ironically reflecting the stories' philosophical differences movie arwen & movie chani are both given onscreen agency that they did not have in the books by playing precisely inverse narrative roles that are yet equally integral to the externalization of plot and theme in their respective films in this essay i will
Thinking about Paul stomping the ground to urge Shaddam to kiss the ring, and how that evokes a bull pawing ground before charging, and how his paternal grandfather used to fight, and was killed by a bull, and how he is now embracing his Harkonnen side, whose name comes from Finnish surname Härkönen derived from härkä: bull
I can’t ever leave tumblr because I just love the tag function.. no other social media platform allows you to heckle yourself on your own post. you get to preemptively make metatextual commentary abt your OWN POST. how cool is that
Something I really love in dune part 2, is the juxtaposition of chani's reaction during the war council scene and the ending scene.
In the war council scene everyone is on their knees but when Paul declares himself the mahdi and says he'll lead them to paradise, they all jump to their feet and shout lisan al gaib, chani however is the only one to stay on her knees, kept there by her disbelief and devastation along with her refusal to exalt him like everyone else.
Then you have the end scene where paul becomes Emperor which both compliments and contrasts with the council scene, here everyone was standing and they all sink to their knees, but this time chani stays on her feet, she's all anger and defiance, paul promised to be her equal and she'll never willingly bow to him.
correct me if i’m wrong cos i don’t watch dune.. but i’ve seen people call paul a tragic character. except isn’t he a whole white coloniser tricking indigenous poc into believing he’s a prophet to serve his own interests? that’s inherently evil that cannot be a tragic character imo
so yes that is correct that is what happens. the tragedy is that he is a sixteen year old boy who gets a vision of this happening and he is TERRIFIED and absolutely does not want this to happen at all. He does not want the holy war he does not want to be the chosen one he initially very much wants to fight alongside the fremen as equals trying to liberate themselves from their current colonizer without becoming the messiah because they have common political cause.
And then the entire second half of the first book (and the second movie) are about the concessions he makes to himself bit by bit by bit (well it’s the only way to save his mom and sister. well it’s the only way to prevent nuclear war. well he does want his revenge. well maybe he IS special.) Until by the end he has lost 100% of his humanity, fully wants to be the messiah and is willing to manipulate people into thinking so, and has declared himself duke of arrakis in his father’s name and made a play for the imperial throne.
you’re right that it’s evil. the book and these movies agree with you. the tragedy is watching a child who desperately wanted to avoid this slowly completely lose himself to it anyways. i don’t think “tragic” and “evil” are inherently mutually exclusive.