An article written by Mimi Brickmeyer, which appeared in The Hollywood Investigator describing certain movies that would not have been made in the Post-9/11 America, cited "Frank Herbert's Dune" as one which would not have escaped the chop of editors. It seems almost obvious that the author either has not read this book, or has let the images of two mediocre films cover up the memories of this excellent book series.
To summarize (as best I can) the core plot of Dune, it is basically about life in the Imperium, circa 10,191. The Emperor, concerned about the popularity of House Atreides in the Landsraad, devises a plot to exploit the long-standing vendetta between the Atreides and House Harkonnen in an attempt to destroy the Atreides. This plot, with the Emperor's part hidden, is executed mainly due to the inclusion of a traitor to the Atreides. This traitor, however, does not trust the Emperor so he provides a safe haven for the Atreides' son, Paul. Paul and his mother are sent into the desert to live among the Fremen, a fiercely religious people who live outside the view of the rest of the Imperium.
This is just the beginning of the story, but it is an extremely significant aspect considering the parallels that were drawn in the article. How to begin on the poorly researched comments involved in this article? Well, let's start with the so-called "movie premise" area.
They were proud desert warriors, poor but God-fearing - occupied and exploited by heathen armies and foreign cartels for the fuel beneath their sand. Too weak to attack their enemies' high-tech military head on, they resisted through surprise raids and bombings. The imperialist oppressors called them savages - even terrorists - but they knew themselves to be freedom-fighters. And that one day God would send a messiah to unite their tribes and lead them in jihad.
Well, the best statement to start with might as well be the most incorrect. The Fremen were in no way "Too weak to attack their enemies' high-tech military head on." The Fremen were actually just annoyed by the Harkonnens, intent on creating a lush, water-rich environment on their homeworld. They were incredible fighters who stayed hidden and disguised their numbers to protect themselves first. A very basic strategy that most 'high-tech' militaries forget about all too soon. "Poor but God-fearing" is another one that is an often misunderstood concept. The Fremen, not unlike many Christians, are not God-fearing but are respectful of God and pay homage to Him when a sign appears (Muad'dib was not God, Shai-Hulud, the great sandworm, was). Their God, was a powerful God who also provided the gift of mélange, the spice. "One day God would send a messiah to unite their tribes and lead them in Jihad." This concept is difficult to spot in Dune, but is clarified in the sequels Dune Messiah and Children Of Dune. Jihad was part of Paul's visions that he did not have the strength to avoid. It was the religion aspect taking control and him being powerless to take it down. In the sequels, Paul actually walks into the desert to die, but returns as a character called 'The Preacher' who tries to tear down the religion of Muad'dib. As stated, this is not very obvious in the first book, at least it wasn't to me.
It is Maud'Dib who leads the Fremen tribes in jihad against a spice-hungry Empire.
First of all, Jihad does not come until after Muad'dib becomes Emperor. The war that ensues through all of Dune is Paul's war to reclaim his throne on Arrakis, the territory that was taken from his father illegally. The economic system of Dune was a feudal system where the Great Houses were given fiefdom over planets by the Emperor. Shaddam IV grants title to House Atreides on Arrakis (Dune) as a ploy to kill Duke Leto Atreides. So, the taking of the planet by House Harkonnen is an act of war. The battle to reclaim it is simply an extension of the war that took it from them, not a jihad.
Maud'Dib defeats the Empire by taking the spice source hostage, and threatening to blow it up, which would plunge all civilization into a new dark age. Talk about terrorism! (Anyone recall Hussein's threat to blow up the Kuwaiti oil fields?)
Here we go. This one is ripe with falsehoods. "Muad'dib defeats the Empire by taking the spice source hostage" - close but no banana. What happens is that he uses this blackmail tactic against the Emperor and the Spacing Guild (who hold a monopoly on space travel, by the way) to prove that he has control over HIS planet. Another way to explain this would be from Muad'dib's own perspective-you put my family in control of this planet…now I am in control of this planet. Then we have "threatening to blow it up, which would plunge all civilization into a new dark age." True enough. Simplest way to prove that you are in absolute control over something that legally belongs to you, isn't it? Which of course leads to "(Anyone recall Hussein's threat to blow up the Kuwaiti oil fields?)." Of course we remember. Simple question: Did he legally own the Kuwaiti oil fields? No, he didn't. Apples and oranges here.
