dune came out on videotape. The VHS release courtesy of MCA Home Video — MCA being the parent company of Universal Studios at the time — meant the film now had a second chance to find an audience. This occurred as the videotape market was starting to be seen as a legitimate source of revenue for Hollywood feature films, with some titles reportedly making their money back following an unsuccessful theatrical run.
September 19, 1986 saw the theatrical release of Blue Velvet — the first film directed by David Lynch since Dune. During the press rounds for his new work, Lynch revealed that there were now plans to develop a new 4-hour version of Dune for videotape.*
*While Lynch never specifically refers to the new cut in these early 80s interviews as a “director’s cut” — the term had not yet become formally associated with the post-theatrical video version preferred by the director over the theatrical release — I will be terming it as such from this point forward.
The earliest source I’ve found on this is a Variety article by Richard Gold. According to it, Lynch was somewhat disappointed with how Universal promoted Dune at the time it came out in theaters and was now crediting home video with improving the film’s reception. This, in addition to his feeling that the theatrical version simply wasn’t long enough, was a rationale behind his interest in releasing a longer cut.
“Lynch feels subsequent homevideo exposure for “ Dune “ has resulted in the film “getting a better reputation,” and he also believes the 140-minute running time was not sufficient to do justice to the story. He reveals serious plans are in the works to release a four-hour videocassette version of “ Dune,” which will present a radically different version of the film, he says.”
- Source: Variety, 24 Sept. 1986, 5–28.
That Lynch wanted a 4-hour version on tape was corroborated by a later October 31, 1986 article by Richard Lormand for the Chicago Tribune:
By far, the most detailed source that I’ve found on the subject is an Oct. 1988 Twilight Zone magazine article by James Verniere called “American Primitive.”
Here are the relevant passages (p.49):
TZ: Dune is already released on videotape. But I’ve heard that you’re planning to release a re-edited, four-and-a-half-hour version.
LYNCH: That’s right. It’s in the works, but whether or not it’ll happen has yet to be seen. As Raphaella DeLaurentiis [former head of DeLaurentiis Entertainment Group and the producer of Dune] and I used to say, Dune was our baby, but it didn’t turn out so good. So now we’re going to give it an operation. It’s like Eraserhead in that respect.
TZ: Looking back on it, what kind of reaction did you have to the drubbing Dune took from the critics?
LYNCH: It was a nightmare, but the film’s reputation has gotten better and better since then, so there’s a lot of interest in a larger version. But you really “die the death” at the time, I’ll tell you…
Though the article was published in October 1988, there is evidence that the interview was conducted several months prior. For one thing, at no point in the interview does the subject of the Dune television version, which Lynch had disowned at the time of its premiere at the end of May 1988, ever come up. For another, it refers to the ‘recent’ release of the film Zelly and Me (dir. Tina Rathbone), where Lynch had starred as an actor. The film premiered on January 23, 1988 at Sundance and subsequently received a wide release in April 15, 1988. It is unclear which release date the film is referring to but all these signs indicate that the interview — assuming it had not been composited from several different interviews conducted over different time periods — had been conducted in Spring 1988 prior to the TV version’s release.
It follows that Lynch had not cut ties with Dune at this point and was seeking to capitalize on the resurgent interest in the picture alongside producer Raffaella DeLaurentiis to realize his vision on video. The release of an official alternate cut could not be undertaken without the distributor’s participation. So, Lynch’s statement that the new version was “in the works” can be taken to mean that he and DeLaurentiis were still negotiating with Universal and MCA Home Video to get the director’s cut produced for and distributed on VHS. A deal had not apparently been struck yet, with Lynch voicing the possibility that it might not actually happen.
Since the initial publication of this article, I have located three additional interviews with Lynch that discuss the 4-hour cut and clarify the timeline of the project. You can read the relevant quotes and my analysis of them here.
Notably, Lynch’s proposed duration for the director’s cut differs from what sources claim Lynch had personally intended for the theatrical release.
According to journalist Christine McKenna:
“Lynch’s intended cut, as reflected in the seventh draft of the script, was almost three hours.”
- Source: Room to Dream (New York: Random House, 2019), 183.
This is corroborated by editor Antony Gibbs in the 2003 documentary Impressions of Dune:
“David wanted a three-hour movie and Dino wanted a two-hour movie, and Dino won.”
