Ok, I *just* got home from seeing the movie with my husband. I didn't read your post yesterday because I was trying to avoid spoilers, but I read it as soon as I got home because after seeing it I really wanted to read your thoughts about the concubine issue. Almost everything you said - down to pointing out that the last line of the book is Jessica saying that "history will remember us as wives" - were my exact comments to my husband in the car ride home from the movie theater. I liked the movie over-all but I too am disappointed (but not surprised) how they handled the sexual dynamics of the book. And it's not *just* because I'm a literary purist (although, it's that too).
I'm tired of the kind of on-screen female empowerment that we always seem to get in place of a nuanced treatment of gender imbalance, and I think it's actually becoming dangerous. Overdrawing female characters' personal agency within patriarchal structures gives everyone an out from facing the hard-to-swallow reasons why women *have* historically been disempowered. "Why can't you women stop complaining and just be like Chani? Why can't you just decide to stop being oppressed?" I actually see this attitude a lot from men these days: if you talk about women being oppressed by men they think you're exaggerating the power imbalance and say things like, "Well, my wife/daughters would never let a man treat them like that" - as if it's nothing more to it than a choice that women make. And then they slap themselves on the back for thinking women are "so strong."
You really hit the nail on the head here: "In the movie, it seems that Chani is content to walk away from Paul, and simply can if she wishes to. In the book, Chani’s desire and ability to walk away from Paul is already hamstrung. Chani can no more walk away from Paul than she can walk away from Arrakis. She is part of the tragedy." That rings *so* much truer to me than Chani being some kind of freewheeling, independent agent who has the luxury of deciding, "I'm not gonna let no man walk all over ME." Meanwhile, the vast majority of women in history are rolling their eyes saying, "Gee, why didn't I ever think of doing that?"
Love the analysis. Ultimately, though I think it comes down to the limitation of the medium and the intended audience. Denis needed a way to communicate the major themes of the source material in a way that would connect with genera laudiences. Chani's betrayal and anger were a good way of making it emotionally clear to the audience that Paul assuming the role of messiah is a bad thing. That's hard to communicate to general audiences so conditioned to like and support the protagonist, especially a "Chosen one". Refashioning Chani's character, unfortunately, may have been the best way to do it. You're right that it's not very subtle though and ignores the important ideas of gender present in the book. I think I'd still choose that though if it means that the audience has a better chance of understanding the key themes.
This was a great article! DV missed it with Chani, and you helped articulate it well: "By emphasizing Jessica’s comforting of Chani, they turn the attention from Paul’s climb to power to the grief that is left in his wake – Chani and the nightmare her life has become in its wake. It tells us that this is the essential story – not who has the throne, but what is done to get it." BOOM. He has another shot in Dune Messiah (I hope) to show the love between Paul and Chani, and how it is foundational to their collective messianic tale. Messiah's are about sacrifice: Paul's rejection of the Golden Path and Chani bringing into the world the God Emperor, at the cost of her life.
I was hoping I wasn't the only one irritated by the last 40 mins of the movie. I was thinking my expectations were too high going in, but this post hits the problem on the head. I sat there wondering if Denis was trying to poke evangelicals in the US by spending an inordinate amount of time highlighting the divide between the nothern freman and the southern fundamentalists, a distinction that wasn't in the book. I was really irritated where he took (or didn't) Chani, their children, Alia, Jessica, etc.
I actually found this quote from Denis. Which makes me hope that this is more fleshed out in Messiah. It seems like, as you said, he may have misunderstood Chani. But it seems as if he still find her very pivotal.
"And the way to approach this, I really made this adaptation, the focus in this adaptation was in the relationship between Paul [Atreides] and Chani. That is why Chani [Zendaya’s character] became so permanent and such an important character in Paul Atreides’ journey, more important than in the book because Chani gave me the perspective that I need to convey the idea of Frank Herbert." https://theplaylist.net/denis-villeneuve-calls-dune-part-two-a-dark-tragedy-interview-20240228/
I liked the film, but this is coming from someone who has never read the book. Now hearing what is in the book, I am sad that the woman of dune were not better portrayed.
yes. totally. the movie was an epic space opera but it really failed to be Dune. I also horribly missed
the depth and nuance to the female characters in the book. The strength in the face of suffering. Powerful women are not just about being snotty girl bosses.
