New review critical of DUNE: PART TWO based on the depiction of Chani

[MGibster]

I suppoise Chani and Paul must reconcile at some point. We need those twins to be born.

 

[Stalker0]

I suppoise Chani and Paul must reconcile at some point. We need those twins to be born.

Paul already said she would come around in the movie, and as mr "I know the past and future"....probably correct

 

[Hatmatter]

The proposal being when he says "I will take the hand of your daughter, and we will rule togther". Chani has a gasp, and is notably surprised, but then stays pretty stoic through the next exchanges. She does avoid Paul's eyes as he gets near her and prepares himself for the duel.

During the fight she shows clear signs of worry for him especially when he is injured.

The bow and Chani's walkout happens ~ 8.5 minutes after the proposal is mentioned

Great, thanks.

 

[The Soloist]

Villeneuve: “With humility, I hope that this adaptation is closer to Frank Herbert’s original intentions,” Villeneuve says. “I used Chani’s character to do so. I gave her a different agenda, and used her to bring a different perspective to the story.”

"The script ultimately conveys Chani as a nonbeliever of the prophecy and intended for its structure to first convey their romantic relationship from Paul's perspective, and eventually pivot to Chani's perspective as the audience realizes Paul's desire for power and insidious nature.[43] He focused on Herbert's original intention to depict Paul as an antihero in Dune, on his way to becoming a villain, and wrote the script with that in mind while also considering his future plans regarding Dune Messiah, particularly by modifying Chani's characterization as he felt that she eventually "disappeared in Paul's shadows" in the book.[44][45] Feeling he had the "benefit of time" in doing so, Villeneuve decided to use all the elements of Paul's character arc and "play them a bit differently" in order to establish his eventual transformation into a villainous figure and becoming "what he was trying to fight against".[43]He expanded the role of Chani and Lady Jessica from the novel, and interpreted Chani as being a critique of power.[32]"


Source: In dept interview with Villeneuve and the main actors

The stars of 'Dune: Part Two' break down the sci-fi epic

'Dune: Part Two' stars Timothée Chalamet, Zendaya, Austin Butler, and Florence Pugh preview director Denis Villeneuve's highly anticipated sci-fi epic.

ew.com

 

[gban007]

"The script ultimately conveys Chani as a nonbeliever of the prophecy and intended for its structure to first convey their romantic relationship from Paul's perspective, and eventually pivot to Chani's perspective as the audience realizes Paul's desire for power and insidious nature.[43]

while I don't have a problem with the changes Villenueve made, I'm not sure he achieved this part that well, or at least he triggered an abrupt change. There seemed to be a pivot point after the Harkonnens raided that Femen home, where the Fremen wanted him to go south but he didn't want to because of the visions he saw of what what happen if he did. At that point it appeared Chani was helping pressure him to go south, so when he made the decision it wasn't so much a desire for power as such. It is only after going south and taking the water of life he seems to switch to that desire for power, and we see less from his perspective from that point. So it is a bit blurred, leaving it a bit ambiguous like the books in terms of his overall intent there, while I think making it more clear the bad steps he is taking and their consequences.
( in the book it seems less a desire for power vs a desire for revenge and not becoming a guild navigator).

 

[The Soloist]

The pivot point of the movie is the short-sharp-shock of Chani slapping Paul in the face. At that point, she understands Paul sides with his mother, unborn sister, Stilgar and Gurney.

The sequence with the arrival of Feyd-Rautha on Arrakis, the reunion with Gurney, the nuke cache and the drinking of the water of life are the building blocks to the pivot point.

After Paul kills Feyd, Chani understands she lost the Freeman to Paul when he sends them to space. She leaves. At first, in the desert, she expresses pain for her double loss, then shifts to anger and iron-steel resolve as she calls for a worm with a thumper.

The OP's 'romantique pique' stance doesn't stand the test of a second viewing.

I maintain my original argument. That's it for me in the thread. I enjoyed the civilized discussion. 'You all fought well today'.