From this, one can infer that Lynch had desired to take advantage of the freedom allotted by the home video format to expand on his original vision, which undoubtedly had to take into account the commercial restrictions of theatrical exhibition.
In other words, the “director’s cut” that he planned for video wouldn’t have been identical to the director’s cut that would’ve come out in theaters. In order to produce it, Lynch would need to restore approximately 103 minutes of unseen footage to the theatrical version.
The logical assumption is that he planned to use an early unfinished 4.5–5 hour workprint of Dune that was said to have screened in Mexico City as the basis of the new cut. There can be little doubt that, unlike the rough cut, the post-theatrical director’s cut was planned to be a ‘complete’ and ‘finished’ version, with finalized editing, sound mixing, effects, etc.
The Disappearance of the Director’s Cut
Despite the promising statements made by Lynch in Fall 1986, the planned 4-hour video version of Dune would never materialize, and nobody involved with the director’s cut project — to my knowledge, in any case — would ever speak about how and why it had fallen apart.
In fact, following the publication of the aforementioned Twilight Zone article in Oct. 1988, neither Lynch, nor producer Raffaella De Laurentiis would even admit that it had been in development in the first place. For instance, consider what Lynch states in response to Chris Rodley’s queries about a Dune director’s cut in an interview conducted in 1993–1996.
Were there ever any longer, ‘director’s cut’ versions of Dune?
“There was a much longer version that we screened in Mexico City. It was either four and a half, or five hours and fifteen minutes, or something like that. But it wasn’t a final version… It was a workprint picture with all the effects missing. That’s the only long version that existed.”
- Source: Lynch on Lynch Revised Edition (London: Faber and Faber Limited, 2005), 123.
Everything that Lynch says here is technically true, for the 4-hour video version was killed before it reached a state where one could state that it “exists.” And yet, the director curiously does not acknowledge that a longer version was in development just several years prior.
Similar omissions can be seen in subsequent interviews about Dune with producer Raffaella De Laurentiis, who was — per Lynch’s own words — involved in the attempted director’s cut video release.
In a 1997 email interview conducted by Faisal A. Qureshi, De Laurentiis only ever mentions the 1988 television version of Dune in response to the question: “Did you ever discuss with David Lynch a chance for a re-edit? What has been his reaction?”
In an introductory video to the Dune Deleted Scenes available on the picture’s 2006 DVD release, De Laurentiis again does not mention that she and Lynch had been working a 4-hour revision in 1986–1988. Instead, she largely reiterates Lynch’s claim that the only long version of the film that had ever existed was an unfinished rough cut screened in Mexico, while relegating the idea that there is a “4-hour David Lynch cut” of Dune to a popular yet erroneous “perception.”*
*Curiously, De Laurentiis alludes at the very end to an attempt at a “4-hour version” by Universal, though it is unclear, as to what exactly she refers to. Does this mean Universal tried to make a 4-hour Lynch Cut but failed? Or is this a reference to the television version created by MCA in 1988, which runs 4 hours when counting commercials? The introduction ends at this point and no follow-up information is offered.
As of this moment of writing, it is unknown exactly why Lynch and De Laurentiis stopped talking about the unrealized 4-hour post-theatrical director’s cut after 1988. Unless someone comes forward to publicly speak on the issue we may never know how, why, and when it fell apart, or why it is now effectively forbidden to even acknowledge its development.
But if I had to guess, I would say that this has something to do with the release of Dune on broadcast television in late May-early June 1988.
The Broadcast Version
When Dune premiered as a two-part/two-night television picture on various stations and networks in the summer of 1988, it bore little resemblance to the theatrical release, having been re-edited for broadcast by Harry Tatelman, the Vice President of Special Projects at MCA-TV*
* Tatelman had been a go-to-person at MCA TV for revising other people’s work, alternatively making television productions out of theatrical films or revising television episodes to work as theatrical features. I’d recommend reading this article on him for more information.
The opening, dreamy scene with Princess Irulan (Virginia Madsen) breaking the fourth wall and welcoming the viewer to the year 10,191 was replaced by an extended prologue sequence (created by painter Jaroslav Gebr) consisting of still images from an illustrated Dune book, with a mysterious male narrator (an uncredited William Phipps) explaining in voiceover the world and various events that had occurred prior to the beginning of the story proper.
