Dive into “Dune” — the road of Denis’ did not always lead into the desert

Spoilers for “Dune”, “Dune: Part 2” and some of other Denis Villeneuve films: Incendies, Enemy, Sicario, Arrival, Blade Runner 2049.

What should be the point of an adaptation? To get you to read the book, in my opinion. With that goal in mind, Denis Villeneuve was perfect for adapting Dune for several reasons. Primarily, because his films include enough visual references and directorial clues to make you want to learn more. Subtle details that have whole paragraphs devoted to them in the books. In other words, he knows that the general audience require that the highly philosophical books be made easier to follow. However, he still manages to cater to the readers as if they were his first priority.

For instance, when in “Dune: Part 2” the Reverend Mother Mohiam tells the Emperor that her daughter Irulan ‘once again proves to be the most astute student’. We see from Irulan’s downplayed reaction that she knows that to be a lie. She knows Mohiam simply uses flattery as a manipulation tactic for the Emperor who craves validation. Mohiam knows that his fragile ego is the very reason he chose to attack the Atreides. And kill Leto, who he simultaneously saw as a son and a rival. Florence Pugh and Denis probably figured that having it play a part in the scene would prove confusing to the general audience. But they still managed to deliver a small detail for the readers.

Why is it a good idea to make changes from the books?

I began reading Dune after seeing the first film, but stopped once the story began spoiling “Part 2”. And I’m fortunate to have done so. Personally, I’ve always felt more tension in movies than in the books being adapted. So I didn’t want to know what will happen in “Part 2”. But for those that had already read it, so that they would still be kept on their toes… Denis made a great decision to follow a slightly different path from the book. Some changes are very obvious and would have been made by any director/writer. For instance, any director with half of a brain cell should aware that a 2-year-old adult-minded child Alia jumping around killing people wouldn’t translate well.

But other changes probably required a more careful consideration. A major one is the characterisation of Chani, who in the book was the devotee all the way to the end. In the film, however, Chani represented a particular side against Paul that would’ve otherwise been absent. Namely, a Fremen (close to Paul) that sees the Lisan al Gaib prophecy as a narrative created to enslave them. A perspective that might have been mentioned, but was largely missing from the book. A great decision in terms of the next film, as well. In the book, they’re always together with Paul. But with their relationship now strained, it will be interesting to see how they end up with children.

This will allow us to better explore Paul’s regret for the Holy War. A massacre of 61 billion people over 12 years. Movies lack the voiceover for the inner monologue, a prominent part in the books. Paul woud often be doubting the path he has taken. Denis simply gave his internal thoughts to other characters, which meant changes like that of Chani.

I’m now comfortable reading Messiah because they change the story just enough to keep the readers guessing. Of course, the general story beats remained the same. But just about every character was changed a bit to represent options/futures Paul has to decide between. Chani being the opposing side to the path he has now taken, while in the books she was a full zealot like Stilgar.

The film also gave Chani more agency as one of the very few female characters. The first film was very ‘by the book’ and that is why I was afraid of spoilers if I were to continue reading. This decision to diverge while still staying true to the themes makes me feel ‘safe’ to read ahead. I’m now done reading “Children of Dune”, the third book that will probably be the fourth film released in 2030s.

What is it about for Denis?

Dune touches upon a lot. Ecology, politics, religion, psychology. You name it. But considering Denis was already storyboarding these movies when he was 13 years old, something very simple and universal really must have resonated. Considering 13 is still fairly young for a series with such complex themes, I think it might have been something more close to heart. It might have something to do with choosing between what you feel you should do and what others expect. These are the rebellious teenage years, after all.

‘The heart is not meant to lead’ and ‘your father was a weak man’ are both said by the Emperor. Even in his arrogance and ignorance, he must know he’s beaten. So he wants to get the final licks in. I believe writers usually have the antagonist deliver the message they wish you didn’t follow. It’s always fun to have someone play the devil’s advocate. Which means these two lines from the emperor are both fallacies, as far as we should be concerned.

The only hand left for the emperor to play is for Paul to surrender to the great houses that have arrived on orbit. He should be going for that hail mary. And yet, he manages to push the exact wrong button. By stating that Leto and by extension all Atreides are weak, he is inciting Paul to prove the opposite by ‘leading with the mind’. A mind that has now accepted that ‘this world is beyond cruelty’. A conscience with a failing moral compass. Now fully opened to the ruthlessness. As we saw by his cold conduct with Chani, feelings and human life have lost their meaning.