The movie was better a second time. Watch it again, when you have time.

 

[briggart]

(@The Soloist I'm quoting your post due to DV interview clearly stating the point I wanted to address, but this is a general reply to the topic, I don't mean to drag you back in the thread.)

Villeneuve: “With humility, I hope that this adaptation is closer to Frank Herbert’s original intentions,” Villeneuve says. “I used Chani’s character to do so. I gave her a different agenda, and used her to bring a different perspective to the story.”

"The script ultimately conveys Chani as a nonbeliever of the prophecy and intended for its structure to first convey their romantic relationship from Paul's perspective, and eventually pivot to Chani's perspective as the audience realizes Paul's desire for power and insidious nature.[43] He focused on Herbert's original intention to depict Paul as an antihero in Dune, on his way to becoming a villain, and wrote the script with that in mind while also considering his future plans regarding Dune Messiah, particularly by modifying Chani's characterization as he felt that she eventually "disappeared in Paul's shadows" in the book.[44][45] Feeling he had the "benefit of time" in doing so, Villeneuve decided to use all the elements of Paul's character arc and "play them a bit differently" in order to establish his eventual transformation into a villainous figure and becoming "what he was trying to fight against".[43]He expanded the role of Chani and Lady Jessica from the novel, and interpreted Chani as being a critique of power.[32]"


Source: In dept interview with Villeneuve and the main actors

The stars of 'Dune: Part Two' break down the sci-fi epic

'Dune: Part Two' stars Timothée Chalamet, Zendaya, Austin Butler, and Florence Pugh preview director Denis Villeneuve's highly anticipated sci-fi epic.

ew.com

I like Dune: Part Two as a sci-fi movie, but IMO it doesn't do a good job at expressing Herbert's view, but for different reasons than the OP.

I think that focusing on Paul not being the fairytale hero is a case of looking at the finger rather than the moon. Paul's characters and motivations are mostly irrelevant to Herbert's point that there is a sort of innate tendency in society to create/look for messiahs/heroes/charismatic leaders to follow blindly. Inevitably, around these figures a structure of power will arise that is seen as an extension of the hero, and therefore not to be questioned either. But these kind of structures attract pathological peoples, and inevitably turn bad, regardless of the virtues or failures of the originating figure.

I see a lot of emphasis online on Paul not being a true hero, being motivated by revenge, being an outsider, etc. and it seems that these are presented as the root cause for the Jihad and 60+ billions dead, and everything that follows, but if Paul had been the real Fremen messiah, these would not have happened. I got the impression this is Villeneuve's opinion as well.

IMO that's not a faithful characterization of Herbert's belief. I don't think that Dune Messiah point was "you missed Paul was actually a bad person", rather "you missed that the Fremen being willing to blindly follow a leader is a bad thing". Herbert explicitly said* the people followed Paul:

for all the right reasons, he was honest, trustworthy, loyal to his people to the point of giving his life for them if they wanted [...] the necessities of his decision making were obvious

This sounds like the description of a good guy trust in a situation in which there are no good choices, not of an antihero on his way to villainy. Herbert compared Paul to JFK, which he thought was a "great guy", but at the same time was the "most dangerous president" because people did not question him.

Some of changes DV introduced in Part Two seem to me mostly intended to highlight that Paul's not the classical hero, which is fine in itself, but overall they end up muddling Herbert's actual and deeper point.

* Full interview:

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I think that focusing on Paul not being the fairytale hero is a case of looking at the finger rather than the moon. Paul's characters and motivations are mostly irrelevant to Herbert's point that there is a sort of innate tendency in society to create/look for messiahs/heroes/charismatic leaders to follow blindly.

My feeling was that Paul did not choose to be a villain, he really had no choice at all. He was simply a pawn in machinations set up centuries earlier. His inner voice in Dune shows him franticly looking for a way out, and in Messiah, it's possible he found it, only for Leto to pick it up instead.

if Paul had been the real Fremen messiah, these would not have happened

There was no real messiah, it was all a fiction.

