If the same mistakes are consistently made, you have to wonder what's really going on. Are the directors/costumers/casting directors clueless, or are they not mistakes per se in one or both cases?
No, they're mistakes. And yes, the directors are clueless in some cases.
I speak from experience with directors, as I had some lulus of an argument with some of them in the theatre, from the perspective of what was and was not doable as far as properties were concerned (stuff characters handle or manipulate are props).
There was one director I worked with several times who had grandiose ideas that weren't practical from various standpoints, and she never liked it when I had to firmly tell her that we had to come up with an alternative plan. I'm talking about stuff like using a real, live monkey and goldfish on-stage in a production of
Gypsy. She didn't get it that the nearest live monkey was probably in the Calgary Zoo and no, I don't think the zoo would lend us one for the duration of the show and in any case there was nobody on the crew who knew how to look after one. It would cost $$$$ anyway, which the theatre company could not spare for that one scene.
Ditto goldfish. No, the props crew were not prepared to keep live goldfish for the duration of the show, or expect the theatre maintenance people to feed them when we weren't there. So we substituted a rabbit. And by the end of the show, my crew and I were contemplating recipes for rabbit stew. And silently cursing the people who had supplied the dog, because they never took it out to do its business. We became dog walkers in the few minutes' time we'd ordinarily have to catch a bit of a rest. (it's true - children and animals are frustrating to work with, unless you get a cooperative child).
One of the kids in
The King & I was very cooperative and pleasant; he later played a pirate in
Peter Pan and dropped a revolver we'd borrowed from an antique seller. On stage. As in the gun fell, skittered across the stage, and fell into the orchestra pit. The audience loved it; they realized it had to be a mistake, but the actor playing Captain Hook improvised a line that worked. I was sitting in the audience that night; I always did that at least once, to make sure everything was being used correctly, or if there was something I'd been doing wrong and needed to fix. At intermission I went backstage and the kid who'd dropped the gun spent the next 5 minutes apologizing profusely. I told him I'd see if it needed fixing (it did), and to be extremely careful for the rest of the show, as the gun was borrowed. Then he apologized for a couple more minutes.
Then there was the time the director of Peter Pan wanted arrows arcing over the stage. I vetoed it as being unsafe (the stage crew in the wings could have been seriously injured). Then they wanted live fireworks for the "bomb" Captain Hook was going to use. I contacted the fire department, explained this, and asked if it would be allowed (a permit would be needed). They said absolutely not, and were surprised when I thanked them and said they'd given me exactly the answer I needed to take to the director: The fire department said no, due to safety reasons. We'd need to come up with a compromise... which we did. It looked okay, and since this was a children's fantasy story, it didn't need to be as realistic as the director wanted, anyway.
I assume the thing is that if they wore a filter across their face we would not be able to tell them apart or see their expressions. I can accept such inaccuracies to have a better film. We need quite a bit of willing suspension of disbelief already.
Yeah, that was the reasoning in the Lynch movie. They did a better job in the miniseries.
It just bugs me immensely when the point is made that on Arrakis you have to guard every breath outside the sietch, because when you exhale you lose moisture. Fremen openly panting outdoors would never be accepted on the real Arrakis (if it were a real place). They would be seen as people who failed to guard their bodies' water, and by extension the tribe's water. People so careless with water discipline were a danger to the tribe.
Is it true that Fremen society is patriarchal? I seem to remember definite gender roles, but women having a strong voice and influence.
Asking because in the movie Liet Kynes is female. You wouldn't expect to see a female leader of a patriarchal society. It seems to me that the movie is trying to make a point about Fremen culture with this altered casting choice. I was wondering if anybody remembers anything from the novels that definitely backs up this casting choice, or the opposite.
Yes, it's patriarchal. No, there is nothing in the books that backs up gender-bending Kynes from male to female. There are no female Fremen leaders. Naibs are always male, though they do consult and heed the advice of the tribe's Reverend Mother.
The sietches have "Reverend Mothers" (named for the Bene Gesserit rank, but not affiliated to the BG) who oversee religious ceremonies, and act in an advisory capacity, but all the named Fremen leaders and decision-makers are male in the book (it's also strongly implied that ultimate leadership is nearly always decided by mortal combat).
No you wouldn't, and it will be interesting to see how the role has been rewritten -- or the Fremen society reimagined -- to get around this.
Liet Kynes (in the book) is the son of and successor to the previous, Imperially appointed Planetary Ecologist (an offworlder), who married a Fremen woman. Despite being half-Fremen, he is still technically an Imperial official, not a Fremen leader as such.
However, he (like his father) shared a dream of greening Arrakis with the Fremen, teaching them ecology, encouraging them to collect and stockpile water where the sandtrout (larval Worms) couldn't get at it, and beginning the process of vegetating the sand in rock-sheltered areas. So the Fremen very much admire/revere him, and he has a lot of indirect influence in that sense (Halleck and Idaho initially form the mistaken impression that "Liet" might actually be a Fremen deity).
He is also Chani's father.
Jessica makes the point that over the history of the Bene Gesserit, they would plant certain prophecies and legends among the people of various planets as part of their Missionaria Protectiva. The reason for this was so if any Bene Gesserit found herself in dire straits on such backwater or primitive worlds, they could manipulate the locals into helping her.