In terms of editing, what followed was a sloppy mess that, despite featuring approximately 40 minutes of new footage, was riddled with obvious repetitions of scenes or shots, as well as unfinished special effects. (Most notably, none of the Fremen have their characteristic “blue within blue” eyes — achieved via optical FX — in the previously unseen footage.)
Tellingly, the new version did not include David Lynch’s name in the opening credits. Instead, the film was now said to have been directed by “Alan Smithee” and written by “Judas Booth.” Lynch’s use of pseudonyms was effectively a message to informed viewers, critics, and other filmmakers that he was disowning the broadcast version. Why exactly did he do this?
Press articles at the time do not provide a clear answer.
“Dune’s” original director-writer David Lynch said he had nothing to do with the new “Dune” and would have done it differently.
“It’s over,” Lynch said. “I don’t want to talk about it.”
- Source: Ben Kubasik, “TV’s Vastly Re-Done `Dune,’” Newsday, 24th May 1988, 11.
A spokesman for Lynch, acknowledging Lynch has taken his name off the tv version… says he’s out of the country and has authorized no further comment.
- Source: Variety, 1 Jun. 1988, 83.
Through a rep, Lynch acknowledged only that “I was given permission to remove my name from the TV version.”
- Source: Chris Willman, “`Dune II: The Re-edit,’” Los Angeles Times, 5 Jun 1988, https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-06-05-ca-6381-story.html
Evidently, Lynch had chosen to not comment on the broadcast version or his reasons for using a pseudonym. In fact, since June 1988, he has remained virtually silent in interviews on the subject of the broadcast version, much as he has on that of the unreleased 4-hour director’s cut.
The only recent source I’ve been able to find where Lynch actually addresses the broadcast cut is the book Room to Dream. Lynch does not go into much detail here, however, and doesn’t even mention that he had removed his name from the telecast release:
“A while later they wanted to cut a television version of Dune and asked me to do it, but I said no. I’ve never seen the cut they did and never want to see it — I know they added some stuff I’d shot and put more narration on it.” (199)
What is interesting is that, while he has adopted a policy of silence when it comes to the TV version, from which he removed his name, he has been fairly outspoken in his criticism of the theatrical version, which retains his name. Indeed, in numerous interviews conducted over the last 30 years, Lynch has cited the theatrical Dune as a “terrible experience” that nonetheless taught him to never work on a picture again without securing the right to final cut. By not doing that on Dune, he had “sold out” and this ultimately led him to “die the death” a second time (the first time being when he did not get to shoot the picture as he had wanted to).
Why then is the director reluctant to speak out publicly about his experience with the broadcast version? Why will he not disclose his reasons for disowning it? To answer that, it is necessary to understand the usage of the “Alan Smithee” pseudonym.
The Silence of the Pseudonym
The specific terms, conditions, and procedures for using a pseudonym in Hollywood have changed considerably since pseudonyms were first permitted in 1969. However, the general details have remained consistent to this day. In order to use a pseudonym on a Hollywood feature film in lieu of one’s real name, a director must first receive approval to take his name off the picture from the Director’s Guild of America (DGA).*
The right to request a pseudonym is guaranteed to a director as a basic right, as outlined in the Director’s Guild of America Basic Agreement (DGA BA) Article 8. Should the director receive approval from the DGA and no dispute from his Employer — eg. the Hollywood studio distributing the picture — then the picture can be released with a pseudonym, rather than the director’s real name listed in the credits.
*Needless to say, the director must be a DGA member. David Lynch is one of numerous Hollywood filmmakers that possess DGA membership.
However, if granted permission to use a pseudonym, the director essentially gives up the rights to publicly criticize the film or version of the picture that carries the pseudonym and to discuss the reasons for requesting the pseudonym in the first place. The director might also have to waive the right to receive compensation, such as residuals, from the picture.
One can find a version of such a procedure outlined in the various samples of the DGA BA. Here is a quote from the DGA BA of 2008:
“By invoking the foregoing procedure, the Director is deemed to have agreed to refrain from publicly discussing the request for a pseudonym. As a condition for using a pseudonym, the Director must refrain from publicly criticizing the film.” (107)
From 1969 until its retirement around 2000, “Alan (or Allen) Smithee” was the only pseudonym available to the majority of Hollywood filmmakers, who believed that a theatrical picture they’d worked on did not represent their vision. It was common for a director to request it when a distributor chose to re-edit the picture without the director’s participation or against his or her wishes, and this could happen for either theatrical or non-theatrical release. Because of this, “Smithee” could appear in the credits of one version of the movie, while the director’s real name could appear in another.*
*Other alternate Smithee Cuts include the theatrical version of “Backtrack” that was retitled “Catchfire” (dir. Dennis Hopper, 1991), the broadcast version of “Heat” (dir. Michael Mann, 1995), and the airline version of “Meet Joe Black” (dir. Martin Brest, 1998).
