Reflections of a Muad’Dib apologist

But see, amid the mimic rout,

   A crawling shape intrude!

A blood-red thing that writhes from out   

   The scenic solitude!

It writhes!—it writhes!—with mortal pangs   

The mimes become its food,

And seraphs sob at vermin fangs

   In human gore imbued.

Edgar Allan Poe, “The Conqueror Worm”

The new DUNE film made me happy, especially the floating lanterns, or glowglobes, with their bespoke design in the Caladan Castle. Aristocrats living in ultra modernist tombs was the DUNE I happened to want. The movie put all its money on the screen and it looked and sounded glorious. Luckily Snyder’s JUSTICE LEAGUE earlier this year put me in the mood for escapism.

I like the 1984 version of DUNE, with the qualification that the only watchable version for me is the 3-hour Spicediver fan edit. My earliest memory of any kind of media is the shot of the worm consuming the spice harvester, seen on TV. What DUNE 84 has going for it:

  • A bizarre mise en scene like futuristic rococo art. I especially loved the gilt picture frame entryway into the heighliner.
  • The music by Brian Eno and Toto is sick.
  • The Harkonnens are truly fucked up.

But I’m not tainted enough by nostalgia to prefer it over Villeneuve’s adaptation. DUNE 84 has a perfunctoriness to it, like the right elements of the book are presented in the right order, but without the connections and stakes made clear. DUNE 21 is not without its faults but it takes effort on my part to let them bother me. I suspect both suffered from producer interference and constraints, though to different degrees.

All the complaints I heard about DUNE going in turned out to be exaggerated. The fight choreography was excellent: it wasn’t THE RAID REDEMPTION but the concept of the shields and return to swordplay and phalanx warfare were kept in the foreground. Zendaya’s Dove commercial shots weren’t intrusive and in those sequences she is clearly a stand-in for the coming jihad of Muad’Dib, like a Lady Liberty, or whatever the draped woman in the Columbia logo is supposed to represent. The visuals were not bland for being monochromatic but in fact brought out the kind of tactile detail that you want from fantasy cinema. When was the last time Hollywood treated wet stones with such love?

The masses seem to be connecting to DUNE as a mid 20th century story that influenced much fantasy and SF properties after it, now adapted in a way that feels refreshing and not at all derivative, in part because there’s a rudimentary character to it all, the way the planetary environments aren’t extra in their alienness, the way folding space isn’t foregrounded in any flashy way, etc.

At the same time, seeing Rebecca Ferguson in a dark hooded cloak kept reminding me of THE SOUND OF MUSIC. Similar to Nolan movies there’s a throwback element to the roadshow spectacle movies of the 50s and 60s, specifically those turgid Roman epics (and DUNE 84 is reminiscent of THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD, namely in all those voiceovers). But DUNE 21 taps into the kind of epic storytelling the novel does: an impending threat whose details are only revealed slowly. DUNE needs a stately aspect to its tone; the book reads more like a popularized version of Aeschylus than the pulp tradition it comes from.

My favorite thing about the book, and maybe the principal element of its approach to epic storytelling, is the use of epigraphs. The aphorisms and the spiritual/philosophical/mystical vernaculars are fun on their own, as well as the question of who is writing these things and why. But they also telegraph what exactly is about to happen, the same way that the scene headings in Döblin or Brecht’s theater do. It’s not about suspense here but process. Who can forget “A million deaths were not enough for Yueh!” But before that is a quote from “Dictionary of Muad’Dib” where Yueh is “chiefly noted as betrayer of Duke Leto Atreides.” In other words, like a mythical epic poem, the precise sequence of events and the precise nature of the characters has been firmly established. The longer ones are like little stories.

Family life of the Royal Creche is difficult for many people to understand, but I shall try to give you a capsule view of it. My father had only one real friend, I think. That was Count Hasimir Fenring, the genetic-eunuch and one of the deadliest fighters in the Imperium. The Count, a dapper and ugly little man, brought a new slave-concubine to my father one day and I was dispatched by my mother to spy on the proceedings. All of us spied on my father as a matter of self-protection. One of the slave-concubines permitted my father under the Bene Gesserit-Guild agreement could not, of course, bear a Royal Successor, but the intrigues were constant and oppressive in their similarity. We became adept, my mother and sisters and I, at avoiding subtle instruments of death. It may seem a dreadful thing to say, but I’m not at all sure my father was innocent in all these attempts. A Royal Family is not like other families. Here was a new slave-concubine, then, red-haired like my father, willowy and graceful. She had a dancer’s muscles, and her training obviously had included neuro-enticement. My father looked at her for a long time as she postured unclothed before him. Finally he said: “She is too beautiful. We will save her as a gift.” You have no idea how much consternation this restraint created in the Royal Creche. Subtlety and self-control were, after all, the most deadly threats to us all.

