How ‘Dune’ became a beacon for the fledgling environmental movement

“Dune,” widely considered one of the best sci-fi novels of all time, continues to influence how writers, artists and inventors envision the future.

Of course, there are Denis Villeneuve’s visually stunning films, “Dune: Part One” (2021) and “Dune: Part Two” (2024).

But Frank Herbert’s masterpiece also helped Afrofuturist novelist Octavia Butler imagine a future of conflict amid environmental catastrophe; it inspired Elon Musk to build SpaceX and Tesla and push humanity toward the stars and a greener future; and it’s hard not to see parallels in George Lucas’ “Star Wars” franchise, especially their fascination with desert planets and giant worms.

And yet when Herbert sat down in 1963 to start writing “Dune,” he wasn’t thinking about how to leave Earth behind. He was thinking about how to save it.

Herbert wanted to tell a story about the environmental crisis on our own planet, a world driven to the edge of ecological catastrophe. Technologies that had been inconceivable just 50 years prior had put the world at the edge of nuclear war and the environment on the brink of collapse; massive industries were sucking wealth from the ground and spewing toxic fumes into the sky.

When the book was published, these themes were front and center for readers, too. After all, they were living in the wake of both the Cuban missile crisis and the publication of “Silent Spring,” conservationist Rachel Carson’s landmark study of pollution and its threat to the environment and human health.

“Dune” soon became a beacon for the fledgling environmental movement and a rallying flag for the new science of ecology.

Indigenous wisdoms

Though the term “ecology” had been coined almost a century earlier, the first textbook on ecology was not written until 1953, and the field was rarely mentioned in newspapers or magazines at the time. Few readers had heard of the emerging science, and even fewer knew what it suggested about the future of our planet.

While studying “Dune” for a book I’m writing on the history of ecology, I was surprised to learn that Herbert didn’t learn about ecology as a student or as a journalist.

Instead, he was inspired to explore ecology by the conservation practices of the tribes of the Pacific Northwest. He learned about them from two friends in particular.

The first was Wilbur Ternyik, a descendant of Chief Coboway, the Clatsop leader who welcomed explorers Meriwether Lewis and William Clark when their expedition reached the West Coast in 1805. The second, Howard Hansen, was an art teacher and oral historian of the Quileute tribe.

Ternyik, who was also an expert field ecologist, took Herbert on a tour of Oregon’s dunes in 1958. There, he explained his work to build massive dunes of sand using beach grasses and other deep-rooted plants in order to prevent the sands from blowing into the nearby town of Florence – a terraforming technology described at length in “Dune.” As Ternyik explains in a handbook he wrote for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, his work in Oregon was part of an effort to heal landscapes scarred by European colonization, especially the large river jetties built by early settlers.

These structures disturbed coastal currents and created vast expanses of sand, turning stretches of the lush Pacific Northwest landscape into desert. This scenario is echoed in “Dune,” where the novel’s setting, the planet Arrakis, was similarly laid to waste by its first colonizers.

Hansen, who became the godfather to Herbert’s son, had closely studied the equally drastic impact logging had on the homelands of the Quileute people in coastal Washington. He encouraged Herbert to examine ecology carefully, giving him a copy of Paul B. Sears’ “Where There is Life,” from which Herbert gathered one of his favorite quotes: “The highest function of science is to give us an understanding of consequences.” The Fremen of “Dune,” who live in the deserts of Arrakis and carefully manage its ecosystem and wildlife, embody these teachings. In the fight to save their world, they expertly blend ecological science and Indigenous practices.

Treasures hidden in the sand

But the work that had the most profound impact on “Dune” was Leslie Reid’s 1962 ecological study “The Sociology of Nature.” In this landmark work, Reid explained ecology and ecosystem science for a popular audience, illustrating the complex interdependence of all creatures within the environment.