Though I haven’t been able to find a copy of the DGA BA of 1981, a 1987 article in the Los Angeles Times by Leonard Klady more or less corroborates that the terms as outlined in the 2008 DGA BA applied at the time David Lynch had signed on to direct Dune. It states:
“ Members of the DGA are allowed only one of two credit options — their legal name or Al Smithee. There’s a whole section of the guild’s bylaws devoted to him... It states that a panel shall determine the use of the name. The same panel may decide that contingent compensation, including residuals, be waived for this consideration, and the director, in turn, agrees to refrain from public discussion of said film.”
Quite simply, any filmmaker that had chosen to use a pseudonym would be contractually bound to not disclose publicly information about the how, when, or why of the pseudonym. It was this restriction that reportedly led Martha Coolidge to not apply for a pseudonym following her experiences on Joy of Sex (1984), which was re-edited without her participation.
By taking all this into account with what happened with the 1988 television version of Dune, one can draw several conclusions.
First, it is pretty much a given that Lynch disowned the TV version because it was re-edited against his wishes and without his participation by Tatelman/MCA-TV. He did not do this strictly because of his experience with the theatrical release, which still bears his name, even though he does not view it as truly ‘his’ movie.* Second, Lynch had to have received the approval of the DGA in order to use a pseudonym on the TV version, which means he likely had seen the broadcast version and then notified both Universal/MCA and the DGA of his intention to remove his name.
Third, by removing his name from the Broadcast Version, Lynch had effectively sworn to never publicly criticize this version and to never discuss the reasons for using the pseudonym. So, Lynch’s silence on the TV re-editing of the picture is essentially a byproduct of his decision to remove his name from that version in the first place.
* Notably, there are conflicting accounts as to how and why Lynch was not involved, or whether he was even aware of the project before it was produced. I am hoping to possibly discuss this more in-depth in another article.
Inferences about the unreleased director’s cut
Having provided an overview of the broadcast version and the “Allen Smithee” pseudonym, I will now attempt to put the disparate pieces of information together to explain what happened to the director’s cut and why Lynch stopped talking about it. I will tackle the latter point first. Please note that the following is only a theory.
Lynch had stopped talking about the director’s cut right around the same time he stopped talking about the Broadcast Version. Neither alternate cut of the picture could’ve been made without the participation of Universal/MCA. Assuming that the Twilight Zone interview had indeed been conducted prior to the release of the Broadcast version, Lynch must’ve been in negotiations to produce the director’s cut as late as Spring 1988.
The Broadcast Version was released just later that Summer, indicating that the director’s cut project fell apart between sometime between the end of January and the beginning of June.
Based on all this, I believe that Lynch stopped talking about the unrealized director’s cut for the same reason he’s been silent about the broadcast version–publicly talking about the director’s cut would somehow violate the conditions of his DGA agreement. That is, it could require disclosing how and why he chose to go with the “Alan Smithee” pseudonym that appears on the broadcast version, landing him in potential hot water with the DGA, as well as potentially opening himself up to legal action.*
*To date, I haven’t found any definitive confirmation that filmmakers that have broken the “Smithee” embargo, such as Dennis Hopper and Martin Brest, have had to face legal repercussions for speaking out. However, there are signs that, as a consequence of Hopper’s breaking his embargo on “Backtrack” (1991), Artisan Entertainment was later able to reissue the Alan Smithee Cut of the film, which had been theatrically released as “Catchfire,” with Hopper’s original title and his name reinstated in the credits. This suggests that, if Lynch were to ever speak publicly about his taking his name off the “Dune” Broadcast Version and its connection to the unreleased director’s cut, then Universal could reissue the disowned TV Cut with Lynch’s name back in the credits.