 

[briggart]

My feeling was that Paul did not choose to be a villain, he really had no choice at all. He was simply a pawn in machinations set up centuries earlier. His inner voice in Dune shows him franticly looking for a way out, and in Messiah, it's possible he found it, only for Leto to pick it up instead.

I agree that he is a villain in the sense that his actions end up creating more suffering than good, but not in the sense of actively trying to harm people for funsies, or even simply because he sees them as pawn. As you said, in Dune he's clearly shown to be looking for a way out.

In The Good Place (to open yet another tangent ), he would be somebody caught by the Law of Unintended Consequences, rather than Sean loading puppies into a cannon to blow them up.

There was no real messiah, it was all a fiction.

My point was about how I understand some of the discussion I've seen online. I get the impression some analyses of Paul's character seem to assume that the issue was that he was an outsider, using the Fremen for his own plans, and this ultimately lead to galactic genocide and tyranny, but if the Fremen leader had instead come from their own ranks, interested only in freedom for their people and no hidden agenda (in this sense a "real messiah") things would have ended up happily everafter. I should have been clearer.

The underlying issue of how much Fremen religion is original, I think is left a bit ambiguous. The Misionaria Protectiva clearly had a lot of impact on shaping Fremen beliefs at the time of the novels, but it seems they were able to be so successful because the latched to a set of already well established traditions. After drinking the waters of life and merging with Ramallo, Jessica realizes that Fremen Reverend Mother tradition is much older than she thought, predates their arrival on Arrakis, and had been developed independently from the Bene Gesserit. Fremen religion is after all assumed to be a future evolution of Islam, so it's not unreasonable it already included messianic figures before being twisted by the BG.

 

[The Soloist]

(@The Soloist I'm quoting your post due to DV interview clearly stating the point I wanted to address, but this is a general reply to the topic, I don't mean to drag you back in the thread.)



I like Dune: Part Two as a sci-fi movie, but IMO it doesn't do a good job at expressing Herbert's view, but for different reasons than the OP.

I think that focusing on Paul not being the fairytale hero is a case of looking at the finger rather than the moon. Paul's characters and motivations are mostly irrelevant to Herbert's point that there is a sort of innate tendency in society to create/look for messiahs/heroes/charismatic leaders to follow blindly. Inevitably, around these figures a structure of power will arise that is seen as an extension of the hero, and therefore not to be questioned either. But these kind of structures attract pathological peoples, and inevitably turn bad, regardless of the virtues or failures of the originating figure.

I see a lot of emphasis online on Paul not being a true hero, being motivated by revenge, being an outsider, etc. and it seems that these are presented as the root cause for the Jihad and 60+ billions dead, and everything that follows, but if Paul had been the real Fremen messiah, these would not have happened. I got the impression this is Villeneuve's opinion as well.

IMO that's not a faithful characterization of Herbert's belief. I don't think that Dune Messiah point was "you missed Paul was actually a bad person", rather "you missed that the Fremen being willing to blindly follow a leader is a bad thing". Herbert explicitly said* the people followed Paul:



This sounds like the description of a good guy trust in a situation in which there are no good choices, not of an antihero on his way to villainy. Herbert compared Paul to JFK, which he thought was a "great guy", but at the same time was the "most dangerous president" because people did not question him.

Some of changes DV introduced in Part Two seem to me mostly intended to highlight that Paul's not the classical hero, which is fine in itself, but overall they end up muddling Herbert's actual and deeper point.

* Full interview:

In the movie, Stilgar embodies the faithful looking for any sign and willing to do anything. Paul is just the convenient lightning rod for his rage against invaders. That was pretty obvious to me. It's also obvious that Paul's stance changes after drinking the water of life, and he decides to use them to 'travel the path' he believes is the right one. It's self-deception.

I think Villeneuve understands the subtleties at play in the books. In movies, it takes longer to convey points. I wouldn't be surprised if he focuses on these 'deeper points' in the third movie.