The truth about Denis Villeneuve's DUNE 2
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 сер 2023
- Become a member of the Science Fiction community to continue the discussion
Website - damiengwalter.com
UA-cam - / damienwalter
Patreon - / damienwalter
Subscribe to the Science Fiction podcast feed for long-form commentaries on these video essays
damiengwalter.com/podcast/
Join the Science Fiction community on Facebook
/ 324897304599197
Equipment
Camera amzn.to/41DpI1I
Lens amzn.to/3tyH1nZ
Microphone amzn.to/3RZ3sfD
Laptop amzn.to/48eZDsf
Recommendations
Greatest scifi novel amzn.to/3GZgL9r
First scifi novel amzn.to/41DazgK
Worst scifi novel amzn.to/3S045FO
Most overrated scifi writer amzn.to/3NIchI9
"How do we go from loosing everything to becoming Emperor of the known Universe?"
I'm having the exact same problem right now.
Let me know when you figure it out.
Working on it
I talked to a girl I like today.
@@skyeplus progress
@DamienWalter The truth is I never needed the Universe.
I don't think a psychopath would remove themselves from the equation entirely as Paul does at the end of his story. If someone reads Dune and finds the story to be that of a hero I'm not sure if they read the right books. He doesn't revel in his actions, he laments them. His story is a tragedy if anything.
Indeed. Paul is not evil, quite the contrary. He is too humane, that's why he rejected the golden path. His will was good but circumstances turned him into a destroyer.
Well said
Perfectly said.
Thankyou.
Whether good or evil, Paul saw himself as a necessary step. Leaving Humanity in the hands of the Bene Gesserit, the Emperor Shaddam, CHOAM, or the Harkonnens was the alternative. He had a part of the solution; his son Leto found the other part in The Golden Path. It was when Paul figured out that seeing the future led inevitably to shaping it in a sort of Observer Effect, that he decided to remove himself from the equation. Leto later accomplished the same thing with the help of Siona and Nayla.
so he's like anyone of us. not good not bad sometimes driven with unreason like an animal, but also the host of eternal sublimity.
I remember getting a shiver up my spine when I heard Jamis actually quoting Kierkegaard in Paul's vision: "Life is not a problem to be solved... etc." The perfect line for the internal trickster trying to get the ego to submit to its urges, as well as a truism that applies to ascetics and mystics: A message of "Live here and now - The past is gone and the future doesn't exist until you make it." Applied to the psychopath, it forgives all transgressions. Applied to the mystic, it transgresses the ego and allows totality of vision.
The DUNE movie necessarily cut out a lot of stuff from the books, and probably rightly so. It will be interesting to see how Denis takes on the REAL plot, which involves essentially a Curse of Cassandra character who knows he can gain almost limitless power but that there will be a tremendous price to be paid for it...
I contend that was not the Jamis of dreams but Paul's different interactions through different timelines/paths as seen through presciences. Just as he saw his death on one timeline by Jamis. Paul saw Jamis as a friend, teacher, and mentor in another.
i don't think that Jamis is a trickster. Jamis is truly a teacher to Paul. In his dreams they had become friends, that could have been the possibility if the fremen weren't so suspicious of outworlders. Which is something i completely understand, fremen are hardened souls fighting for survival all the time, against the oppression of the imperium and the harshness of the desert. The only way to survive is to be tough and trust no one but the tribe. In reality Jamis became the teacher, who taught Paul the lesson of this hardiness and became his first kill. Jamis granted Paul's entry into the tribe through his death. This dissonance between Paul's dreams, visions and the reality that ended up happening also brought home the idea that was spoken in the beginning of the movie, between the reverend mother and Paul: "do you often dream things that happen just as you dream them?" Paul: "Not exactly." This idea has been fleshed out in the books, that the further Paul looks into the future through dreams and visions, the more blurry the vision is, because the future is not yet written, its the consequence of choices we're yet to make.
That's the kind of thing tricksters do.
The opposite of the trickster is the magician, the trickster archetype does teach people but just not in the way they expect, in other words Jamis.