—From “In My Father’s House” by the Princess Irulan

Peter O’Toole, first known man to have the Eyes of Ibad.

As for the “white savior” question, I’m the wrong person to ask. Muad’Dib is less like a space Cecil Rhodes to me and more like a space Napoleon, or Stalin. That is, given the political and economic situation presented in DUNE, the jihad represents social progress, excesses and all (like killing tens of billions of people). In my gleeful “tankie” misreading, the Muad’Dib Jihad is a good thing while the Butlerian Jihad was reactionary. Those who say the latter represents the overcoming of our slavish relationship to technology by the human spirit (including the director of DUNE 21) are appealing to humanism to paper over antagonistic class interests. The struggle against AI resulted in the conscious reversion to the feudal class mode of production, while productive relations got scrambled up, so that we have big aristocratic families with private armies that possess their own capitalist industries, treated as household management. The thing about feudalism is that technological and social development are slow as to be nearly static (whereas under capitalism, productive forces attain great dynamism), and so the Imperium reigns for ten thousand years, and behind the Emperor and the decayed planetary parliament of the Landsraad are the monopolists over space transport and the Bene Gesserit, who seem to fill a similar stabilizing role in politics as Taoist assassins did in the Tang Dynasty, to say nothing of their eugenicist plot to create a future ubermensch. The Kwizatz Haderach is a purely economic solution to the Imperium’s dependency on melange for transport (which only exists because of the ban on advanced computer science). Muad’Dib is the true solution, the destruction of clearly outdated organizational forms through political struggle, namely a holy war spreading across the universe like unquenchable fire. (Funny enough, the final result in the first book, marriage between House Atreides and House Corrino, is what could have resolved the political tension in the first place, and not the intermarriage of Atreides and Harkonnen that would serve the ends of the BG.) 

And the film makes clear that Muad’Dib is learning from what his father Duke Leto understood by his reference to “desert power,” a rather Maoist insight that the masses are the key link, not possession of land or wealth. It’s in that sense, the latent force within the Fremen’s peasant rebellion, that Arrakis is the richer planet. Say, maybe DUNE is just IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE in space.

The MVP of the movie.

The movies feel like cinema again

Every part of my body hurts

The whole of the winter film season felt like a soft and gently warm wave of enjoyment. Coming from someone who is not into Scorsese’s gangster pictures as much as things like AGE OF INNOCENCE and HUGO, THE IRISHMAN / I HEARD YOU PAINT HOUSES was so engrossing; I did not feel the length at all, and its style, from the rough eyeline matches in a baptism scene, and the cutting in one of Hoffa’s blowouts, had such verve and control. Then there was the brake lining of the wheels in FORD V FERRARI glowing orange while skidding into the night. And THE LIGHTHOUSE was a perfect midnight movie experience with high caliber technique included.

But two movies, PARASITE and PORTRAIT OF A LADY ON FIRE were just outstanding. Watching these two movies within months of each other was like getting two fully-charged defibrillator shots on a movie goer’s heart. Consider my love and desire to tell stories more than slightly rekindled. 

I was way too passionate about film in my teens; I couldn’t talk about much else. Nor did I truly understand the art in all its aspects, or at a depth that may require simply more time among human beings in society. I would see anything in the theater, I mean it. The multiplex on the car dealership avenue in the far suburbs of east Portland had a 5 dollar matinee; I remember some days called for a triple-header. Digital projectors were rolling out, and I wanted to savor the last days of 35mm exhibitions, with the big platters of film, the motor, the strobing shutter, the cue marks. These were all part of the charm.

The passion ebbed, and my interests narrowed into the ultra-minimalist tendency that began in the 70s, with filmmakers like Chantal Ackerman, James Benning, Bela Tarr, Pedro Costa, Lav Diaz, Apichatpong Weresethekul, and Tsai Ming Liang. These people often challenged the boundary between cinema and museum video art. Everything else was too commercial. 