Even though Paul has Stilgar as a mentor, Jamis still represents his inner guide. Often presenting answers through dreams and as we remember, the first movie began with ‘Dreams are messages from the deep’. In the end of the first film, Jamis said ‘the strongest leads’. By that point at the very end of the movie, he has fully inhabited the Fremen culture to the point of becoming their leader. Their newly minted messiah stated in front of all Fremen that ‘no man can stand against me’. So now he needs to assert himself as anything but weak.

He has just beaten Feyd, even after getting stabbed twice. Only one step remains and he has fully proven himself as their leader — launching the jihad. Something he was hesitant to do because he was hoping to join houses with the Emperor. But after the taunt by Emperor he now sees no other option. How could he collaborate who insulted his father and him, by extension? In front of everyone, no less. He would be seen as a false prophet if he would put a stop to it now. As long as he is in charge, he can at least somewhat control the outcome. Even if the outcome is horrifying.

How to avoid putting too much thought into what is necessary, what others would want us to do? How to trust our humane instincts and sometimes ignore rationality? It can often seem that in the face of complete rationality and trying to do the right thing, your personal feelings don’t matter. You simply do what is necessary. However, we could have had a third World War if our humanity, gut feeling and instincts didn’t take charge. Thus, “Dune” is a cautionary tale because Paul eventually fails to take the right lesson from his dreams and lead with his heart. He fails to make the decision that would make him feel warm, and human.

You might ask if ‘The heart is not meant to lead’ isn’t merely directed towards our leaders, such as the politicians? You know, the people who at times have to struggle between accepting bribes and taking the high road. At first, it might seem so. However, Denis knows that giving up one’s morals for wealth would be relatable to a very small part of the audience. But most people can empathise with a very personal heart vs mind dilemma. In other words, the dilemma between chasing our lofty dreams and doing what is expected of us.

Paul was pressured to go South, by his (reverend) mother and the Fremen. He told them repeatedly that he doesn’t want to because it would lead to ruin. Just like we often feel that the path we’re being pressured to take will lead to our spiritual ruin. Sooner or later, we are filled with regret by what could have been.

At times, we have all felt trapped. Like Paul, we might see no other choice but to do what is expected. Being led to believe that love is conditional. Which is the role Jessica serves in the movie. Paul’s caring biological mother turns into the Machiavellian reverend mother pulling him into the abyss. In other words, to try out this blue drug (that might totally kill him, by the way). It is about becoming something greater than he is. The Water of Life could also be taken as an analogy to any other cognitive enhancer. Either pills like Adderall or a brain-machine interface, such as Neuralink. His father Leto was fine with Paul being ‘the only thing he ever needed to be’ aka his son. But now, Paul feels he needs to accomplish something remarkable to be loved by his own mother.

Villeneuve went to study science, only later turning to filmmaking. He probably let the mind lead at first and his heart only later on. Which is why I believe this particular theme must resonate with him. Harkening (harkonnening hehe) back to when he read Dune at an age of 13.

Any unsure path taken becomes foggy, particularly ones considered uncertain by our parents and peers. All the forces are pushing Paul in one direction and anything off-piste is unclear. He feels like he can’t make many changes off that path because every change he makes introduces ripples that completely destabilise his vision of the future. All in all, Paul seeks control and certainty. So he follows the path that has the most certainty, hoping it would provide him with control.

The one way he finds some semblance of control is with The Voice. Which could refer to finding your voice, in addition to your way. Let’s say you have found a problem to solve. But you’d need to convince the masses to join in order to have a proper effect. Nowadays, it is not only about communicating your mission to your direct collaborators. Even more so, it is how you perform personal branding on social media and such. It is alluded to. That Paul increasingly and yet subtly uses The Voice to manipulate the Fremen. After becoming the Lisan al Gaib, he does so on tens of thousands at once.

Has it become popular to distrust our leaders?

“Don’t give over all of your critical faculties to people in power, no matter how admirable those people may appear to be. Beneath the hero’s facade you will find a human being who makes human mistakes. Enormous problems arise when human mistakes are made on the grand scale available to a superhero. And sometimes you run into another problem.
It is demonstrable that power structures tend to attract people who want power for the sake of power and that a significant proportion of such people are imbalanced — in a word, insane. … Heroes are painful, superheroes are a catastrophe. The mistakes of superheroes involve too many of us in disaster.” — Frank Herbert

Right now is the perfect timing for Dune. The audience have bought into antiheroes on TV and are now waiting for such characters to be brought to the big screen. But even more importantly, people have lost faith in their leaders. As the most obvious example, America dislikes both of their presidential candidates. Recently, one of the two was nearly assassinated at a political rally.