Ok, I *just* got home from seeing the movie with my husband. I didn't read your post yesterday because I was trying to avoid spoilers, but I read it as soon as I got home because after seeing it I really wanted to read your thoughts about the concubine issue. Almost everything you said - down to pointing out that the last line of the book is Jessica saying that "history will remember us as wives" - were my exact comments to my husband in the car ride home from the movie theater. I liked the movie over-all but I too am disappointed (but not surprised) how they handled the sexual dynamics of the book. And it's not *just* because I'm a literary purist (although, it's that too).
I'm tired of the kind of on-screen female empowerment that we always seem to get in place of a nuanced treatment of gender imbalance, and I think it's actually becoming dangerous. Overdrawing female characters' personal agency within patriarchal structures gives everyone an out from facing the hard-to-swallow reasons why women *have* historically been disempowered. "Why can't you women stop complaining and just be like Chani? Why can't you just decide to stop being oppressed?" I actually see this attitude a lot from men these days: if you talk about women being oppressed by men they think you're exaggerating the power imbalance and say things like, "Well, my wife/daughters would never let a man treat them like that" - as if it's nothing more to it than a choice that women make. And then they slap themselves on the back for thinking women are "so strong."
You really hit the nail on the head here: "In the movie, it seems that Chani is content to walk away from Paul, and simply can if she wishes to. In the book, Chani’s desire and ability to walk away from Paul is already hamstrung. Chani can no more walk away from Paul than she can walk away from Arrakis. She is part of the tragedy." That rings *so* much truer to me than Chani being some kind of freewheeling, independent agent who has the luxury of deciding, "I'm not gonna let no man walk all over ME." Meanwhile, the vast majority of women in history are rolling their eyes saying, "Gee, why didn't I ever think of doing that?"
Love the analysis. Ultimately, though I think it comes down to the limitation of the medium and the intended audience. Denis needed a way to communicate the major themes of the source material in a way that would connect with genera laudiences. Chani's betrayal and anger were a good way of making it emotionally clear to the audience that Paul assuming the role of messiah is a bad thing. That's hard to communicate to general audiences so conditioned to like and support the protagonist, especially a "Chosen one". Refashioning Chani's character, unfortunately, may have been the best way to do it. You're right that it's not very subtle though and ignores the important ideas of gender present in the book. I think I'd still choose that though if it means that the audience has a better chance of understanding the key themes.
This was a great article! DV missed it with Chani, and you helped articulate it well: "By emphasizing Jessica’s comforting of Chani, they turn the attention from Paul’s climb to power to the grief that is left in his wake – Chani and the nightmare her life has become in its wake. It tells us that this is the essential story – not who has the throne, but what is done to get it." BOOM. He has another shot in Dune Messiah (I hope) to show the love between Paul and Chani, and how it is foundational to their collective messianic tale. Messiah's are about sacrifice: Paul's rejection of the Golden Path and Chani bringing into the world the God Emperor, at the cost of her life.
I was hoping I wasn't the only one irritated by the last 40 mins of the movie. I was thinking my expectations were too high going in, but this post hits the problem on the head. I sat there wondering if Denis was trying to poke evangelicals in the US by spending an inordinate amount of time highlighting the divide between the nothern freman and the southern fundamentalists, a distinction that wasn't in the book. I was really irritated where he took (or didn't) Chani, their children, Alia, Jessica, etc.
I actually found this quote from Denis. Which makes me hope that this is more fleshed out in Messiah. It seems like, as you said, he may have misunderstood Chani. But it seems as if he still find her very pivotal.
"And the way to approach this, I really made this adaptation, the focus in this adaptation was in the relationship between Paul [Atreides] and Chani. That is why Chani [Zendaya’s character] became so permanent and such an important character in Paul Atreides’ journey, more important than in the book because Chani gave me the perspective that I need to convey the idea of Frank Herbert." https://theplaylist.net/denis-villeneuve-calls-dune-part-two-a-dark-tragedy-interview-20240228/
I liked the film, but this is coming from someone who has never read the book. Now hearing what is in the book, I am sad that the woman of dune were not better portrayed.
yes. totally. the movie was an epic space opera but it really failed to be Dune. I also horribly missed
the depth and nuance to the female characters in the book. The strength in the face of suffering. Powerful women are not just about being snotty girl bosses.