Nevertheless, I have always loved Bong Joon Ho—especially what he manages to do with genres and tones—since I watched a DVD of THE HOST shortly before I went to see MOTHER in 2009. Never would I imagine that in a decade he would be holding two Oscar statues and making them kiss like Ken dolls. Even with as gaudy a meat parade as the Academy Awards, with a history as sordid and dishonorable as theirs, I felt so happy at the long overdue recognition and attention South Korea’s film industry is now getting from the mainstream. The reaction videos, from viewing parties to the news passing through Twitch streams, felt wholesome.

So. I loved every frame of PARASITE. The cinematography has the kind of range of color and grounded realism that I only associate with Korean live action, and the tracking and panning choreographed with the staging was a joy to behold. While viewing the monochrome version I noticed the interplay of background action (even the footfalls of extras are pretty loud in the mix) helping the foreground scene play out. I mean the guy smoking on screen left while Ki Woo starts his fast talk.

As he moves away, Ki Jung enters. The guy takes a seat, still looking in. He balances the pizza worker on the right.

The culmination of this scene is in one take, you learn how the Ki family does their work as you watch them crowd the shot, the camera slowly pushes in while the lady in the center tries to resist.

It’s simple. But the accumulation of meticulous details and choices made PARASITE into a supremely engineered genre movie. The editing, including a hidden cut on a swish pan and an invisible wipe to combine two takes, shows how the filmmakers were practically counting frames to make sure the timing and speed and flow of information secures Maximum Entertainment.

All of the performances are spectacular, especially Song Kang Ho and his facial expressions during the finale—which feels cathartic every time by the way.

The screenplay takes Bong’s playbacks to a new level. Chung Sook is introduced nudging her hubbie’s ass with her foot, an inconsiderate gesture that gets played again, and then a third time to disastrous results. Lines of dialog foreshadow and misdirect, and they flesh out characterization because Bong’s cast talk about their situations and their feelings about wealth and employment with such convincing realism.

The structure of the narrative is impeccable. What better way to enter an upstairs/downstairs thriller than with our con family searching for a wifi signal? The pacing accelerates toward the midpoint, with this skillfully handled montage with a great original score (baroque composition with a modern Alexandre Desplat type of arranging)—Ki Jung blowing the fuzz off a peach is so beautifully framed and shot, yet it does not feel superfluous because every moment of the film seems to be exuding this much enthusiasm.

And the humor—the pitchest of black humor coming through at the most inappropriate moments; this is classic Bong. What a joy to see this in a theater with a big crowd, so unified in its responsiveness. 

#

A romance by the sea? Too conventional? No! PORTRAIT has a narrative structure at least as immaculate as PARASITE, although they are also very different. PARASITE covers a week and change until the midpoint, then the plot goes through a very tense evening, night, and Sunday morning. PORTRAIT mimics the the ocean waves on the cliffs of Brittany, and has a diurnal rhythm. The romance takes its time to come to full flower, then leave only memories.

There are three women on an island (isolation, secrecy, Utopia) in a noble household with the parents missing. They are of different classes (an aristocrat, a petty bourgeois artisanal painter, and a servant girl), but they eat in the kitchen together, hang out, play cards, do drugs, help out in a crisis. Specifically, the servant girl Sophie wants to terminate a pregnancy, and Marianne and Heloise try their own methods, help gather herbal ingredients, and they stay by her. 

This subplot culminates so beautifully with the romance, in a scene involving Marianne painting a scene that Helouise and Sophie re-enact. They discuss Orpheus in the underworld. The movie meditates so well on its theme. Imagine that, a forbidden love plot that is neither tragic nor smarmy by the ending. It finishes on a note of gratitude for a cherished moment of passionate, individual sex-love, and even hope for the future. (There’s no music track in this movie! But music is important, and the sound mixing is extremely dense.) 

Engels in ORIGIN OF THE FAMILY identifies relations of sexual love as having appeared in modernity, and the late 18th century setting here is apt historically but the production also does not try to add period window dressing. The dialog feels current.

It hasn’t been lost on people that Marianne shares her name with the figure of lady liberty. We see her in profile quite a bit, sometimes with a light. (The final shot is also a profile, with an overwhelming performance, a reaction shot up there with the one in PARIS, TEXAS.)

The 8K digital cinematography, my God, the color saturation, the Rembrandt lighting…

Anyway, if I were a hack critic I would write that Celine Sciamma’s film is the 21st century PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC. But I think I mean it.