When Trump was elected in 2016, I feel that much of the public turned their faith to private sector. Elon Musk was then glorified, but not for long after. His long-term and wide scale altruism was the primary driver for his reputation. But just like with Paul, it is hard to tell how much of it was ever genuine. A narrative like Lisan al Gaib even reminds me of the myths founders have created around themselves and the company. Or how status could be gained through dangerous inventions. Which is also why “Oppenheimer” was such a hit 6 months before. Just like Paul, he was an influential man and yet his beliefs were often contradictory.

I believe the audience increasingly enjoys characters with whom you don’t know where the writers will go. In which case, you don’t have to count on artificial twists for the shock value. You can have the surprises arise from what the character would logically do in a situation and thus feel obvious in hindsight.

How did Hollywood depict our trust in leaders?

Planet of the Apes trilogy of 2010s was released when we had faith in our leaders to “lead us to paradise”. Having come off of a recession and looking onwards with hope, it was the perfect timing to frame the protagonist Caesar as a straightforward hero. There was still inner conflict, due to a certain affection he had for the human kind. But Caesar always put his own wishes last, although that begun to change in 2017 with his third/final film of the trilogy. He prioritised getting revenge for his family, which was a mistake he later atoned for.

Eventually Caesar still manages to lead them to a proper paradise. With Paul, I reckon that won’t be the case in his third/final film of trilogy. In the 2020s, we relate better to stories where leaders are fallible. Going from the presidency of Obama to Trump, many of us have lost faith. Clearly, there are other factors at play, but social media has certainly done its part. It made us more aggressively outspoken while increasingly perfectionist. So we find it easier to empathise with something like Dune rather than a black and white world of “Lord of The Rings” or “Star Wars”.

Caesar and Paul are similar characters, but for different times. The first movie building up their superiority, for the lack of a better term. Superiority from those they are looking to enslave, be it other apes or the Fremen. Both of which have untapped potential that our protagonists release. Second movies are about the cycle of violence as the magnitude of it escalates. A messianic figure harnessing that power of a seemingly less developed culture. One that harbors a strength for him to tap into. The third acts of both second movies become an all-out war. Ending with the inevitable fallout and our protagonists realising there is no stopping it.

Why is it better to set political stories in fictional worlds?

Frank Herbert obviously uses Arrakis to reference Iraq. Even the Iraqi paramilitary is called ‘fedayeen’, similarly to the ‘fedaykin’. Why does he prefer to write Dune, rather than be a scholar for history? Stories with fictional worlds have more leeway to tell political stories.

“Top Gun: Maverick” never mentioned the country their mission took place, although the whole movie was built around that. You’ll notice that it has also been the MO for Cruise/McQuarrie with “Mission: Impossible”. You just can’t take the risk of offending a country. You just might get ‘cancelled’.

I believe this change began with the Sony leaks back in 2014 which revealed Seth Rogen film “The Interview” having an actual effect in the geopolitics with North Korea. But of course, there could be other ‘offenders’ that broke the camel’s back. When Russia invaded Ukraine, Hollywood was suddenly made cautious in regards to depicting Russians as antagonists. Which is why action movies haven’t quite had a particular nation represent an antagonist for a while now. Merely individuals with motives that are based on an ideology rather than their nationality.

Why was Denis perfect for Dune? (More specific spoilers)

