This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I am hopelessly behind in my movie watching, and have just recently finished Dune 2. I'm 5 months late to the party, but the movie's deep flaws spurred me to write this post, and hopefully provide some change of pace to the constant Biden drama.
Villanueva often uses strange settings (Arrival, Blade Runner) to tell a compelling and intimate story. I had high expectations for Dune in his hands: the narrative of Paul, Chani, and Jessica has an uncanny setting yet is a story with nuance and personality. Unfortunately, Villanueva has not delivered on either the setting or the interpersonal relationships.
As in the first Dune installment, the planet is not the omnipresent danger that it is in the books. Dune should be the harshest, most inhospitable environment imaginable, with even the prison planet paling in comparison. Those that survive are forced into extreme military discipline. There is no questioning authority unless the questioner was willing to fight to the death. The planet made the Fremen who they are: the galaxies most feared killers. Yet the movie never shows the planet as anything even a tenth as scary as the Sahara in Laurence of Arabia. None of the Fremen practice water discipline, with mouths wide open to the desert and several incidents of tears (only in extreme cases would water be given to the dead!).
The Fremen themselves are petulant and cliquish rather than clannish. Modern sensibilities are ludicrously transplanted, without modification, into a setting in which every minute brings a chance of death. Chani, inexplicably, is drawn to Paul as he internally embraces a sniveling beta-male persona. She talks of perfect gender equality among the Fremen, while any society that actually evolved in such extremities would be intensely patriarchal (as they are in the book). She says she will never leave him, as long as he remains who he is. A true Fremen (and a true woman!) would have never caveated or conditioned such a statement.
Paul, backed into a corner by the Harkonnen, finally transforms into the leader he is destined to be. Chani disapproves: she wanted a tame, domesticated partner. His transformation into a conqueror precipitates an extended hissy fit that ends with her abandoning Paul, the Fremen, and her duty. She takes on the persona of a girl-boss, and is as unhappy (and, seemingly, as barren) as any modern-day girl-boss.
In the book, Chani is loyal. She is a consistent mainstay for Paul, sharing in his miseries and exulting in his triumphs. She is no flake, and takes her duty and responsibility with great seriousness. She is perfectly at home in the society, with none of the bizarre anachronism of the movie.
Perhaps the best way to show the disconnect between the book and the movie, and in the character of Chani, is quoting a passage from each:
And the movie:
Which version of Chani seems more real? More responsible? More happy? Villanueva (unintentionally) provides meta-commentary on modern feminism, and it isn't pretty.
Um...the movie started with Paul having just easily killed a Fremen warrior and going on to kill some Harkonnens
You get to speak softly after you've just publicly butchered someone. It's not being a beta, it's counter-signaling.
More options
Context Copy link
I agree with much of this criticism. I also just really don't enjoy the ending, in particular the fight between Paul and Feyd. It in no way felt like 2 nobles trained from birth in hand to hand combat. There is none of the mutual respect and collegiality of the fight in the book, the great line from Paul, "Only a little acid to counter the soporific on the Emperor’s blade." Feyd's overconfidence is show well by that actor in spats, but the fight lacked any of the elegance the fight has in the book. In the end, book Paul finishes Feyd with one move, while Feyd has to cheat and claw just to be slightly behind in the fight.
More options
Context Copy link
In case you're interested, some previous discussion is here.
Someone else somewhere on the Internet came up with the theory that part of what was going on with Chani was that she was being used to externalize Paul's internal ambivalence about the jihad. Jessica being pro-jihad was basically in the text, not so much that she explicitly wanted it, but that all her choices and actions would lead directly to it. And so Chani was used to represent the other side of the struggle, where Paul wanted to live amongst the Fremen, have a normal relationship with a girl/wife, raise some children, and not soak the galaxy in blood. This sounds like a very clever idea for avoiding a lot of boring voice-overs. But unfortunately, it led to Chani's character being unrecognizable.
Also, and this is just personal opinion, I have yet to see evidence that Zendaya can play someone who is happy and emotionally healthy. Her resting face seems to be a cynical scowl, or possibly a pout if you want to go that direction. I can hardly imagine it showing joy.
I agree that she was there to bludgeon the audience with "actually, Paul becoming the emperor is a VERY BAD THING". Destroying a character to translate a book to a movie is a risky move, but one that can work: for instance, both Jessica and Stilgar were made one-dimensional and I agree with those choices (more so with Jessica's than Stilgar's). Chani was not the right character to destroy. From a narrative perspective, it lacked the subtlety I expect from Villanueva. It didn't respect the source material, imposing Western 2024 norms on a feudal culture.
Yeah. The two Dune movies have caused me to re-examine my generally good impression of Blade Runner 2049.
It's strange, because we can tell that Villanueva actually understands the themes of the book and a lot of the subtleties. And yet so much of it is lost!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That was me, and yes: Paul's internal conflict was shown externally between him and Chani in Dune 2. To the detriment of the film in my opinion.
Do you recall where? I can't seem to find it. (Although perhaps your identity here is intentionally separate from whatever identity you posted it as.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I have to say, I hated Chani in the books. Character made absolutely no sense to me. I mean, she was fine enough in Dune, just a sort of placeholder romantic interest for Paul. But then in the later books, her existence becomes a serious hassle for Paul, and she never really does anything to prove herself as anything other than a meek servant to Paul. She's in all the councils, but never is very wise or intelligent. I'm left screaming JUST FUCK SOMEONE ELSE PAUL JESUS CHRIST DUDE.
I get that this can all be overrode by appealing to prophecy or something: Chani is predestined to carry the twins and so it has to be. But I don't really find that satisfying. Sort of ruins the point of having brilliant characters doing brilliant plotting if the answer is "Do something weird because the prophecy says so." Sort of this tweet's theory of Dune:
duke leto: can any of you tell me what the biggest number is?
gurney hallack: i dunno.........22? 23?
thufir hawat (eyes rolling back in his head): one million my lord
I'll have to re-read Messiah, but I recall her being at least the equal of Irulun in the games of politics (not that that was saying much), and she commanded the respect of the people.
Most of the political discussions in Dune made me wish I had read it as a "Gifted" 12 year old instead of in my 30s. At 12 I would have felt so clever solving the little puzzles, now I just find the stupidity of the characters tiresome.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Here’s my gripe with the way Chani is portrayed in the movie. In the movie, she just seems to straightforwardly hate Paul. She starts out as scornful and dismissive, is immediately suspicious of his political motives, which then curdles into hatred. She refuses to cry for him when she thinks he’s dead (Jessica has to force her to) and is even about to try and kill him just before he declares himself the Lisan al-Gaib. It’s so consistent and intense that the exactly two short scenes where they’re friendly and in-love seem totally out of place, like they’re deleted scenes made from an earlier draft of the script that the editor forgot to remove. It also totally deflates any of the drama and Pathos we’re supposed to feel about the film’s ending. Why the hell would Paul even consider picking Chani over Irulian? And why would Chani be so upset that she’s not going to spend the rest of her life with the guy she basically thinks is the Antichrist?
Yes, it's very strange. The idea of her being a sort of Fremen nationalist along with her younger friends never really lands, and since that and being into Paul are essentially her only personality traits, it's unconvincing; she only gets to show off the first in one scene where it's little more than complaining Stilgar is old and religious. But I think this was fixable if you added just one scene and slightly changed another: Stilgar should be explaining to Jessica that the traditionalists are waiting for the Mahdi to start the terraforming project, while Chani in a separate scene with Paul can be advocating for starting the program on their own, especially as Paul starts to roll back Harkonnen control.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link