Well thought out comment.
agreed - Part of Paul's transformation is seeing the optimal paths in the flow of possible futures, the ways things could go based on his actions and decisions. In an alternate timeline, it is Jamis who is a friend and guide, in others Chani is the one that kills him. in the moments before the fatal battle with Jamis, he senses this for the first time, tasting the power and the horror of what he and others will cause in the coming age.
Like @DamienWalter mentioned this is a characteristic of a "trickster" archetype. It can be easy to make various assumptions about what a trickster archetype does/is used for just based on the name, but it's really much more complicated then that. Excellent comment and I completely agree with your assessment. I just think that what you're explaining isn't counter to what a trickster archetype is.
The thing about psychosis is that it's kinda hard to organize your thoughts enough to obtain any kind of power. A psychoPATH could, but I'm getting really tired of people confusing the two.
Jamie's was indeed his friend. He showed him the ways of the desert, and for Muad'Dib to live, Paul had to die.
It tracks with his visions of Chani killing him as well. Paul is not a psychopath. He's a tragic prisoner of fate that chooses the lesser evil now, to forego the greater good later, which his son embraces.
To me, a parent abandoning their child to a fate they found too horrifying to face themself, qualifies as selfish, cowardly and antithetical to how a parent should actually be, that it exposes how much of a moral coward and failure he was to his family, as he was to humanity in general.
@@earlpipe9713 Yeah, I guess, but nothing prevented Leto II from also punting the Golden Path ad infinitum.
Especially considering you'd leave a legacy of being the most brutal tyrant in the entire history of humankind.
@@Emanon... The one that saved humanity...from an even worse end.
"She was beyond euphoric. I trained scanners on her and measured her brain activity. It looked to me as if she was having a mystical experience."
"You can scan for that, can you?"
"Not exactly, but this is something I have a lot of experience with. Given what her brain was doing when I asked her to imagine that she was still in here with you," I glanced over at the couch and saw Petrovic's clothes on the floor. "She was either in the throes of divine rapture or she was having a psychotic episode."
"What's the difference?"
"In terms of brain activity, none," I said. "The difference comes in the long-term effect on the person's life and outlook. Someone suffering from psychosis becomes fixated on their own anxieties or inflated sense of self-importance. Someone who has had a mystical experience goes the other way. They tend to discount their own personal concerns in favor of something larger, more universal. They focus on the community, the ecosystem, or the enlightenment of all sentient beings. Something along those lines."
It's been a long time since I read the 2nd and 3rd books, but as I recall, Paul tried and failed to avert the mass slaughter. His prescience allowed him to find the least bad path through history. Later in the series, he voluntarily gives up power and wanders off into the desert. As far as I understand psychopathy, psychopaths don't experience remorse for the harm they cause. Paul doesn't fit that mold. He did what he could to set things right and at great cost to himself.
I think you miss something in this one. Like reviewing a cake but only by how it smells.
A thought I had watching Dune part 2: if the Bene Gesserit planted the idea of Lisan al-Gaib in the freman, who planted the idea of a Kwisatz Haderach in the Bene Gesserit?
Excellent question, might be explored in future movies
Okay, David Bowman did not switch off HAL so he could transcend. HAL was a mortal danger.
Kubrick did an intro class on metaphor, sure you can find it somewhere.
believing in your dreams and following them is not a marker of psychopaty
I really find the Jung archetypes much more usefull and flexible as writer tools than the very problematic Camplbell's hero's journey. Dune, as series of books, is kind of a critique of this journey, perhaps one of the first in pop culture.
What problems with Hero's Journey? Star Wars was great. The Matrix was great. It is a modern distillation of every ancient story.
@@michaelnurse9089 Not every, by far. Illias does't fit it. Most greek mythology doesn't fit it (Odysee does, admittedly). Metamorphoses don't fit it. Many European fairy tales don't fit it. And once we get to the modern novel (Mann, Dostojevski, Proust, etc.), most of them don't fit them either. I
@maaaaaaaaarcel Because not every character is a hero in their story. Some stories are tragedies, some fairy tales are cautionary tales, etc.. Hero's Journey is very true and present not only in fiction, but also in reality. It's just that it doesn't represent the whole of the human condition. Which is obvious
@@Diobotthat is a very hollow view of the human experience.