What's remarkable is how similar both adaptations are, both remaining faithful to the novel.
What's remarkable is that anyone who's read the book will notice that the parts that are "faithful" to the book are few and far between. If it were possible to merge the best aspects of both films, you would still only have half the accurate story. By no means do I intend this remark as a slight to either director. These films are both quite good and Mr. Lynch's version best maintains the integrity of the novel. The mini-series has way too much Hollywood-inspired glamour to it.
The tale actually implies that an indigenous people have a right to their land, and to the natural resources beneath it - even if a technologically more advanced civilization decides that they want it.
This closing argument makes me wonder even more about the author's research. The entire phrase has absolutely nothing to do with Dune. Simply, Dune is one man's war to regain control of his planet as the leader of his House and as the leader of the people of the planet, utilizing the resources at his disposal against an unlawful intrusion by a supposedly superior foe. The Emperor was not trying to possess Dune, he already did simply by being the Emperor. The planet was just a part of a plan to destroy an enemy.
Now, how about a more accurate assessment of parallels? The only parallel between the Fremen and Muslims, really is the religious aspect and the desert. Frank Herbert used Arabic cultures as the basis of his research for the obvious reason: they live in a desert area. This is the simplest of parallels drawn by small thinkers. The spice parallels to oil? Closer. In actuality, Herbert draws the parallel between oil and WATER, not spice. Spice is precious to the Universe, but on Arrakis, water is more important. Oil can be replaced if destroyed where mélange could not. The parallel between Paul and Mohammed is just an extension of the Fremen-Muslim connection. Not well thought out at all. Paul is now the leader of his House, which was nearly destroyed by a greater body because that body was threatened by their popularity with everyone else. If anything it would be compared to a Cold War-USSR taking down the United States because it was stronger due to compassion and loyalty (which is why the Atreides were so well-thought-of). The terrorists of Dune were the Harkonnens. Proof of that parallel? How do they control something? Fear. How did the Atreides control a planet? Loyalty.
The problem with making comparisons like these is simple. When you are drawing parallels between two concepts, make sure that you are drawing the correct ones. The author's links between the films and Islam are close. The links between the books and Islam are not. Dune teaches us a great many things that are not valued in today's world any more. It teaches about loyalty, courage, determination, integrity, and even ego (in an odd manner). Dune shows us that we can use intelligence for good or evil and that the way we are raised plays a significant factor in that. We learn that danger should never deter us from doing what we know is right. Military concepts such as honor and respect are significantly broached. It shows that there can be one leader and the entire population does not have to suffer under their boot, but still can. It shows the dangers of religion, as well as the uses and sometimes necessities of it.
The notion of certain films not being made in Hollywood Post-9/11 is a ridiculous concept for a ridiculous town overrun by politically correct people who are too scared of people's opinions to put out something truly great anymore that is an accurate portrayal of a previously published work. Some examples that come to mind:
Batman Forever - The Riddler and Two-Face - a two bit thief and a maniacal genius. Who gets the majority of screen time? The two-bit thief. Jim Carrey was hugely popular at the time, even though he wanted the roles to be more accurate as well. Great casting job though. Also, Gotham is not neon-colored, it's DARK.
Batman & Robin - ugh, talk about painful. Bane was the one character that has EVER broken The Bat. To Hollywood, he's a moron? Nice work.
The Prince Of Tides - I'll never forgive this script. A truly wonderful novel, whose main points were disguised or forgotten so that Barbara Streisand could have a love story.
Raise The Titanic - What more proof do you need here? Clive Cussler will no longer permit any of his novels to be made into films because of this one.
X-Men (to some degree) - what's with the leather? Matrix was cool, but a comic book is a visual medium. Yes, we CAN conceive of these colorful costumes in the 'real world' since that world is the MARVEL UNIVERSE, not this one. So, things have to change because people no longer have imaginations? We can still enjoy Superman in his costume, why not the X-Men too?
Tom Clancy's film versions with Harrison Ford and Ben Affleck are another example. Clear And Present Danger was truly painful to watch if you'd read the novel first.
Commentary by: Todd Florian
« Back to Top! »
