Dune Part Two (2024): The Fall of Heroes

The greatest science fiction film of the new millennia released on March 1, 2024 when Dune Part Two (2024) catapulted into theaters. The numbers are in and Dune Part Two (2024) will likely be watched by future generations in the same manner as the original Star Wars franchise. Rotten Tomatoes gave the film an impressive 93% and IMDb calculated a 9/10 rating which will put the film on the IMDb Top 100 List (User Rating) next to groundbreaking cultural films like The Godfather and The Lord of the Rings. I had the fortune of seeing it in IMAX twice and was only more entranced the second time around as I dove into the epic world of Dune. I have not read the Dune books, but fully intend to once the last installment of Denis Villeneuve’s trilogy is complete (the first novel by Frank Herbert was published in 1965 and there are 26 books in total so I’ll be busy).

Even without reading the decades old Syfy series, it was clear that Villeneuve succeeded in mystifying audiences with captivating characters and epic settings that forced them to think twice about attempting a bathroom break during its highly necessary 2hr 26m run time (there is no editorial “fat” in this film).

Paul Atreides as a Messiah character has captured the imagination and created deep conversations about the human condition of corruption. After seeing the film twice, I found myself wanting to investigate the meaning of Paul as a character and what Frank’s creation of this character says about the human condition.

At first, especially without referencing the text, Dune Part One (2021) sets Paul up for success to avenge his father Leto as the savior of Arrakis who will free the native Fremen people and deliver them to paradise. In the second film, there is a clear arc and final understanding that Paul is not the hero of the story as he was laid out to be. It is known that humans are corrupted by power, even the most honest and ethical humans can be trapped by power’s promise of glory.

In Part One, Paul has a vision where he bleeds, sees a crysknife end his life, and then sees Chani (played by the beautiful and talented Zendaya). This alludes to the idea very early on that Paul might be doomed to die at the hands of his own lover. In the sequel, it seems as though this won’t come to fruition as Chani aids him in learning the Fremen ways.

However, just as he says to Gurney Halleck when they are reunited in the second film, Paul is aware that he would not be able to handle the power given to him if he claims the title of Lisan al Gaib. Even with this knowledge, and continued effort to deny going South, Paul becomes trapped in a self-fulfilling prophecy led by circumstances of his birth and his own actions. Actions led by other characters around Paul inevitably lead to the destruction of the Fremen sietch which forces Paul to go South, bringing him closer to taking his place as the Kwisatz Haderach.

Paul is consumed by the power he has over the Fremen hoard and whether or not he believes in the prophecy, he uses Fremen independence (and his feelings for Chani) to justify his emerging control. He uses The Voice on Gaius Helen (goosebumps everytime), and defeats Feyd-Rautha in battle (who was arguably one of the most interesting and entertaining characters to watch in the film), and then forces The Emperor to bend the knee as Paul claims the throne and forces his betrothal to The Emperor’s daughter (who was magnetically played by Florence Pugh). All of these events lead to Paul’s assertion and ascension, so who is anyone in Arrakis to believe that he is not the Messiah?

Do prophecies self-actualize when the character is heavily influenced until they finally believe it themselves? Or do they simply cloak the falsehoods in order to maintain power?

Other memorable characters (like Anakin) have been dealt destiny’s vision and deny fate until the character ultimately and usually indirectly fulfills it. The Star Wars Saga was said to take inspiration from Herbert’s Dune (Jedi coercion powers were enthused by The Voice), and after the second film, I continue to draw character trait comparisons. Paul and Anakin have very clear differences, but they both were consumed by the attraction of power. Paul had a father figure and trainer in Gurney Halleck and Anakin had the same in Obi-Wan Kenobi. Paul’s journey into power was established through the sinister actions of Baron Harkonnen and Anakin was lured by the powerful (and vaguely similar looking) Senator Palpatine. Paul uses the great Bene Gesserit power of The Voice and Anakin uses the Jedi power of The Force. Paul is called Muad’Dib (among other names) when he transitions into the deadly and powerful new version of himself, and Anakin goes by Darth Vader. Chani and Padme have similar character structure as well, since they are the lovers that can only watch in despair as Paul and Anakin are poisoned by power (Paul more specifically poisoned by icky worm bile). 