While this is an apt analysis of dreams and belief... what about when the dreams really ARE more than dreams, and the dreamer really IS seeing something more than just hallucination?
We know for a fact Paul's dreams are at least somewhat prophetic in that he dreams of very specific people he hasn't met yet, and the film implies what the book makes very clear--that Paul DOES see into POSSIBLE future threads (more uncertain the farther in the future he sees). A person can be dismissed as "psychotic" for creating beliefs and taking actions based on the pure fantasy of personal dreams. But how much can a person be blamed for taking actions on dreams they know for a fact to be (at least somewhat) actually prophetic??
(We do know Herbert's intent that Paul is not a hero, that he actually does instigate a bloody and cruel jihad that's far far more destructive than the simple freedom of the Fremen that should have happened. And we know Villeneuve understands this and seeks to represent this.) But the difference between a delusional person believing in dreams and someone who has ACTUAL future-telling dreams, really complicates things and makes Paul far more sympathetic!
Dreams require interpretation to find meaning in them, as prophecy does also. The act of interpreting neither guarantees, nor even requires, being correct in the understanding one comes to through said interpretation. In fact, the opposite outcome is more often the outcome, in which a cursed self-fulfilling prophecy, only bringing disaster or doom, due to the mistaken belief that anyone can know everything needed in order to reach a 100% assured correct interpretation, gets triggered
Pouring many praises on this movie without criticizing it where it needs to be criticized is a disservice to future movies.
Remember who you are. The sleeper must awaken.
"What strange fates befell those who've ignored me? Saint Alia of the Knife - The Arrakis Godbook
That AI roast was well enjoyed.
Harold Bloom talked about how emphasis on dreams is a key element of Gnosticism. He went on to say American spirituality is majorly Gnostic, even if superficially Evangelical or even Non religious.
But then those dreams don’t come just from “ourselves”, but from a transcendent reality.
Re: thumbnail.
In context of the book and film, are 'Psychopaths' born or created then?
Use the Spice, Jean-Luc
I'm not entirely convinced that Dune is about "dreams". It's MUCH more about "visions of the future".
The misunderstanding of both those things is common fare in myth (and Dune is nothing if not a modern Greek myth), but Dune is a LOT more "Cassandra" than "misleading Oracle"...
Dreams and Visions are aspects of the same thing. Which is the thing under discussion.
Or perhaps it is about a deeper understanding of the present
@@DamienWalter Dreams are not the same as Visions. Dreams can be pure imagination. Made up things. Visions, in it's true form, has a connection to prescience. Telling of the future. They are completely different things. What Dune shows is a mix of the two. If Paul had 100% "Vision" accuracy. He loses his Humanity. Becomes something different. And just having Dreams would make him too Human for the story........ It takes some readers and viewers time to understand that the mix of the two is what they are seeing.
Where is the thumbnail art from?
they were all psychopaths. the dune world was absolutely savage and it was literally kill or be killed for paul.
in all seriousness, do you honestly think he would have lived a long, happy and peaceful life had he not deposed the emperor? No. quite the opposite
Indeed.
0:05 actually you're wrong, it's a story about worms.
I also have dreams of “Iraqis” after my tour of duty there 🤷🏻♂️
Thank you.
Odd, in my country, the movie didn't start with the quote about dreams, but about controlling Spice. How many different versions are there?
Part I began with "Dreams are messages from the deep." Part II begins with one you saw about power and spice.
We're watching the same movie, bro. Don't worry.
@@peterfazio9306 ahh, ok. Makes more sense now.
Lolol. There are entire cultures and races in Dune that would be classified thus. The Bene Gesserit, the Bene Tleilax, the Harkonnens, the Emperor. It isn't 'psychpathy.' It's evolution. And as we all know, and Herbert spelled it out: power attracts the psychopaths.