“The more deeply ecology is studied,” Reid writes, “the clearer does it become that mutual dependence is a governing principle, that animals are bound to one another by unbreakable ties of dependence.” In the pages of Reid’s book, Herbert found a model for the ecosystem of Arrakis in a surprising place: the guano islands of Peru. As Reid explains, the accumulated bird droppings found on these islands was an ideal fertilizer. Home to mountains of manure described as a new “white gold” and one of the most valuable substances on Earth, the guano islands became in the late 1800s ground zero for a series of resource wars between Spain and several of its former colonies, including Peru, Bolivia, Chile and Ecuador.

At the heart of the plot of “Dune” is a battle for control of the “spice,” a priceless resource. Harvested from the sands of the desert planet, it’s both a luxurious flavoring for food and a hallucinogenic drug that allows some people to bend space, making interstellar travel possible.

There is some irony in the fact that Herbert cooked up the idea of spice from bird droppings. But he was fascinated by Reid’s careful account of the unique and efficient ecosystem that produced a valuable – albeit noxious – commodity.

As the ecologist explains, frigid currents in the Pacific Ocean push nutrients to the surface of nearby waters, helping photosynthetic plankton thrive. These support an astounding population of fish that feed hordes of birds, along with whales.

In early drafts of “Dune,” Herbert combined all of these stages into the life cycle of the giant sandworms, football field-sized monsters that prowl the desert sands and devour everything in their path.

Herbert imagines each of these terrifying creatures beginning as small, photosynthetic plants that grow into larger “sand trout.” Eventually, they become immense sandworms that churn the desert sands, spewing spice onto the surface.

In both the book and “Dune: Part One,” soldier Gurney Halleck recites a cryptic verse that comments on this inversion of marine life and arid regimes of extraction: “For they shall suck of the abundance of the seas and of the treasure hid in the sand.”

‘Dune’ revolutions

After “Dune” was published in 1965, the environmental movement eagerly embraced it.

Herbert spoke at Philadelphia’s first Earth Day in 1970, and in the first edition of the Whole Earth Catalog – a famous DIY manual and bulletin for environmental activists – “Dune” was advertised with the tagline: “The metaphor is ecology. The theme revolution.” In the opening of Denis Villeneuve’s first adaptation, “Dune,” Chani, an indigenous Fremen played by Zendaya, asks a question that anticipates the violent conclusion of the second film: “Who will our next oppressors be?” The immediate cut to a sleeping Paul Atreides, the white protagonist who’s played by Timothée Chalamet, drives the pointed anti-colonial message home like a knife. In fact, both of Villeneuve’s movies expertly elaborate upon the anti-colonial themes of Herbert’s novels.

Unfortunately, the edge of their environmental critique is blunted. But Villeneuve has suggested that he might also adapt “Dune Messiah” for his next film in the series – a novel in which the ecological damage to Arrakis is glaringly obvious.

I hope Herbert’s prescient ecological warning, which resonated so powerfully with readers back in the 1960s, will be unsheathed in “Dune 3.”

By Devin Griffiths, Associate Professor of English and Comparative Literature, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences Los Angeles

Source link

#Dune #beacon #fledgling #environmental #movement

On the Philosophy of ‘Dune: Part Two’ – Power, Control, Fate & Love | FirstShowing.net

On the Philosophy of ‘Dune: Part Two’ – Power, Control, Fate & Love

by Alex Billington
March 14, 2024

“Consider what you are about to do, Paul Atreides…” Be wary of the path you are headed down, Muad’Dib… As with the two biggest movies of last year (Barbie & Oppenheimer), the biggest movie of 2024 so far is also an extremely dense, philosophically compelling, morally complex work of cinematic art. It’s exhilarating and fascinating to ponder its epic story of control over the planet Arrakis, and even more exciting realizing that audiences are eating this up. Even if the philosophical ideas may not land as deeply with each viewer, it’s proof that truly believing in moviegoers as smart people is actually the right path to take nowadays. Dune: Part Two is playing in theaters worldwide and after watching it three times at the cinema, I must dig into its philosophical side. The most obvious themes are power & control, along with fate & destiny. However, it also makes me wonder about a bigger quandary: what does it really take to overthrow an oppressor and is there actually a successful way to achieve peace & freedom for all? Or will it always lead to more oppression?

