Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Normal
Dune: Part 2I have conflicting feelings about this movie. That's not down to any particular flaws, though I don't think it reaches the same heights as part 1, but rather because it makes me drastically reassess a story that I've known in various forms for decades.The 1984 movie is how I've experienced it dozens of times since I was a child. Setting aside Lynch's stylistic quirks, perhaps the most significant change it made from the novel is how it smoothes out and simplifies Paul's arc, painting him as a hero who seeks retribution for his wronged family and freedom for his adopted homeworld. That coloured my experience of reading the novel for the first time many years later, as did the inherent power of perspective bias that influences the reader to agree with a story's protagonist. In both the novel and the 1984 movie, Paul rarely faces a significant voice speaking against him from his own camp. Granted, the situation in Dune Messiah is different, but that's after the story jumps ahead over a decade.[SPOILER="Dune: Part 2 spoilers"]Dune: Part 2 makes a major change to the power dynamics by turning Chani from a passive love interest to a vocal opponent of the Bene Gesserit prophecy. The further Paul walks down the path of prophecy, the more it drives a wedge between them. So while much of the climax of the movie plays out in a familiar way on the macro level of conflicts between factions, it amps up Paul's eventual turn to prophetic fervour and the impact that change in him has on Chani. This made me finally look beyond the battle for freedom on Arrakis and realise that, for the galaxy as a whole, Paul's ascension to the imperial throne is a nihilistic case of "meet the new tyrant, same as the old tyrant."[/SPOILER]
Dune: Part 2
I have conflicting feelings about this movie. That's not down to any particular flaws, though I don't think it reaches the same heights as part 1, but rather because it makes me drastically reassess a story that I've known in various forms for decades.
The 1984 movie is how I've experienced it dozens of times since I was a child. Setting aside Lynch's stylistic quirks, perhaps the most significant change it made from the novel is how it smoothes out and simplifies Paul's arc, painting him as a hero who seeks retribution for his wronged family and freedom for his adopted homeworld. That coloured my experience of reading the novel for the first time many years later, as did the inherent power of perspective bias that influences the reader to agree with a story's protagonist. In both the novel and the 1984 movie, Paul rarely faces a significant voice speaking against him from his own camp. Granted, the situation in Dune Messiah is different, but that's after the story jumps ahead over a decade.
[SPOILER="Dune: Part 2 spoilers"]Dune: Part 2 makes a major change to the power dynamics by turning Chani from a passive love interest to a vocal opponent of the Bene Gesserit prophecy. The further Paul walks down the path of prophecy, the more it drives a wedge between them. So while much of the climax of the movie plays out in a familiar way on the macro level of conflicts between factions, it amps up Paul's eventual turn to prophetic fervour and the impact that change in him has on Chani. This made me finally look beyond the battle for freedom on Arrakis and realise that, for the galaxy as a whole, Paul's ascension to the imperial throne is a nihilistic case of "meet the new tyrant, same as the old tyrant."[/SPOILER]
