![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
History Repeating, or not
Brushing up on the French Revolution can have some eerie present day chill effects, especially with things like the September Massacres pepared, in hindsight, by a long time of wild conspiracy theories being believed, increasing hysteria in the social media of the day and the utter dehumanisation of anyone not holding one's own views in the respective media. It's all too familiar right now. As is the fact that yes, there's only a tiny percentage of people committing the massacre, but the truly disturbing element are the majority of people doing nothing to stop it and going along with it not so much out of lack of courage but because they partly or completely agree and see it as "necessary" for their own safety.
On a similarly cheerful note, the trailer for the second part of Villeneuve's Dune adaption has been out for few weeks, and I'm looking forward to it; I hope that the casting of Florence Pugh as Irulan means that as in the tv miniseries with Julie Cox, she has an expanded (to the book) role in this adaption. Villeneuve also gets credit for emphasizing in his first movie, and going by the trailer in the second one, how terrified Paul is by his visions of a future in which he wins. But where Herbert is justly given credit for the Dune novels, when taken in totem, deconstructing the Chosen One/Saviour narrative, it's hard how any adaption of Dune, the first novel, could avoid the ending not emphasizing the triumph over any discordant future note. . Not least because within the 'verse as set up in the book and all the adaptions, not fighting just isn't an option - the Harkonnens are Evil McEvil, literally set on squeezing the planet and kiling the population. Given the Emperor's unwillingness to trust even the late Leto and his support of the Harkonnen for that reason, there's no way he'd accept a self sufficient Arrakis connected to Atreides, so an ending where Arrakis is liberated but the Empire continues unchanged is also impossible. So of course we the readers/audience are rooting for Paul and the Fremen to win, and see the Baron and then Feyd dispensed with, then the Emperor forced to abdicate as a happy ending. Ignoring the sequels, the only sour note Herbert adds to prevent the ending of Dune from being read as completely happy are the future visions through the novel, and Paul announcing to the Emperor he'll marry Irulan and take over the Empire, and even here Herbert has Jessica assuring Chani that this will be a marriage in name only. Therefore, I'm not sure how Villleneuve's movie will avoid feeling triumphant (with a bittersweet note re: political marriage for Paul, an idea Villeneuve has Paul already suggest in part I, so he'll definitely include it), whether or not he manages to do Dune Messiah as a third movie.
Even if he does, though: Dune Messiah has a time jump. The bloody universe conquering has already been done by the time we're picking up with events, and the plot is mainly driven by schemes from an aristocratic opposition of formerly powerful folk, and short of throwing Herbert's entire plot structure out, I don't see that changing. What I'm getting at is this: the one rejection of the Saviour narrative the movie(s) can't take is the most powerful one, i.e. the Fremen deciding not to follow Paul anymore early on once they have their planet, or: showing those conquering armies actually conquering, and creating pov characters from the rest of the galaxy suffering from it.
On to something unironically more cheering: by and large, I very much prefer reading/listening to and writing about media I feel positive about to talking in detail about media I dislike and/or that didn't work for me. There are exceptions, obviously - see the post about just why I think Secret Invasion failed so badly - but with so much "here's why this person/book/movie/tv show sucks" going around, I always perk up when finding enthusiasm instead. So imagine my delight when discovering the YouTube channel CinemaWins. I might not agree with all the examples the Vidder picks to praise, but I sure as hell enjoyed watching the praise much more than I would have any take down. The latest film he did is an old favourite of mine: Everything Great about The Prestige.
And lastly: speaking as someone who likes Good Omens (both the novel and the adaption(s)) fine without loving it, them, my first thought when watching s2 wasn't what you might think but: just how many of his family members did David Tennant manage to get into this series, and why no Georgia?
On a similarly cheerful note, the trailer for the second part of Villeneuve's Dune adaption has been out for few weeks, and I'm looking forward to it; I hope that the casting of Florence Pugh as Irulan means that as in the tv miniseries with Julie Cox, she has an expanded (to the book) role in this adaption. Villeneuve also gets credit for emphasizing in his first movie, and going by the trailer in the second one, how terrified Paul is by his visions of a future in which he wins. But where Herbert is justly given credit for the Dune novels, when taken in totem, deconstructing the Chosen One/Saviour narrative, it's hard how any adaption of Dune, the first novel, could avoid the ending not emphasizing the triumph over any discordant future note. . Not least because within the 'verse as set up in the book and all the adaptions, not fighting just isn't an option - the Harkonnens are Evil McEvil, literally set on squeezing the planet and kiling the population. Given the Emperor's unwillingness to trust even the late Leto and his support of the Harkonnen for that reason, there's no way he'd accept a self sufficient Arrakis connected to Atreides, so an ending where Arrakis is liberated but the Empire continues unchanged is also impossible. So of course we the readers/audience are rooting for Paul and the Fremen to win, and see the Baron and then Feyd dispensed with, then the Emperor forced to abdicate as a happy ending. Ignoring the sequels, the only sour note Herbert adds to prevent the ending of Dune from being read as completely happy are the future visions through the novel, and Paul announcing to the Emperor he'll marry Irulan and take over the Empire, and even here Herbert has Jessica assuring Chani that this will be a marriage in name only. Therefore, I'm not sure how Villleneuve's movie will avoid feeling triumphant (with a bittersweet note re: political marriage for Paul, an idea Villeneuve has Paul already suggest in part I, so he'll definitely include it), whether or not he manages to do Dune Messiah as a third movie.
Even if he does, though: Dune Messiah has a time jump. The bloody universe conquering has already been done by the time we're picking up with events, and the plot is mainly driven by schemes from an aristocratic opposition of formerly powerful folk, and short of throwing Herbert's entire plot structure out, I don't see that changing. What I'm getting at is this: the one rejection of the Saviour narrative the movie(s) can't take is the most powerful one, i.e. the Fremen deciding not to follow Paul anymore early on once they have their planet, or: showing those conquering armies actually conquering, and creating pov characters from the rest of the galaxy suffering from it.
On to something unironically more cheering: by and large, I very much prefer reading/listening to and writing about media I feel positive about to talking in detail about media I dislike and/or that didn't work for me. There are exceptions, obviously - see the post about just why I think Secret Invasion failed so badly - but with so much "here's why this person/book/movie/tv show sucks" going around, I always perk up when finding enthusiasm instead. So imagine my delight when discovering the YouTube channel CinemaWins. I might not agree with all the examples the Vidder picks to praise, but I sure as hell enjoyed watching the praise much more than I would have any take down. The latest film he did is an old favourite of mine: Everything Great about The Prestige.
And lastly: speaking as someone who likes Good Omens (both the novel and the adaption(s)) fine without loving it, them, my first thought when watching s2 wasn't what you might think but: just how many of his family members did David Tennant manage to get into this series, and why no Georgia?
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
* I was turned off Dickens forever by being forced to read and write essays on Great Expectations, unaided, at the age of *13*.
My first exposure to the French Revolution in passing must have been the discussions of it in The Little Princess, which I read when I was 7, and my first dedicated historical fiction intro to it was Jean Plaidy's Flaunting, Extravagant Queen, sometime in early high school.
no subject
no subject
Ha. I have to admit, I found that a bit too distracting (see also: the Doctor Who mention a couple episodes later), so I'm rather glad there weren't even more. Peter Davison is not exactly my ideal casting for Job. :P
no subject
And Ty the oldest Tennant kid as Job's bratty teen son was clearly having fun.