• Familial gut wrenching twist from “Incendies” — the twist in that film is a 100 times worse than Paul and Jessica being Harkonnens.
• “Sicario” — cycle of violence, where the powerful players have to make compromises and can’t afford to be idealistic. The protagonists in our stories have accepted that they have to commit heinous acts and collaborate with cartels/Fremen. From a certain perspective, these factions could be seen as terrorists. Ones you have to work with because they are needed for the system to function and could not be defeated. But it’s also about creating narratives in order to remain in power. Be it war against drugs or the Holy War led by a messiah.
• “Enemy” —it can be a confusing movie, which is why I can’t say I came up with it the reasoning here on my own. This explainer is a must-see after the movie. Apparently, the main theme is about a man feeling like he’s being controlled by women. By his mother, in particular. Once you know the twist that becomes clear by watching the video, the film actually becomes about the unfounded paranoia Jake Gyllenhaal’s two characters exhibit. That they are somehow trapped. Even though they are actually the assholes in their relationships, who justify their terrible behaviour to themselves. Their partners are totally understanding, empathetic and amicable throughout the whole movie.
  How does it fit into “Dune”? Well, the theme of control is most of all represented by the Bene Gesserit. Exhibit A, the Gom Jabbar scene. After which Paul has such contempt for being a pawn in their game. You could say both movies are about him breaking free from being controlled. As the series progresses, it’ll also be increasingly obvious that the organisation could be considered the overarching antagonist.
• “Arrival” — prescience and what you choose to do the with foreknowledge of the future. The 12 alien ships represent god trying to help humanity and protagonist is Jesus deciphering the message.
• “Blade Runner 2049” — determinism vs free will. Ryan Gosling’s K thought he had purpose bestowed upon him and that he was ‘the chosen one’. He actually wasn’t, until he decided to be. Paul wasn’t meant to be The One according to the Bene Gesserit prophecy based on genetical manipulation over generations. Nevertheless, he became one so that he could have revenge for his father. K wanted revenge for Joy (Ana de Armas). But even more so, they both needed their suffering to mean something. To use that pain for something good. It’s about choosing to be the chosen one and how it can take very personal stakes to have an effect on a larger scale.

How to move forward with the franchise?

Warner Brothers has probably learned from “Mad Max: Furiosa” that they shouldn’t wait with a sequel for that long. It came out 9 years after “Fury Road”. So “Dune 3” will probably come out five years from now, allowing Denis to do something else in between. Probably “Rendezvous with Rama”. This 5-year break is also much needed for the actors to mature enough to play characters 12 years into the future, while also playing them during the Jihad in the supposed flashbacks. Considering the very philosophical, conspiratorial, and small scale nature of the “Dune: Messiah” book… this will undoubtedly be shown in some shape or form, for the film to have more action.

It would also be smart of them to have a movie every five years on average, because then people would rewatch the previous ones to remind themselves of the story. HBO Max streaming service definitely benefits. I’ll be talking about this in a more general post about the movie industry. Namely, why they keep making sequels. In summary, so that you would watch previous ones on their streaming services.

Also, why not a Dune re-release in the cinemas once another sequel comes about! I’ll never understand why they don’t do those.

All in all, I hope that Denis will keep a watchful eye on the franchise even after he’s done directing the movies. I only hope that while maintaining he feel of the world, the next director would have a different view on dialogue. Namely, that he would consider it as more of a focal point. It’s hard to recall any truly memorable lines in Villeneuve’s movies, other than Javier Bardem’s constantly hilarious hype “Lisan al Gaib!” /s

Epilogue (random thoughts that are super separated from the rest):

• Interesting read on the final fight I found on Reddit:
  This whole scene is a re-telling of the story so far.
  Paul (an Atreides) fights Feyd (a Harkonnen) who is using a weapon gifted by the emperor (the Sardaukar).
  Paul gets stabbed (falls into the Harkonnen trap) and has to allow himself to appear defeated (goes into hiding).
  The only way he turns the tables is by combining his lesson from Gurney in Part 1 (his Atreides heritage) with the Fremen knife in his side (his “terrible purpose” in starting the jihad).
• The shot of the Emperor’s ship hurtling towards Arrakis like a meteor. A visual metaphor for the destruction of the Arrakeen culture later on, and the planet’s ecosystem being altered.
• Albeit Feyd-Rautha being a Harkonnen, Paul has some empathy and engages him in a respectful manner before their fight. He knows from his ancestral memories how Feyd was raised. Paul acknowledges that if he were to grow up in the same environment as Feyd, he would have turned out the same. They’re both harkonnens, after all.
• It would make sense for Stilgar to wish for Lisan al Gaib because then he would get to see such a miracle in his lifetime. Bene geserit having been in work for 90 generations, it’s a minuscule chance of ever witnessing it. So just like Jessica, he does what he can do support the story. Even manipulating it by setting up the thumper himself so to call a big worm.
• It’s great that they kept the big battle to the minimum. They knew their audience is tired of all the unnecessarily long MCU battles.
• I wonder if Stellan Skarsgard’s son’s schedule didn’t allow him to play Feyd. Butler did really great, but there were so many shots where he resembled Bill plucked out of IT where he played Pennywise. I could’ve sworn that Feyd had the same lazy eye thing going