What does Dune: Part 2 tell us about global politics?
Spoiler alert!
Why is an article in a Foreign Affairs Review talking about the latest blockbuster film, I hear you ask? Well, let me make my case to you here. The recent release of Denis Villeneuve’s Dune: Part 2 has given rise to a lot of social media attention and a worthy amount of critical acclaim. Put simply, the film is good. And it’s a great experience at the cinema. So much so that it stands out from other contemporary science fiction or superhero films, especially in the way it delves into political conflict and wars.
Of course, the Dune universe does not originate from the film itself. Often described as the first science fiction novel of its kind, Frank Herbert’s Dune book series began in 1965. Dune: Part 2 is only the most recent iteration of a complex and long-standing fictional universe, and it is the sequel of Villeneuve’s Dune: Part 1, which you may need to watch first to understand some of the world-building in the film at hand.
With regards to politics, the film covers a lot of ground. The plot features imperial projects, vast armies, and messianic leadership alongside its fantastical setting, creating an engaging world filled with tension and ripe for confrontations on an epic scale. Though a fictional narrative, I find certain aspects of the film’s subject matter to be relevant and useful to understanding our own world. The film’s take on political conflict underpins the intimate quality of war and its effects on the fabric of everyday life. So, without further ado, here are a few things political analysts could learn from Dune: Part 2.
Emotions can be weaponized
Dune: Part 2 takes place on the desert planet of Arrakis. In this instalment, protagonist Paul Atreides and his mother Lady Jessica unite forces with the native Fremen. The Fremen live beneath the desert sands and make use of native giant sandworms as weapons and modes of transport. Due to their small population in comparison to the factions that seek to dominate them, the Fremen make strategic use of their limited numbers. Accordingly, they have learnt to instrumentalize fear as a form of power. At the beginning of the film, Paul lives in nomadic camps with the Fremen as they conduct targeted attacks against the rival House Harkonnen. These confrontations systematically take the form of surprise attacks which harness fear and the unexpected: the Fremen hide underneath the sand before striking their opponents. Their attacks are swift and intentional, and warriors immediately go back into hiding once missions are completed. This is a fear-inducing fighting style which the Fremen use strategically. Fear is a necessary political strategy for the Fremen because it allows them to limit Harkonnen intrusion on their territory. It enables the Fremen to counterbalance the material advantages of the Harkonnens in practical and discernible ways. The personal, emotional reactions of the Harkonnens are the symptoms of this broader political tactic. The film cleverly highlights how emotions can be weaponized and instrumentalized for political gain, something that is often left out of more conventional political analyses.
Territories are tied to people
This statement seems like common sense, right? But, unfortunately, I would argue it needs reiterating in contemporary world politics. The importance of territories in the film is self-evident. The fact that the Atreides and the Harkonnen want to conquer Arrakis for its valuable Spice resource, which enables space travel, seems straightforward enough. However, the film also explores the relationship that the native Fremen have with the land. In doing so, it highlights how conquering and owning land often comes at the expense of indigenous peoples.
In a study entitled Culture and Imperialism, Edward Said states that “everything about human history is rooted in the earth” and that when people are planning on controlling a territory they “must do something about its indigenous residents.” Said argues that imperial projects are at once rooted in the acquisition and exploitation of land and in the domination of the people who live on that land. Dune: Part 2 depicts the Fremen as intimately linked to and bonded with the desert in which they have built their society: they have learnt to harness sandworms as weapons and have developed knowledge and technology allowing them to traverse the sands and remain hydrated. To strip the Fremen of their land is to strip them of their traditions and livelihoods, which is why they fight back so ruthlessly during the film. The Fremen want the dominating powers to know that there is a cost to settling on their planet. In contemporary political discourse, territories are too often talked about as resources, as useful spaces void of life and personal meaning; the film offers a different perspective which accentuates the strong relationship between people and land as the foundation to an anti-imperial rebellion.
Some closing thoughts: the personal is political
Dune: Part 2 depicts a cast of characters that are for the most part extremely powerful (in their own different ways) and yet also extremely dependent on familial bonds and personal relationships. The film artfully demonstrates the ways in which politics takes place at the level of our most intimate relationships as well as on the public stage. Think of Jessica’s relationship with her son Paul, who is at once the powerful prophet she has been searching for and her beloved child; think of Paul’s pledged of allegiance to the Fremen after falling in love with the Fremen warrior Chani; or think of Paul asking the Emperor for his daughter’s hand in marriage before taking the throne himself. The personal is political, and the political is personal. This film powerfully shows these concepts as intertwined and colliding. And the personal experience of watching a film at the cinema can be a deeply informative political one.
Image courtesy of RedJohn9923 via Wallpaper Abyss, ©2023. Some rights reserved.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the wider St. Andrews Foreign Affairs Review team.