One important note before going on – I have not read Frank Herbert’s books. I am familiar with where the story goes and the general ideas within the books, however my thoughts in this article are based entirely on what we’re shown in Denis Villeneuve’s two movies. Dune: Part Two is adapted by Denis Villeneuve along with sci-fi screenwriter Jon Spaihts. I also agree with this point made in Clint Gage’s editorial on Dune: Part Two and the differences from the book published on IGN: “The bigger philosophical point about adaptations though is that they should be different… Villeneuve and Spaihts wrote the two parts of Dune with an eye on the past and future that would make the Kwisatz Haderach proud, by adapting the source material through space, time and a dose of spice.” Even if there are certain philosophical ideas brought up or explained in the books, my conversation is based purely on what Villeneuve and Spaihts have chosen to show on screen, and how Paul’s arc progresses over these two movies so far. Of course, I’m familiar with where it leads with Paul (it ain’t good) which reminds me to indicate that there will be full-on spoilers from here on out. Obviously.

Dune: Part Two continues a modern sci-fi trend where it asks a whole bunch of intriguing questions, brings up plenty of fascinating ideas and concerns for viewers to contemplate, while refusing to provide more clear or useful answers to these concerns, or an optimistic path to follow (in our real world or imaginations). It goes without saying (but I’ll say it anyway) that our planet is not in a good place right now – with wars and tumult and troubles on nearly every last continent. An epic sci-fi movie like this, while obviously based on books that were inspired by the oil-obsessed days of the 1950s & 60s, is commenting on our life as humans on Planet Earth and is telling a story that we can relate to as we fight for freedom and peace – just as Paul & Chani do in the first half of Part Two. However, as much as it might be a good story about Fremen fighting back on Arrakis, it turns into something else and becomes a cautionary tale. Unfortunately this means it is not a guide for how to achieve peace and equality. And many of the philosophical ideas in it are questions rather than answers. I can’t provide definitive answers either, but I am still enticed by the questions anyway.

The two main philosophical themes found within Dune: Part Two are: fate / destiny, your chosen path as an individual, how much control you have over it, and how much you just should succumb to and follow it. Along with power / control, the obsessive pursuit of it, the “calculus” of power (as referred to in a line of dialogue), and how chasing power can cause those pursuing it to lose all control or humility. The question of fate and fatalism is most prominent, a common theme in many, many sci-fi films. The Matrix is also about this exact same philosophical conundrum as well. Does Neo have free will – even if he decides to leave his predestined path behind? What does free will even mean? Can he exercise that free will? Is he destined to become “The One”, the hero of Zion and humanity? Can he decide to become that hero or not? What control does he have over his own life if it is a prophecy he will fulfill simply by existing? Paul Atreides deals with these kinds of heavy “hero” questions as well throughout both of Villeneuve’s Dune movies so far. With an extra caveat thrown in – the Bene Gesserit: whispering & plotting & planning & controlling the galaxy for millennia. They “planted” him generations ago and thus he doesn’t have power over his destiny. Or does he?

Dune: Part Two - Paul Atreides

There is one aspect of Dune: Part Two that I’ve been arguing about ever since my very first watch. Viewers who have read the books know he is about to become an evil “Space Hitler-esque” oppressive leader in the next story. “He is not the good guy!” they proclaim. “Will audiences understand this?” Yes, of course, but he has to become the bad guy first. In this movie we only see him confront the Emperor after drinking the blue water to gain clarity with his visions. In the final act, he starts veering towards being the evil bastard that he’s destined (perhaps? perhaps not?) to become. Thanks to the Bene Gesserit’s whispers & plans. However, up until that moment, up until he drinks the “worm piss”, he actually is a “good guy.” Really. Take a closer look when you watch Part Two again. He refuses to go south knowing it will take him to a very bad place. He fights for the Fremen, with the Fremen, adopting their ideals and mindset. He expresses his desire to help them and be an example of an important fighter, even if he is killed, so the next generation may follow in his footsteps. He wants to do good. He admires the Fremen and their ways. He is trying his hardest not to turn evil – but the Bene Gesserit get the best of him and he falls for their whispers. And, well, the rest is history…