The Bene Gesserit were psychopaths, blindly following psychotic plans and paradigms cooked up by psychopaths that came before them. The Bene Tleilax were also psychopathic in their practices of viewing living beings as genetic spare parts meat for their various projects. All the ruling houses were psychopathic, not just the Harkonnens and Corrino, in their deluded chasing of power, and allowing their own greed for power to chain them in enslavement to it's never ending "great game".
The whole point that it is indeed both stories. But the comment section is filled with people who only sees one and is tied onto a twist, when you introduce duality there 😅
Good points. Hope to watch Dune 2. Have read the novels.
Mild endorsement of the Butlerian Jihad?
Yeah, I'm down with that.
The fact he called it a Jihad and its context suggests Herbert did not mean it as a good thing. The galaxy is backwards because it has repressed technology.
They didn't mention genetic drift in the movie, another world-building hole, which is what the holy war solves - forcing blood lines to mix and repleneshing humanity for the future, a future without AI!!
Paul couldn't make the choice his son had to. He's no psychopath but a self-victimizing clairvoyant paralyzed by choice. He has one moment where he can stop his Jihad, and doesn't.
Just discovered your channel and loving it!
Welcome
I wish in this reality I can let my dreams guide me. They just keep leading me to zombies.
May it be that Villeneuve’s Dune effected more people to notice what is going on in Palestine and other Middle Eastern countries now? It always astonish me how power of a good art is weirdly .
I suppose it is fine, taken in context, to treat any text in a deconstructive way. It can tell us more about ourselves. But I don’t think Villeneuve intended this adaptation to imply Paul’s prescience was mere internal dreaming as we know it in the real world. And I’m sure Herbert did not. It is a mistake to think of Paul as a “hero” even within the fictional universe of the Dune novel. But when you go for a strict Jungian interpretation of his “psychosis” you will have to abandon consideration of other things in the text which were intended by the author. I get that in deconstructionism the author’s intent is way down the list of thing that are important. But in sci-fi you can legitimately ask the question “what if the Jungian Deep was “real”, not merely in the psychological sense, but in the scientific sense.
But in particular here there is the question of “What if there really were a universe where prescience was (scientifically) REAL, and where at some level of consciousness a few, or just one individual attained it. What would that do to a person? What if you really knew the future consequences of your actions, and what if you became trapped by that knowledge. For Paul and his Son this prescience becomes so powerful that even day to day, and hour to hour perception of existence gets radically transformed. But on a larger scale, as gradually unveiled over the arc of the novels, what if the future survival of the whole human species depended on taking a narrow path that lead through horrors and out the other side. Would a person with that certain knowledge be able to make that choice? And what would that certain knowledge do to an individual and a society. I think those actually are also interesting sci-fi type question to explore in literature as well. As long as you realize you are doing violence to those themes then it is fine to take a Jungian or Marxist (or whatever) point of view and treat Dune as just a text to play with. As long as to don’t forget what you are doing and pretend your textual analysis is the only consistent interpretation. Or that yours is probably not he PRIMARY one intended by the author. I think there is ample evidence in this case that it is not. But all those levels can live side by side in literature.
If you read the books.. Paul is the Villian not the hero. The Villian Paul would spawn a long line of super villians.
Not sure he was a classic villain. I think the books explored the nature and roots of villainy. The books ask questions that have opposing answers that both have validity. Maybe the end result of Paul's choice not to pursue and develop his prescience and clairvoyance was that he couldn't stop the jihad, couldn't prevent the Fremen from seeing him and his offspring as tyrant gods. He feared what he would become, tried to avoid it, but was then unable to stop the destructive outcomes he had caused. The books are a fascinating study of power and what happens when one obtains and wields great power or fails to wield it.
stay Fiction dude.
📽🎬
i've gotta watch this movie, and nothing better get in my way.
i am the world's most passionate dream follower. i have even gone home and gotten into bed early just to hurry up with the dreams that would make sense of the day.
Every book ever written is "random words written by monkeys."
Man, oh. man. This channel is going to BuLow Up big. Congrats are your common sense depth.
i am worried about watching the second one because i fear they will not enunciate well enough for the broader audience the sheer scale of a villain that paul is becoming and to go even farther his descendants. the books speak on mankind's inability to handle power. but with a man checks and balances are made and used, a god however absolute power and more importantly absolute trust is bestowed. Paul knows this, his father taught him that even leaders are flawed and so one should never trust oneself alone to lead.