It just so happened that she and Paul matched the requirements for the Fremen prophecies
exactly.
So there is a connection between the Fremen Reverend Mothers and the Bene Gesserit, but it's not direct. It's based on some anonymous Bene Gesserit planting the prophecy of a Mahdi there, centuries or millennia (don't recall at the moment) previously. The Water of Life ceremony Jessica undergoes among the Fremen is similar to the one she would have undergone among the Sisterhood if she'd been tapped to become a Reverend Mother. The Bene Gesserit would have made sure that she wasn't pregnant at the time, though. The Fremen Sayyadina didn't think to ask and Jessica didn't realize anything was dreadfully wrong until it was too late - Alia was awakened to adult consciousness while still unborn (can't imagine how hellish that would be - fully sentient and aware that you're stuck there until it's time to be born; the same thing happened to Paul and Chani's twins).
Liet's father's name was Pardot Kynes. The arguments over at TrekBBS are insane about this, btw. A couple of them keep insisting that there is never any indication in either the book or the Lynch movie that Chani has any kind of connection with Kynes. They kept this up even after I quoted the novel and posted the YT video of the Lynch movie in which Chani introduces herself: "I am Chani, daughter of Liet."
How much more do people need? It's stated, plain and simple, in the novel that Liet Kynes is Chani's FATHER. Stilgar is not her father. He's her uncle (whether kin or via Stilgar's blood-brother relationship to Liet Kynes); when Kynes dies, Chani is taken into Stilgar's
yali (his household; Stilgar already has two wives and Harah becomes his third wife after serving out the year as Paul's responsibility).
I somehow doubt that they will reimagine Fremen society, as that would be a major modification. Instead it seems more likely that they will alter Kynes' backstory to jive better with the new gender. I wonder why exactly they are doing this though - it seems that it affects the story in some respects - I am all for it if it helps drive some part of the story a bit more firmly. Maybe just a highlighting of the fact that the Fremen will accept a strong female leader and that they are practical in nature as much as tied to their traditions? They do have their reverend mothers like you pointed out, and other strong female characters. Are they doing this so it's more "obvious" why Chani was able to take such a prominent role, and even talk back and challenge the Muad'Dib? It seems like a deliberate decision to alter the gender here, so there's got to be a reason. I suppose it could be as simple as some line of dialogue working better between Kynes and some other character.. I hope this has nothing to do with an unneeded romantic subplot..
Paul is never in charge of the tribe itself. Only the Naib is, and though some of the people expect Paul to call Stilgar out, kill him, and become the Naib, Paul refuses to do so. So he's nobody that special that Chani feels she can't speak her mind to him, though there are times when she considers herself inadequate to understand the aspect of him that is Muad'dib, rather than Usul.
There
is romance in the story. Paul and Chani can't marry legally, either by Imperial custom or Fremen, but she is his concubine as Jessica was Leto's concubine. The Atreides, being an honorable family, treat their concubines with honor and respect and love. They just don't formally marry them. Or at least there were political reasons why Leto and Paul couldn't. The children Jessica and Chani bear are held to be Leto's and Paul's legitimate heirs (Alia gets sidelined into being the Regent for Paul's twins until they come of age).
As for the reason for the gender switch... Again, it's the director being an idiot. Sorry, I know some people worship this director, but I've never seen anything he directed, so color me unimpressed by his name alone. He liked the actress and decided to shoehorn her into the movie. He claimed there weren't enough female roles, which is pure BS. There are plenty of female characters in Dune, and they are all strong people, in their various ways. There was no need for this nonsense.
I've been accused of being racist for being against this casting. The truth is, I don't give a damn what the actress' skin color is. She could be black, white, green, or plaid. My objection is that Kynes is a man. Kynes is not a woman. Period, end of story, go that way to buy the t-shirt. In this matter, I stand with the Orthodox Herbertarian mantra of "If Frank didn't write it, it didn't happen."
Going from memory, but in the book there's a scene where Paul, on his ascension as Muad'Dib, is being challenged to the death by more and more Fremen wanting to confront this outsider. He discovers that Chani has fought and killed one in duel, and starts to say, that was dangerous, why would you do that, and so on.
Chani interrupts him and states that once word goes out that Muad'Dib's woman [remember, they were never officially married] killed a challenger, the line will significantly shorten. (Which it does).
There's no reference to a woman in charge of a sietch, still. It's a 1965 book.
It's not the year of publication that's relevant. The Fremen are a tribal people, oppressed by a feudal regime that is run by House Corrino, the Guild, and the Landsraad. There are some planets that are female-dominated (Rossak, for instance), but those are few.
Historically, throughout most of the feudal era, men have been in charge, and women who wanted power could enter a convent and work their way up the ladder. Or they could marry as high up as they could manage.
The film has been marketed as being "more true to the original work", but I'm not sure if this will be accurate.
The replacement of "jihad" with "crusade" was already blatant and (imo) quite avoidable.
Replacing "jihad" with "crusade" is stupid and unnecessary. The 20th anniversary of 9/11 is coming up in a little over a week. The movie isn't being released until October. There comes a time when people need to understand that it's not a taboo word.
I have no confidence that this movie will be true to the novel. None. We already know that, with Kynes' genderswap, Chani taking Irulan's place as narrator, "crusade" rather than "jihad" (they are not interchangeable)...