Even without these character comparisons, Herbert’s original text in combination with Villeneuve’s excellent directing and Chalamet’s incredible depiction of Paul, lead the audience to root for Paul even until the end of Part Two. Herbert repeatedly outlines Paul as the Chosen One to further paradoxically show that he is not heroic, but rather a young man with reasons, right or wrong, that lead him to his final destination.

Villeneuve’s directing and Chalamet’s impeccable performance expose true human emotion on the most transparent level. In the film, the audience is forced into an inner dialogue about the rationalization of Paul’s choices. As the audience sees the ships of the other great houses approaching, it’s difficult not to root for the Paul even though he is clearly flawed. Even after leaving the theater, it was impossible to stop discussing the enigmatic pattern of Paul’s choices. What is the interest in seeking redemption for characters like Paul? Is it because we view him as a hurt young man who only wants to free his lover’s people, and avenge his father? Is it easy to justify his commanding power by explaining that this was the only path he could take in which both would be accomplished? Is Paul good or evil?

The ponderer reflecting on Dune Part Two (2024) might argue that there is no such thing as a truly evil or wholly good person. Perhaps audiences support characters like Paul even when he stumbles because he represents true human nature. Humans are bound to the laws of corruption in some way, big or small. There are not perfectly good or completely evil characters that build a following and capture an audience as well as morally gray characters. Characters must be believable in order for the viewers to appreciate and value them. Therefore, Paul as the Messiah, must have flaws.  

The audience must then become the judges in their own minds and ascertain if his flaws are acceptable because his actions can be rationalized with human emotion. Characters that are remembered must have layers, because it allows after thought once you turn the last page or the film rolls the credits.

The discussions and debate will no doubt continue with the third installment, when the audience learns more about Paul’s unborn sister, and Feyd-Rautha’s unborn daughter. Herbert wrote that Paul’s sister was meant to have a daughter with Feyd-Rautha and that son would be the fated Kwisatz Haderach. Now that Paul’s role is concrete with the aid of Lady Jessica’s choice to give Leto a son and her faithful efforts to support his ascension, the Kwisatz Haderach has seemingly come a generation sooner. Does this mean Feyd-Rautha’s offspring will bear a son that will contend with Paul? Or perhaps his sister’s son? Maybe it will be Paul’s sister herself that competes for power.

Villeneuve will likely draw a conclusion to that part of the story that deviates from the books. With the film’s possibilities of the Kwisatz Haderach appearing in multiple characters or levels of powers spawning from them, it only makes the concept of the prophecy itself more curious. Maybe the answer is that the prophecy is just a story, and anyone can become the Kwisatz Haderach with the right birth, training, and circumstances. Perhaps that was the point Herbert was trying to convey; the idea that Messiah characters are irrelevant because with enough support and circumstantial evidence, anyone could be groomed and appear to be the Chosen One. This point is made many times by the Fremen leader, Stilgar. After Paul vehemently denies that he is the savior of Arrakis, Stilgar rejoices that Paul is deeply humble which only verifies his role as the Messiah.

The character of Paul and the actions of the characters around him put the idea of heroism under a microscope. The film adaptation begs the question, are there any real heroes? Or are they only heroes until they ultimately fall? Hercules was a hero through twelves grisly labors and that is the story that gets told. No one continues to read or listen when Hercules ultimately falls from grace and kills his own wife and children in a rage of insanity bestowed by the gods. 

No matter the answer that follows the argument of heroes, Paul Atreides is undeniably a complex character that explores the motivations of heroic figures and the impact they have on the masses that hear their stories.