While I didn't have the best time with the first movie, I quite enjoyed this one. Some of that might be attributed to the cinema experience, but to me this one felt like a payoff that the original had set up.I found it more satisfying; I felt the story was more engaging, the protagonists had stronger motivations and more agency. Maybe it was just my experience, but it felt faster and more action-packed. I thought it was more visually interesting, even though it mostly still took place in the desert.
This all makes sense of course when you remember this is the adaptation of the second half of the same book. It's quite normal for earlier parts of a story to establish the situation, the world and the characters, then for the drama to ramp up in the later parts.
One issue I mentioned in my review of the first film was that I remembered most of what happened from the book, so the movie didn't really have very much new for me. That was not the case here; I'm not sure if it's because I didn't remember the later parts of the book as well or if they deviated a lot more from the original text. As is often the case in life, it's probably a bit of both.
While I don't like that they changed more of the story, I have to reluctantly admit that it may have contributed to my enjoyment of the film, as it felt more like experiencing a new story rather than revisiting an old one. I kinda hate that I felt that way as I've always taken issue with writers not respecting the work that they're adapting. But that's a whole topic that I don't want to get into right now.
All I'll say about Dune is that Chiani did not feel like I remembered her from the books, and I think I prefer the original character over this one. Not just because that was the original, but also because I can't help but feel she was changed partly as a result of modern trends. Without giving away too much of the story, in the book she believed in Paul, she was loyal to him and supported him and his goals, but that's not exactly how she was written in the movie; likely the writers thought a woman like that was too "old fashioned" and they had to write her as a more "independent" character.
I'm going to give this one an 8/10. If you watched the first you should probably watch this one, even if - like me - you didn't really enjoy the original all that much. In fact it might be best to view them as a single long movie.
I mentioned that Chiani felt different. I remember her being very devoted to Paul; I recall a scene where she took duels in his place, because of how it would improve his image to the Fremen, increasing his influence. Here she helped him and fought alongside him, but I didn't get the same feeling of companionship and support. Certainly not devotion; she didn't like the way the Fremen believed he was the Lisan Al Ghaib, in the end she opposes what he's doing and even walks away from him.
I believe I read something about the director saying in an interview that she was changed in order to serve as a sort of a moral compass, to show how Paul had become the villain by the end. And while I understand that, in order to be clear about where the a story stands, morally speaking, on the actual events portrayed you need a character like that, in this case I just don't see how Paul is a villain.
I understand the idea that he deceived the Fremen and lead them on a holy crusade that will plunge the galaxy into flames in order to exact his own revenge. But that really doesn't feel like it's borne out by the actual events in the film? Apart from the fact that he never wanted any of it and was constantly pushed into it by events and the Fremen themselves, the fact remains that he fought to free an enslaved people and overthrow a corrupt regime, an emperor who would kill his own most loyal servants out of petty fear. And he tried to find peaceful resolutions every step of the way, but no-one else was interested; Jamis forced a challenge and refused to yield, his own friends and family pushed him to war. The Emperor goaded him, the Great Houses refused him, The Fremen were ecstatic about the opportunity to fulfill the prophecy, to fight for their freedom and for a green Arakis. Even Chiani pushed him to go south, despite his obvious reluctance. Which is why it's quite annoying when she walks away at the end.
And of course we must remember that he could see the future. He chose a path, not because he wanted it, but because it was the best future he could see. What's more, it was a path that had been prophesized. Now supposedly the prophecy was false, a modified version of a standard template planted by the Bene Gesserit to manipulate civilisations. But here's the thing: every part of the prophecy came true. The foreigner who knows their ways, would ride the largest sandworm ever seen (OK, we can be say that part was just people exaggerating, even in their own minds, but from people's reactions there's no doubt that it was an extremely big worm), would be brought back to life by the tears of the desert spring, and so on. While the film tells us the prophecy is fake, it shows us the prophecy coming true, not through manipulation and falsehood, but organically, honestly; a propecy truly being fulfilled.
What's more Paul himself is involved in a prophecy the Bene Gesserit have been trying to bring to fruition for generations. And we know that the ability to see the future exists. What I'm saying is, the film really does seem to be saying that Paul's path was laid out and he was unable to deviate from it, though he tried, as he could find no better alternative despite his prescience. So no, I don't see that he's the villain, not according to the way the film played out. Consequently, the change they made to Chiani doesn't really make sense to me. How is she still going to act like Paul is not the Lisan when she's seen all she's seen? When even her OWN part in the prophecy proved true?
There was a big shift in that all of a sudden there were a whole lot more guns being used. Yeah, it made sense because the Fremen don't have shields, and knife fights were still happening, but it just kinda felt different.
I feel like I was expecting more details about Paul's ability to see the future. I didn't feel like it was really shown visually, which feels like a missed opportunity, and the verbal explanation was very minimal. How far can he see? To what degree can he see the consquences of different actions? It just felt glossed over to me.
Taking down the Harkonnen's and the Emperor kinda felt too quick and easy? I know that it was a fairly small part of the book, so I'm not blaming the filmmakers or anything, but I think it's still worth mentioning how almost jarringly quick that part played out.
In the first movie the Reverend Mother seems to try to protect Paul and Lady Jessica, ordering the Harkonnens not to kill them. But then it turns out they were behind the whole thing, arranging for the Harkonens to be replaced in order to destroy the Atreides. Which doesn't really make very much sense; the Reverend Mother says they gave up on that branch of selective breeding, but they could have just killed Paul and stopped breading with the house; she had held a poisoned needle to his throat after all. I don't see how it makes sense that she ordered the Harkonnens not to kill Paul when he was specifically the one she wanted dead. Plus, the plan had been put into motion (at least partly put into motion) before she tested Paul. So yeah, that part didn't make too much sense to me.
I find it hard to believe that all the Fremen would leave all that water untouched, even in the North where they don't believe the prophecy as much.
No comments:
Post a Comment