This strongly suggests that there was some sort of causal connection between the development of the Lynch version and the TV version. Perhaps, at the time Lynch entered negotiations with MCA, he wanted do a 4-hour video version, while MCA wanted a 3-hour TV version (not counting commercials). The two projects were in competition, with the latter winning out. Or, perhaps the director’s cut fell apart but Universal then decided to capitalize on the extra footage they had by taking it to TV.*
*Of course, none of this can possibly be correct if the Oct. 1988 Twilight Zone interview was indeed conducted after the premiere of the Broadcast Version that Summer. If this were the case, then it would mean Lynch’s negotations with MCA/Universal for the director’s cut were not impacted by the “Smithee” cut’s release and the project fell apart sometime later, meaning no direct connection between the two versions exists.
Whatever the actual link between the two projects is, if it exists at all, one thing is certain: Universal/MCA in the end chose not to go forward with the Lynch Director’s Cut yet ended up producing the Broadcast/Allen Smithee Version. Naturally, this begs the question: “Why?”
Once again, I can only provide a theory. And my theory is that the decision came down to financial considerations.
There can be little doubt that Lynch had desired the 4-hour cut to function as a complete film — that is, a fully watchable picture with finalized post-production — and one that could be seen and experienced in high quality on VHS.* Restoring 103 minutes of footage, much of which lacked finished special visual effects, would therefore constitute a highly ambitious and expensive undertaking. I estimate that it would likely require a few million dollars (in 1980s currency) to properly finish the new cut.
* Lynch’s general attitude is that a film needs to experienced as a single immersive whole, and he’s been heavily involved in the home video releases of his movies to ensure they live up to the highest standards of quality. He also has a history of necessitating the completion of post-production elements, such as editing, music, sound mixing, color correction, etc. on deleted scenes from his films, such as in the cases of “Blue Velvet” (1986) and “Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me” (1992), before permitting their release.
Producing an extended television cut, by contrast, would require considerably less expenditures and so mean a larger return on investment for Universal. This went in hand with the fact MCA-TV and/or Harry Tatelman, as reported in a New York Times article called “Movies are Revised for TV Showings,” had developed a strategy in 1978 that entailed extending the runtimes of theatrical features so that they could be broadcast over two nights.
- This could be achieved by reinserting deleted footage for broadcast, shooting additional footage for broadcast after a film’s theatrical run, or shooting additional material during a film’s production with the intention of using it in an extended broadcast version in the future.
- Titles expanded in this way include: Two Minute Warning (1976, dir. Larry Peerce), Airport 77 (1977, dir. Jerry Jameson), MacArthur (1977, dir. Joseph Sargent), and Earthquake (1974, dir. Mark Robson).
The commercial logic behind this practice was rather simple: a standard two-hour theatrical film could be sold to a network on average for $2.5–5 million. So, an extended 3-hour cut of a two-hour theatrical feature would allow the company to charge stations and networks a higher licensing fee.
Thus, my conclusion is: whether or not the extended broadcast cut was in direct competition with the extended video version, Universal/MCA had deemed Lynch’s planned 4-hour director’s cut to be prohibitively expensive and so chose to pass on it. And this, coupled with the decision to greenlight the Tatelman cut, must have killed whatever interest Lynch had in revisiting the movie.*
* Again, I must reiterate that I don’t know this to be a fact. So I hold out hope that one day Lynch will indeed open up about what happened to the director’s cut between 1986 and 1988 and set the record straight.
Conclusion
Lynch likes to say that he “died the death” on Dune twice. I think it is more accurate to say that he died the death thrice: the third time he died was when his aspirations for final cut on video fell apart and the picture was re-edited yet again by someone else.
If Lynch had managed to get his version of Dune out on video, it might’ve been a landmark title in the history of alternate cuts, perhaps sitting alongside Lawrence of Arabia and Blade Runner. It might’ve helped retroactively legitimize Dune as a true David Lynch film — at least in the editorial sense — and a legitimately great arthouse blockbuster of the 80s.
As it stands, the fabled 4-hour Dune director’s cut ultimately remains the dream of many ardent cinephiles and fans. But for a brief period in the second half of the 80s, it could’ve become a reality.
I want to thank Dune Info for maintaining an excellent collection of behind-the-scenes articles that have helped make this piece a reality.
If you are interested in learning more, please take a look at the follow-up I posted on my Substack publication, which cites 3 additional interviews with Lynch on the 4-hour cut of Dune and expands on the mystery of the broadcast version:
