Film Review: Dune Part 2

 

Sexuality/Nudity Acceptable

Violence Acceptable

Vulgarity Acceptable

Anti-Catholic Philosophy Mature

One of the greatest book adaptations of a beloved 20th Century series was Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings trilogy.  There are many reasons that these films were instant classics.  But above all it was because of: excellent directing, expert use of special effects, intelligent writing, and fantastic performances.

And that same formula is what makes Dennis Villeneuve's Dune movies so good.

Are they as good as The Lord of the Rings?  No.  

But the quality is so high that seeing the movies in the theater is like a glass of cool water in a scorching desert (pun intended).

SPOILERS BELOW FOR THE FIRST DUNE MOVIE

Dune Part 2 picks up immediately after the events of the first movie.  Paul Atredies (Timothee Chalamet) and his mother Jessica (Rebecca Ferguson) are in the harsh deserts of Arrakis making their place with the nomadic Fremen, led by Stilgar (Javier Bardem).  Stilgar believes that Paul is the Lisan al-Gaib, a promised messiah who will make Arrakis a paradise.  Others like Chani (Zendaya), the literal girl of Paul's dreams), are skeptical of such prophecies.  And she has reason to be this way.  The Bene-Gesserit, an order of psychic women Jesuits, have been at work for centuries on Arrakis planting the myth of the Lisan al-Gaib in order to control the people.  Jessica leans into this fertile ground of belief, but Paul resists, revolted by its dishonesty.  Instead, he embraces the life of the Fremen despite their deification of him.  

Meanwhile, Princess Irulian (Florence Pugh), daughter of Emperor Shadam (Christopher Walken) consults with the Bene-Geserat about what to do next.  Paul was part of their plans to create male Bene-Gesserit called the Kwisatz Haderach.  But now that he is supposedly dead, they need to look for a new potential line.  They look to House Harkonnen and to Feyd-Rautha (Austin Butler), the savage and psychotic nephew of Baron Vladamir Harkonnen (Stellen Skarsgaard).  All of these forces eventually converge into a final climactic confrontation for the fate of not only Arrakis, but potentially the universe.

As you can tell from the plot summary, the story is complex.  But the filmmakers are able to handle the complexity of Frank Herbert's world with great skill.  In addition to the characters who survived the first film, the narrative adds even more people into the mix.  But everyone is given enough time so that you can get a strong sense of who the character is and what place they have in the story.

Visually, I cannot say enough good things about Villeneuve.  He has a command of the visual style so that the harsh deserts of Arrakis are presented with an incomprehensible beauty while at the same time losing none of its starkness and danger.  He knows how to frame a shot and to move the camera in ways to get you into the emotional space of the characters.  He also is one of the few directors working who knows how to use CGI to its maximum effect.  Like Godzilla Minus One, the effects are so well incorporated into the overall aesthetic that I forgot that I was looking at computer creations.

The acting is also fantastic.  Chalamet gives Paul a commanding presence inside of his wiry frame.  You see this especially as he character evolves.  The way he holds himself and modulates his voice and posture show you the command that the actor has over this skill.  Ferguson is as good in this as she was in the first, projecting confidence while hiding terrible insecurity.  Bardem played so differently than I have seen him in the past.  His Stilgar is a man of such blind faith that he approaches Paul with wide-eyed devotion to the point of almost seemingly like innocence.  Zendaya's aloofness mixed with passion make for a wonderful contradiction of emotions.  However, special mention should be given to Butler.  His Feyd-Rautha is as much a transformation for him as he had in Elvis.  He carries himself with a deadly, snake-like quality while perfectly capture the accent and cadence of Sarsgaard.  Walken and Pugh are fine in their roles, but they are not quiet given enough to do.  Although from the trailers I was hoping that Walken would play a bit more subtle than normal, but he didn't go as far as I would have liked.

My biggest critique of the film is the pacing.  With everything set up in the first movie, this one should have been all about watching the dominos fall.  And for the first hour, that is the case.  It wasn't that this first part was all action.  There are long moments of ponderous dialogue.  But in all of those scenes, you can feel the tension and emotion.  As the movie carries on, the sharpness of the emotion begins to dull a bit.  Unlike The Lord of the Rings, this movie does not build to a great catharsis.  The further we go, the more we feel Paul being pulled towards his destiny and away from us.  While this move may be intentional, it makes the experience less satisfying.

The themes of Dune are also very complex.  Throughout the movie, you can feel Frank Herbert's distrust of religion (although JRR Tolkien never said why he detested Dune, I might guess that this was part of the reason).  It would be easy to dismiss Dune as a simple take-down of simple-minded religious faith.  But I think that would do Herbert and Villeneuve a disservice.  There is clearly a distrust of blind faith.  Stilgar is a perfect example of this as someone who interprets every possible detail as proof of his belief.  But are the prophecies of the Bene-Gesserit really lies?  When is a lie not a lie?  When it unintentionally tells the truth?  And if Paul turns out to be everything that the made up prophecies say, does that mean that they are all lies?

Dune's main philosophy is one of humanism.  There is a suspicion of religious faith because of how it can lead people give up their rationality.  The Harkonnens are portrayed as villains because they are slaves to their animalistic impulses.  There are no computers in Dune because people are supposed to think for themselves.  On Arrakis, the people survive and thrive by their will and their wits.  In the world of Dune, Christianity has been subsumed into an amalgam of other religious faiths, so I could understand many seeing the movie as having an anti-Christian tone.  But taken on its own terms, I think Herbert and Villanueve are exploring the consequences of belief on a society.  Without their belief in Paul, the Fremen would have no chance at victory.  So it seems like some kind of belief is necessary in this world.  But the story is mature enough to let the audience draw its own conclusions.

I also liked the how they foiled Paul with Feyd-Rautha.  Unlike the other Harkonnens, Feyd-Rautha does have some sense of discipline and honor while losing none of his psychotic evil.  Both he and Paul are caught in a conflict larger than themselves and brings them to a collision course.  

The movie also throws you into several moral dilemmas.  If the only way to save the ones you love would result in the deaths of others, what is your responsibility?  Can you use an immoral means to achieve a moral end?  At what point does a hero turn into a villain?  How do you choose between your heart and your duty?  All of these questions are answered by the characters, but we are invited to agree or disagree.  Dune respects us enough not to force-feed us the ideas of the filmmakers.  Instead we are invited into the conversation to contribute our judgments.

The biggest difference between Villeneuve's Dune and Jackson's The Lord of the Rings  that Jackson's movies are aspirational: he presents the kind of heroes that we would want to be.  Villeneuve's movies presents morally ambiguous heroes that are shaped by the harsh sands of Arrakis.  This results in two very different types of stories.

But both are absolutely worth telling