Paul not wanting to be a bad guy does nothing to change the fact that he would remove a tyranny only to then create a greater stricter more violent one.
The story of dune is that man is flawed and our systems will also be, so we should always remain observant and humble to those flaws, the complete opposite of an omnipotent psychic force with an army of zealots that murder trillions.
What the visions of Paul are not 'dreams'. Your completely off the mark with your comments.
you're
Firstly, may I compliment you -- how we need an accomplished critic. My own life leads me to conclude that as through suffering one achieves that bit of godliness necessary for humility & kindness, so the experience of hell is the only real path to knowing oneself sufficiently to acieve potential. Your dreams will inevitably lead you into hell, for reality is harsh. Only at the depth of madness may a source of strength arise that may give you the grit to possibly flourish, & in extremus survive. And, life is survival. Many do not -- survive, whether they followed their dreams or not. And even those who do are mostly failures. There is no path to success -- only the path that must be taken to succeed.
Without dreams, the people perish.
see the work of Sergio Magnana, most comprehensive knowledge od dreams
how can you know the truth about a movie that hasn't been released yet?
Frank had seen the horror of C20th totalitarians and wrote Dune as a subversive tale of the dangers of 'great' leaders, the recurrent pattern of the book series being building up of heroic messianic protagonists only to then pull the rug out from under us to show us the horrors they bring. It's a cautionary tale.
Kamikaze samurai, Islamic suicide bomber, and special forces soldiers have their charismatic born again Christianity. They adopted it in a big way post 1980s. They are the new crusaders. Or at least they were for 20 years in Afghanistan.
Special Forces are more akin to sado-sexual serial killers, such as Jeffery Dahmer, Dean Corll or John Wayne Gacy, than they are to medieval crusaders.
Your brain controls your body. That means everything that has to do with the brain activity will affect your body. Here is a direct link between dreams as an activity of the brain and the transformation of your body. Hence, it was used for many centuries and millennia of the human history to transform yourself or others. The way it's done is what makes a certain outcome of such training. Knife does not make a murderer - it's but a tool, the mindset does..
The dreams Paul has are not like our dreams, he is the culmination of a breeding program over centuries to produce the Messiah and as such his dreams are prophesies in the true Abrahamic sense because Dune (the book) is steeped in Abrahamic lore and practice .
Sure, that's the cover story.
In the book prescience is real and Paul showed many times that he could see the future no matter how fuzzy. In the real world yes humans use fraudulent prophesy, but Dune isnt the real world. @@DamienWalter
Ah, so a benevolent, judeo-christian form of eugenics!
I like the new Dune movies, except for some of the casting. I especially don't like Timothee Chalamalama
So you know nothing whatsoever about Dune ...
The point about the fight with Jamis is that Paul has *never* killed anyone ... but Jamis has killed many ...
The Dreams are prophetic ... predictive ... the whole point about the Kwisatz Haderach is that he can see the past and the possible futures and choose one ...
The whole point is that Paul is *Not* a dangerous egotist ... but the one who does *not* want to be worshipped, does not want the Jihad ...and avoids it even though he knows it is the only Golden Path, his son becomes the God Emperor that he would not.... who rules absolutely for 3,500 years, simply to prepare humanity to survive ...
We're gonna teach you what metaphor and subtext are kid. You just wait around.
@@DamienWalter...so you are going to teach me things the author didn't put in the books ... and when asked about them he derided the people for missing the point of the books ...
I suspect I won't bother then ...
@@davidioanhedges Watch the Heresy of Frank Herbert. His own words.
And why do you automatically assume predictive, prophetic dreams are a good thing for Paul to let control and guide him, his rule and the fate of mankind?
I wonder if Villeneuve will ever direct a comedy movie
Maybe he and the Daniels should collaborate :)
I've wondered about that, but I just don't see it. (On the other hand, Kubrick did make Dr. Strangelove...)
Cette peau là !! C'est une mauvaise peau .