This is when the movie digs deeper into the darker side of the galaxy. My third viewing brought a harrowing question to mind: Can someone wield this much extraordinary power (e.g. control over Spice) and be good? Or will they inevitably always be evil? Essentially, is oppression required in a sense to successfully exploit, sell, and manage an extremely valuable resource? This is the core of Dune: Part Two overall. The opening phrase uttered in this dark, guttural alien language before the Warner Bros logo comes up states: “Power over Spice is power over all.” Yes, this means that power & control are intertwined, and there really is no way to control the Spice without having way too much power (since it’s a vital resource needed for intergalactic space travel). There is even a moment in this movie where Paul quietly mutters that he is not worried about gaining control over Arrakis, he is worried about having too much power and this power will corrupt him. Let’s not forget the classic quote: “Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely,” stated by British historian Lord Acton. Even on Earth, it seems to be an absolute truth, thus extended into the Dune universe, it does make you wonder: is there really any way Paul could gain enough power to free the Fremen and Arrakis and not be corrupted by that much power? Herbert’s novels say: no.

Those familiar with the books know that the story is essentially a breakdown of the savior trope, showing there is no practicality of a real hero. It is impossible for there to be a holy savior on Arrakis. The Fremen believe in one, because of course, as Chani states in Part Two – the Bene Gesserit have planted this thought and it gives them some false hope to hold onto and wait for. Even if that means waiting centuries. Once you step back and examine Paul’s arc in Part Two, it really is a great tragedy, akin to Shakespeare’s tragedies of great men falling into spirals of despair & insanity. One compelling reaction from a viewer on Twitter states: “Dune: Part Two has left me in artistic euphoria, and also philosophical heartbreak. THAT is what true art is for. To remind us what it is to be human.” Referring to what happens as “philosophical heartbreak” is interesting because it’s trying to reckon with Paul’s great struggle in this movie: attempt to save the Fremen, take down the Emperor, change the galaxy forever; but to do that strategically he must marry the Emperor’s daughter, which means betraying Chani, which means betraying the Fremen. This is slightly different from the book, but it’s still an emotional wallop and quite overwhelming when you sit through it for the first time.

As spectacularly entertaining & awesome as Dune: Part Two is as a sci-fi blockbuster, it’s also chock full of heavy emotions and fascinating philosophical implications. I am in awe of what I’m seeing on screen, while also in awe of all that is racing through my mind with regards to the Fremen and their fight on Arrakis and the control of Spice. In the first movie, I loved seeing Paul rise to the call to lead a revolution, going down a path he was not expecting to take. In the second movie, I’m rocked by his turn, and how his fate seems to be out of his control, no matter how hard he tries. I don’t like this idea that our fate isn’t ours to control, much like Neo in The Matrix. Unlike The Matrix, though, Paul’s path leads him to darkness no matter what hope I have watching his story. The Emperor explains near the end that Duke Leto Atreides ruled from the heart, and that made him “weak”, ergo he had to be eradicated. I want Paul to rule from his heart, to be a leader who brings good to the galaxy. But perhaps that is not possible when half the people on a planet look up to you as a God. At the end of this second movie, we’re left wondering what will happen next when Paul decides to start a Holy War against the other Houses of the galaxy. Alas, the books tell us his future isn’t a good one.

Chani is right all along: “This ‘prophecy’ is how they enslave us!” No one wants to listen, or accept it, but she knows the truth. Even though she loves Paul and even though she knows him well, the scary truth is that his path will lead them farther from where they want to be, towards even darker times for the Fremen. This tragic story continues to make me wonder: how do we actually defeat oppressors and achieve peace and freedom for all? Can a violent revolution even result in peace in the end? Or will it always lead to more war?

Share

Find more posts: Discuss, Editorial, Feat, Review, Sci-Fi



Source link

#Philosophy #Dune #Part #Power #Control #Fate #Love #FirstShowingnet