I hate this take. stories are better when they're not morality plays. the Atreides are more principled and humane and that's about it. you can decide on your own whether or not they're worthy of being sympathized with. I think neither Herbert's writing nor Villeneuve's adaptation try to influence you into doing so.
Did we watch the same film? House atreides was portrayed pretty much exclusively by sympathetic characters, and the Harkonnens displayed almost exclusively through 'evil' stereotypes and were also framed as such by our sympathetic heroes. I can't remotely see how you watched that film and feel like it doesn't try to influence a sympathetic view of atreides. Maybe you can come away with that perspective after reading the source material, but I'm not convinced you could do so after watching the film cold. I also hate the morality play shit which I thought was evident in my post, and is exactly the reason I found this aspect of the film cringe.
I think it's important to distinguish between the Atreides being "better" than the (admittedly cartoonishly evil) Harkonnen and them being "good". the film very clearly portrays where their interests lie. we're shown how Leto isn't careless with the lives of his subjects (at least when he has the opportunity to intervene directly) and that's well and good, but we're also shown how his willingness to cooperate with the Fremen is entirely self-serving ("cultivating desert power") and how they're willing to run deep psyops to facilitate that. we're also shown how the Fremen view them as just another clan of outworlders come to exploit the land and fuck with their right to self-determination and you and I would probably agree that their assessment is correct.
conversely the Fremen will execute you and turn your body into a dry raisin if they judge you incapable of surviving the desert. they're not exactly "good" either (and without getting into major spoilers, this is putting it lightly). Dune isn't a black and white story.
reasonably speaking, you're likely expected to sympathize with Paul, who is a teenager forced into strenuous circumstances and who has little to no agency for most of the story. that's about it. the rest is what you affixed, and while that's perfectly normal, it's also not canon.
Yeah I agree with all of this. I was responding to the point that the film doesn't try to influence you into sympathising with atreides, but the film spends a disproportionate amount of time showing them performing sympathetic actions and stating their 'better' moralities even if it does also show they have other motives, which is all set against the backdrop of some cartoonishly evil alternative. Like I do get it and agree with what you're saying, but the majority of people i.e. non-marxists watching this film will have taken away that house atreides are the "goodies", and I just wish that more care was taken to not let that happen
it does give the audience plenty of room for confirming their own biases, that's true. I wouldn't put it past Herbert or Villeneuve to believe in such a thing as "good imperialism" either. with that said I feel like the goals of writing a credible story and coaxing readers into adopting a single objectivist interpretation of it are in conflict with each other. that, and "death of the author" as a concept is useful not just in experiencing stories with sufficient detachment as to examine them astutely, but also in allowing yourself to enjoy them.
Oh yeah for sure. I'm just very interested in reception studies, so usually when I'm talking about any type of art it's through that perspective. It's hell
House atreides was portrayed pretty much exclusively by sympathetic characters, and the Harkonnens displayed almost exclusively through ‘evil’ stereotypes and were also framed as such by our sympathetic heroes.
One reason why I think earlier movie adaptions did a better job of it.
House Atreides has a very Liberal Democracy vibe to it, in so far as its got the trappings of modernism and progressivism and rationalism. But they're still doing the same evil shit. Leto Atreides seeks military alliance with the Fremen in the same way that the CIA sought military alliance with the Bin Ladens. The Evil Harkonnens rule with an iron fist while the Benevolent Atreides attempt the same with a silk glove. But they both play the same game, courting the Emperor's favor while obliquely maneuvering to unseat him.
One aspect of the novel that often gets overlooked is the viewpoint of the Planetologist Liet-Kynes, who posits that - absent the constant scouring of the sands for Spice - the planet might become a bountiful ecological paradise. Further, various characters note the rather stagnant state of the Empire, particularly in so far as it remains reliant on Spice long after technological advancement should have rendered it unnecessary.
In Text, the Atreides are the "Good Guys" and the Harkonnens the "Bad Guys" and everyone else is just a bit player. But go to the subtext and you'll get a very different story. This is very much a book about the Cold War and the Gas Crisis of the 70s. That's why it resonated so strongly after it was written. And it requires a second look at the Bene Jessuits and the Spacers Guild and the Emperor himself as prime movers in this Space Opera. The Harkonnens and the Atreides are merely playing their roles within a much grander game. Their relative morality is as much a consequence of deliberately engineered genetic breeding, economic pressure, and political horse-trading as it is of their own personal virtues.