C'est une thème qui manque de sagesse qui éprouve une forte haine .
Paul is the biggest bad in a story without heroes.
Such a weak interpretation. Here's the truth. Frank Hebert tried to write a cautionary tale about the dangers of charismatic leaders. It backfired. Denis tried to double down, and it backfired as well. Even more i would say. Just look at the reviews online. Especially by young men. They either want to be Paul, be like him, or be a soldier in his service. It went completely over their heads. Denis did his job too well.
This will be a film of this generation of young men. It calls something ancient in the blood. It's perfect, and you are right to be worried about the cultural and political implications of this.
Well, let's hope Dune Messiah will clear up some misconceptions.
Obviously not all, there are people out there who will ignore the most blatant depictions of evil and see it as something to cherish, the "Empire did nothing wrong" crowd. But people who simply misunderstood the message will see it more clearly when it is spelled out in blood and death in the final movie of the trilogy.
@@sertaki you are confused. Intentions don't matter unless they can be reasonably derived from the story. And that's what is said in my first comment, that Frank Herbert was unable to accomplish what he tried to do. So did Denis. The second book is not relevant with the interpretation of the first book because it is just that, second. Herbert tried to walk a bunch of shit back, too late bro. And btw, have you ever considered why you believe it is evil? Do you know why you have that belief?
Fearless charismatic leaders have been responsible for every great horror in history, yes. But they have also been responsible for every great achievement. They took us too the moon, they discovered the known universe, they lifted most of the world out of poverty, they defeated the greatest evils the world has ever known. Who did you fucking think Jesus was? Some all loving hippy? He conquered death after he fucking cleared out hell. He was a radical, and fanatic, a revolutionary.
If you only take into account the information from the first book or these first few films, you do not have enough ground to call Paul evil. Not even close. You call him evil because you fear true belief, you fear the fearless, you fear greatness, you fear power.
Power is not inherently evil. You didn't even understand Lord of the Rings and neither did the author. The reason why no one could have the ring is not because power is inherently evil. If it was, then God would be evil. Tolkien didn't believe that God was evil, he was a Catholic. It was bcs none was fit to control the ring, to exercise the power. It was pride, not power.
Guess what, Paul is fit.
There is too much more to be said to write here. If it has to be explained to you, then you're just not that guy. Sorry to tell you, but it's an IQ check
@@sertaki @sertaki you are confused. Intentions don't matter unless they can be reasonably derived from the story. And that's what is said in my first comment, that Frank Herbert was unable to accomplish what he tried to do. So did Denis. The second book is not relevant with the interpretation of the first book because it is just that, second. Herbert tried to walk a bunch of shit back, too late bro. And btw, have you ever considered why you believe it is evil? Do you know why you have that belief?
Fearless charismatic leaders have been responsible for every great horror in history, yes. But they have also been responsible for every great achievement. They took us too the moon, they discovered the known universe, they lifted most of the world out of poverty, they defeated the greatest evils the world has ever known. Who did you fucking think Jesus was? Some all loving hippy? He conquered death after he fucking cleared out hell. He was a radical, and fanatic, a revolutionary.
If you only take into account the information from the first book or these first few films, you do not have enough ground to call Paul evil. Not even close. You call him evil because you fear true belief, you fear the fearless, you fear greatness, you fear power.
Power is not inherently evil. You didn't even understand Lord of the Rings and neither did the author. The reason why no one could have the ring is not because power is inherently evil. If it was, then God would be evil. Tolkien didn't believe that God was evil, he was a Catholic. It was bcs none was fit to control the ring, to exercise the power. It was pride, not power.
Guess what, Paul is fit.
There is too much more to be said to write here. If it has to be explained to you, then you're just not that guy. Sorry to tell you, but it's an IQ check
@sertaki you are confused. Intentions don't matter unless they can be reasonably derived from the story. And that's what is said in my first comment, that Frank Herbert was unable to accomplish what he tried to do. So did Denis. The second book is not relevant with the interpretation of the first book because it is just that, second. Herbert tried to walk a bunch of shit back, too late bro. And btw, have you ever considered why you believe it is evil? Do you know why you have that belief?
