Rate The Last Movie You Saw

I’ve asked and have seen other people ask variations of the question “Is Paul intended to be a power-hungry villain or a noble protagonist who genuinely wishes to help the impoverished people?” a handful of times and have seen a variety of responses across the board. I’ve seen some people say he is intended to be selfish and villainous, while some other people have argued that, though he betrayed Chani in the process of reclaiming his leadership, he’s still a good person and wants the best for his people.

Where do I stand on this? I’m honestly not sure. I think his betrayal of Chani for one of the Shaddam’s daughters is a main point of contention regarding his motivations as this is where I’ve read a great deal of arguments for his selfishness. As Paul explained in the 2021 Dune though, his reasoning for marrying one of the Shaddam’s daughters was to hopefully prevent a civil war once news of the Shaddam’s treachery would be widely known, so I don’t think his actions here can be summed up in a black and white good or bad metric. They’re far more nuanced.

Fair arguments can be made that being more upfront with Chani about his intentions would’ve been the noble way to go about it since she wouldn’t have been given false hopes then, but this would’ve also introduced the threat of her turning on him much earlier and Paul potentially losing the support of the Fremen. Either way, don’t the benefits of potentially preventing a civil war and saving countless lives outweigh the disappointment he caused to a single person along the way? For a second, I was confident this was how to read his character, but then the film ends on a cliffhanger where Paul intends to have the Fremen attack the Great Houses for opposing his ascendancy to the throne. So, he is intended to be power hungry after all? What does this say about his prior actions then?

This is my issue with the film. While ambiguous character motivations aren’t bad by any means, this is a case where Paul’s motives are so muddled to the point they seem to contradict each other. If he is intended to be a villain and if he is intended to become a dominator in the ending, that would cancel out my interpretation of his relationship with Chani and, to be honest, I don’t know how I’d read their relationship at that point. If he’ll be revealed to have noble intentions by the time (or if) part 3 comes out, that will make a bit more sense but then the film could be argued as a white savior trope of sorts. Still though, I think the latter alternative would be the best option provided they include enough moral ambiguities in his process of saving the impoverished people (like his aforementioned betrayal of Chani, even if there was an understandable reason why he did that). As it stands right now though, that people can’t seem to agree on whether he’s good or bad says a lot about how unclear his motivations are.

Having watched part 1 less than a week before part 2 was released played a part in my enjoyment since I held out some confidence that part 2 would resolve my unanswered questions but it instead did the opposite. If they do manage to resolve everything in a seamless way, then kudos, but the journey leading up to it feels so muddled right now. Like I said at the start, I still enjoyed the film quite a bit and, if part 3 gets released, I’ll probably be in the theaters for it. Hopefully, they’re able to resolve this.

I’ve asked and have seen other people ask variations of the question “Is Paul intended to be a power-hungry villain or a noble protagonist who genuinely wishes to help the impoverished people?” a handful of times and have seen a variety of responses across the board. I’ve seen some people say he is intended to be selfish and villainous, while some other people have argued that, though he betrayed Chani in the process of reclaiming his leadership, he’s still a good person and wants the best for his people.

Where do I stand on this? I’m honestly not sure. I think his betrayal of Chani for one of the Shaddam’s daughters is a main point of contention regarding his motivations as this is where I’ve read a great deal of arguments for his selfishness. As Paul explained in the 2021 Dune though, his reasoning for marrying one of the Shaddam’s daughters was to hopefully prevent a civil war once news of the Shaddam’s treachery would be widely known, so I don’t think his actions here can be summed up in a black and white good or bad metric. They’re far more nuanced.

Fair arguments can be made that being more upfront with Chani about his intentions would’ve been the noble way to go about it since she wouldn’t have been given false hopes then, but this would’ve also introduced the threat of her turning on him much earlier and Paul potentially losing the support of the Fremen. Either way, don’t the benefits of potentially preventing a civil war and saving countless lives outweigh the disappointment he caused to a single person along the way? For a second, I was confident this was how to read his character, but then the film ends on a cliffhanger where Paul intends to have the Fremen attack the Great Houses for opposing his ascendancy to the throne. So, he is intended to be power hungry after all? What does this say about his prior actions then?

This is my issue with the film. While ambiguous character motivations aren’t bad by any means, this is a case where Paul’s motives are so muddled to the point they seem to contradict each other. If he is intended to be a villain and if he is intended to become a dominator in the ending, that would cancel out my interpretation of his relationship with Chani and, to be honest, I don’t know how I’d read their relationship at that point. If he’ll be revealed to have noble intentions by the time (or if) part 3 comes out, that will make a bit more sense but then the film could be argued as a white savior trope of sorts. Still though, I think the latter alternative would be the best option provided they include enough moral ambiguities in his process of saving the impoverished people (like his aforementioned betrayal of Chani, even if there was an understandable reason why he did that). As it stands right now though, that people can’t seem to agree on whether he’s good or bad says a lot about how unclear his motivations are.

Having watched part 1 less than a week before part 2 was released played a part in my enjoyment since I held out some confidence that part 2 would resolve my unanswered questions but it instead did the opposite. If they do manage to resolve everything in a seamless way, then kudos, but the journey leading up to it feels so muddled right now. Like I said at the start, I still enjoyed the film quite a bit and, if part 3 gets released, I’ll probably be in the theaters for it. Hopefully, they’re able to resolve this.