Apply a little materialism to Dune and you'll find it resonates strongly.
I hate this take. stories are better when they're not morality plays. the Atreides are more principled and humane and that's about it. you can decide on your own whether or not they're worthy of being sympathized with. I think neither Herbert's writing nor Villeneuve's adaptation try to influence you into doing so.
Did we watch the same film? House atreides was portrayed pretty much exclusively by sympathetic characters, and the Harkonnens displayed almost exclusively through 'evil' stereotypes and were also framed as such by our sympathetic heroes. I can't remotely see how you watched that film and feel like it doesn't try to influence a sympathetic view of atreides. Maybe you can come away with that perspective after reading the source material, but I'm not convinced you could do so after watching the film cold. I also hate the morality play shit which I thought was evident in my post, and is exactly the reason I found this aspect of the film cringe.
I think it's important to distinguish between the Atreides being "better" than the (admittedly cartoonishly evil) Harkonnen and them being "good". the film very clearly portrays where their interests lie. we're shown how Leto isn't careless with the lives of his subjects (at least when he has the opportunity to intervene directly) and that's well and good, but we're also shown how his willingness to cooperate with the Fremen is entirely self-serving ("cultivating desert power") and how they're willing to run deep psyops to facilitate that. we're also shown how the Fremen view them as just another clan of outworlders come to exploit the land and fuck with their right to self-determination and you and I would probably agree that their assessment is correct.
conversely the Fremen will execute you and turn your body into a dry raisin if they judge you incapable of surviving the desert. they're not exactly "good" either (and without getting into major spoilers, this is putting it lightly). Dune isn't a black and white story.
reasonably speaking, you're likely expected to sympathize with Paul, who is a teenager forced into strenuous circumstances and who has little to no agency for most of the story. that's about it. the rest is what you affixed, and while that's perfectly normal, it's also not canon.
Yeah I agree with all of this. I was responding to the point that the film doesn't try to influence you into sympathising with atreides, but the film spends a disproportionate amount of time showing them performing sympathetic actions and stating their 'better' moralities even if it does also show they have other motives, which is all set against the backdrop of some cartoonishly evil alternative. Like I do get it and agree with what you're saying, but the majority of people i.e. non-marxists watching this film will have taken away that house atreides are the "goodies", and I just wish that more care was taken to not let that happen
it does give the audience plenty of room for confirming their own biases, that's true. I wouldn't put it past Herbert or Villeneuve to believe in such a thing as "good imperialism" either. with that said I feel like the goals of writing a credible story and coaxing readers into adopting a single objectivist interpretation of it are in conflict with each other. that, and "death of the author" as a concept is useful not just in experiencing stories with sufficient detachment as to examine them astutely, but also in allowing yourself to enjoy them.
Oh yeah for sure. I'm just very interested in reception studies, so usually when I'm talking about any type of art it's through that perspective. It's hell
:kitty-cri-screm:
One reason why I think earlier movie adaptions did a better job of it.
House Atreides has a very Liberal Democracy vibe to it, in so far as its got the trappings of modernism and progressivism and rationalism. But they're still doing the same evil shit. Leto Atreides seeks military alliance with the Fremen in the same way that the CIA sought military alliance with the Bin Ladens. The Evil Harkonnens rule with an iron fist while the Benevolent Atreides attempt the same with a silk glove. But they both play the same game, courting the Emperor's favor while obliquely maneuvering to unseat him.
One aspect of the novel that often gets overlooked is the viewpoint of the Planetologist Liet-Kynes, who posits that - absent the constant scouring of the sands for Spice - the planet might become a bountiful ecological paradise. Further, various characters note the rather stagnant state of the Empire, particularly in so far as it remains reliant on Spice long after technological advancement should have rendered it unnecessary.
In Text, the Atreides are the "Good Guys" and the Harkonnens the "Bad Guys" and everyone else is just a bit player. But go to the subtext and you'll get a very different story. This is very much a book about the Cold War and the Gas Crisis of the 70s. That's why it resonated so strongly after it was written. And it requires a second look at the Bene Jessuits and the Spacers Guild and the Emperor himself as prime movers in this Space Opera. The Harkonnens and the Atreides are merely playing their roles within a much grander game. Their relative morality is as much a consequence of deliberately engineered genetic breeding, economic pressure, and political horse-trading as it is of their own personal virtues.
Apply a little materialism to Dune and you'll find it resonates strongly.