Fearless charismatic leaders have been responsible for every great horror in history, yes. But they have also been responsible for every great achievement. They took us too the moon, they discovered the known universe, they lifted most of the world out of poverty, they defeated the greatest evils the world has ever known. Who did you fucking think Jesus was? Some all loving hippy? He conquered death after he fucking cleared out hell. He was a radical, and fanatic, a revolutionary.
If you only take into account the information from the first book or these first few films, you do not have enough ground to call Paul evil. Not even close. You call him evil because you fear true belief, you fear the fearless, you fear greatness, you fear power.
Power is not inherently evil. You didn't even understand Lord of the Rings and neither did the author. The reason why no one could have the ring is not because power is inherently evil. If it was, then God would be evil. Tolkien didn't believe that God was evil, he was a Catholic. It was bcs none was fit to control the ring, to exercise the power. It was pride, not power.
Guess what, Paul is fit.
There is too much more to be said to write here. If it has to be explained to you, then you're just not that guy. Sorry to tell you, but it's an IQ check
@sertaki you are confused. Intentions don't matter unless they can be reasonably derived from the story. And that's what is said in my first comment, that Frank Herbert was unable to accomplish what he tried to do. So did Denis. The second book is not relevant with the interpretation of the first book because it is just that, second. Herbert tried to walk a bunch of shit back, too late bro. And btw, have you ever considered why you believe it is evil? Do you know why you have that belief?
Fearless charismatic leaders have been responsible for every great horror in history, yes. But they have also been responsible for every great achievement. They took us too the moon, they discovered the known universe, they lifted most of the world out of poverty, they defeated the greatest evils the world has ever known. Who did you fucking think Jesus was? Some all loving hippy? He conquered death after he fucking cleared out hell. He was a radical, and fanatic, a revolutionary.
If you only take into account the information from the first book or these first few films, you do not have enough ground to call Paul evil. Not even close. You call him evil because you fear true belief, you fear the fearless, you fear greatness, you fear power.
Power is not inherently evil. You didn't even understand Lord of the Rings and neither did the author. The reason why no one could have the ring is not because power is inherently evil. If it was, then God would be evil. Tolkien didn't believe that God was evil, he was a Catholic. It was bcs none was fit to control the ring, to exercise the power. It was pride, not power.
Guess what, Paul is fit.
There is too much more to be said to write here. If it has to be explained to you, then you're just not that guy. Sorry to tell you, but it's an IQ check
Don't listen to all the idiots in the comments. Your interpretation to Paul as a character and his relationship to his dreams/visions is spot on.
I REALLY disliked you're entire take here. To hear this come from such a well developed and articulate mind makes me sad. My generation clearly failed your parents and you.
"I didn't understand Dune at all"
😂 oh, how I hope Villeneuve will be able to film Messiah. The ending will show how accurate this analysis is… Props for being able to create such grand allusions, however your analysis is wrong.
I don't remember a Jamis in the book. His inclusion offends me. Yes, I am girl. Perhaps I missed something (which is not what I meant when I said I was a girl).
Jamis was in the book. After killing him paul was required to say that he was a friend of jamis, which made him feel uncomfortable, but that bit was not in the film.
@neilbradley100 Thanks, now I remember. He was really a different character in the book (an enemy) than in the movie (sort of an adviser?). Dana
I'm not sure Paul was psychotic. I believe he foresaw what he might become - Alia, who truly did go psychotic - and he stepped back from that precipice. He was a hero in the short term in that he liberated Arrakis and the Fremen from the grip of the Harkonens and the empire's need for spice. But because he stepped back from that precipice, it is my opinion that he could not see the way to prevent the jihad he himself had unleashed. He was driven to avenge his father and house, to both use and liberate the Fremen and to destroy the Harkonens. But in so doing he had to take great risks of falling over the precipice, of becoming what Alia became and what Leto II would eventually become. Even Leto II, who would find a far better balance, knew that he would fail in the end, and tried to create a path forward after his own demise. Paul could never see that path because he was afraid of what would happen if he looked. Is that psychosis? I don't think so, although his behavior later becomes psychotic.