wandercreature

"One cannot see the future without seeing the past.."

And so among the other thoughts that have been marinating through my mind since my first viewing of DUNE Part Two (2024) is that in spite of it being made into two films, Villeneuve and screenwriter Jon Spaihts were tasked with what path Paul Atreides would take along his journey, and what has been decided maintains the deconstructive aims of Herbert's novel while gaming out some really fascinating "What-Ifs" that seemingly feel informed by previous adaptation attempts.

No spoilers here, but it must be said that going this way makes great sense in terms of the current political and social moment, as well as granting the core ideas more clarity and less unnecessary narrative noise. For many who have already commented about the second film being pretty dense, unfamiliar with the book might be surprised to hear how minimalist this take on the material is without omitting the haunted and broken heart of it.

Everyone shows up for this film as the novel and legacy demands, but it is a potentially tough sit for those uncomfortable with the notion that in the struggle between heart and mind, the mind has shaped a great deal of the world that surrounds us while the heart tends to get exploited and ultimately abandoned. Or at least, this is the core idea that has always affected me with the original text. - the heart, merely exploitable lubricant for the gears of both power and influence. Rarely to never a means of functional liberation.

Part Two is a truly extraordinary, bordering on monolithic accomplishment for all involved. But mileage could vary depending upon one's view of power in a historical sense. It may be science fiction on a scale unseen before by mass audiences, but I remain unsure of what it means that Herbert's voice is now in their hands, while fans of the books now find themselves in bold, potentially provocative new territory.