#and then javier bardem. literally the same case | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

anakinsafterlife · 1 month

Text

Thoughts on Dune Part 2

All right, friends. Dune Part 2. I absolutely picked the wrong time to start wanting to return to Tumblr, since I'm currently in the thick of Ramadan, but c'est la vie. I'm a bit worried that if I don't review now that I might forget my specific impressions of the movie, though I have to say that if this weren't Ramadan that I absolutely would be going back to see it again in the cinema, which says a lot considering that it's been at least ten years since I've actually wanted to go back and repeat a film instead of just waiting for it to come out on streaming/DVD.

So the movie is good. It is in fact very, very good. It's the Empire Strikes Back of the Dune duology (possibly trilogy), and (much like Empire) in terms of cinematography, music, scripting and acting it's nearly flawless. There are, however, issues, things that might not occur to a majority-Western audience but which are immediately clear to anyone who either comes from an Arab or Muslim background.

What follows here is a deep dive into some of the historical and cultural sources of Dune and some of the ways in which the movie producers, and in some cases fans, have failed to acknowledge those sources.

First of all, it's obvious that the Fremen are meant to be based on the Arabs, but of the the entire main cast there is only ONE actor with an Arab background, and that is Souhaila Yacoub, the half-Tunisian actress who plays Shishakli, the female Fremen warrior who is executed by the Harkonnens. Now, I have to say that this woman was fantastic. Her attitude is completely on point for an Arab, especially a North African Arab: forceful, loud, a bit brash and mocking even under fire. Nicely done. Points to the producers there, but I have to take that point away again because she is literally the only Space Arab who is actually Arab. Javier Bardem, the Spanish actor who plays Stilgard, does have some interesting moments and one of the reasons why I feel that the screenwriters were advised on Arabic traditions/culture. The incident during which he warns Paul about the Jinn in the desert like it's a joke but then immediately turns extremely serious when Paul starts smiling is so in character for an Arab and honestly just a brilliant bit of scripting, but much of the time he also acted more or less like what people *think* a fanatical religious Arab acts like--loud, frantic and unstable.

Not only this, but the "Muslim" behaviour/traditions in the film are at best...vague. People are praying, but in any direction at all. I do realize that this would be a complicated issue on another planet, where the Ka'aba couldn't be pointed to, but there are Islamic rulings for EVERYTHING. Check out the one about praying in space:

Even if they had as a society simply picked a random direction for prayer, they should all be praying at the same time and in the same direction (they seem to do this in larger crowds, but not in the smaller group where we first see people praying). They also definitely shouldn't be talking during prayer or trying to make other people talk to them during prayer (as Chani does), since talking breaks your prayer and you have to start over all over again (during obligatory prayers).

Language, too, is an issue, and a big one, because while I do understand that a conlang was developed for use in this movie, the linguists consulted did know that the language was meant to be heavily influenced by Arabic. Consequently, they've included a lot of fragmentary Arabic in their work. Unfortunately this Arabic is poorly pronounced at best, to the point where I was looking words up and laughing at what they're meant to be based on. For example, "Shai Hulud," the word for the Worms, is based on the Arabicشيء خلود, which means "immortal thing," and should be pronounced with "shai" rhyming with "say" followed by a glottal stop, and the 'h' in "Hulood" is actually a guttural sound like the infamous "ch" in Bach, followed by a long U. Another example is Mua'dib مهذب , a real word in Arabic that means "teacher," but is is actually pronounced with a "th" sound instead of a d and emphasis on the second syllable, not on the last as in French. (Note: I made an error here. There is a word مؤدب , pronounced mostly the same in the movie, but with a glottal stop after the 'u' sound and a short 'i' after the d sound rather than a long vowel, that is usually used to mean polite, urbane, gentlemanly, etc. but which can also mean teacher, although I have never heard it used in this context) "Usul", أصول, Paul's other Fremen name, was likely not, as I had previously guessed, based on the word "Rasool," meaning Prophet, but on أصول الفقه the Principles of islamic Jurisprudence, which also ties directly into a religious/prophetic them. Again, this is pronounced on the long vowel, so with a short first U and a long second U.

I've included the Arabic spellings in here, by the way, so that you can drop them into Google translator and hear how they actually sound.

Now, I do realize that the story itself is set 8000 years in the future and that spoken Arabic as a language would have changed considerably in that time, if it existed still at all, but Arabic is a liturgical language as well as a vehicle for conversation, and Muslims all across the world today use it as a tool for worship. Muslims who have no cultural connection with Arabic often still learn it in order to connect more deeply with religious traditions and simply to perform prayers and other religious duties. Religious scholars consider it to be a necessary duty of the Muslim to learn at least some Arabic:

And keep in mind that the Arabic spoken today across the MENA region is very different (and different in different places) to the Arabic spoken 1400 years ago by the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him). Given Islamic traditions, the chances of the Fremen using liturgical/classical Arabic for their worship would be quite high, even if their spoken language had evolved past the point of being recognizably Arabic.

Keep in mind, also, that Dune as a whole is an allegory for colonialism, economic exploitation of poorer nations (or making rival nations poor through the same), as well as dehumanization of the views and needs of native peoples in order to make that exploitation palatable to the occupying forces (I thought that this was done quite smartly in Jessica's part of the story; although she is sympathetic to the Fremen, she feels that manipulating their religious traditions is the best way to protect her son, and in doing so she allows herself to dehumanize the people who come to rely on her).

It is, therefore, incumbent upon us not to distance ourselves too much from the intended message by claiming that Dune is fiction and need not too accurately reflect the culture and religion of the people that the Fremen are so clearly based on. The fact that the producers have done little to hire Arab actors or induced any real effort to accurately pronounce the Arabic words or accurately portrayal Islamic practices seems to indicate that they are concerned about identifying too closely with the economic and cultural struggle between East and West, properly because they fear the potential economic backlash, and this despite the fact that Frank Herbert clearly wrote his book to illustrate the fallout of that struggle.

Here is a wonderful article written by a culturally Arab woman:

There are numerous other articles addressing the same issues, but I like this one because it's written by a Muslim woman, who also addresses the "hijab cosplaying" in the movie. I didn't get into that much, but I definitely recognize that it's a problem when Muslim women worry about potential violence while wearing hijab in the streets of Western nations, but the same article of clothing is fetishized in movies and fashion.

I've also seen some comment about the Mahdi mention in particular. This is a saviour-figure in Islam who will come near the end of the world. There is no emphasis on this figure in Sunni Islam, but Shias seem to have a significant body of literature concerning this figure and, from what I understand, believe that he may perhaps have already come, and so there has been some poor reception in that community to applying the label of Mahdi to Paul. Criticisms ranging from insensitivity to outright blasphemy have been levelled regarding this usage. Now, there was some tip-toeing around the prophetic theme in Dune, and rightly so, I believe, since the Prophet Mohamed is the "seal of the prophets" in Islam, meaning the last and final. The fact that Paul was essentially set up as a false prophet by the Bene Gesserit does avoid some of the potential fallout from this, and also makes sense of Chani's rejection at the end of the film, since she felt strongly about Paul acting as a false Prophet.

Again, I am aware that there is internal cosmology within the series itself, and that some fans object to the religion of the Fremen being referred to as Islam, but when the inspiration for the entire ethnicity, religion, and the natural resources at stake are as clear as they are in this series, it's also futile to expect that people will not draw those associations, nor that people belonging to the religion or ethnic group in question may not acknowledge the beauty of the movie, the gorgeous cinematography, rousing music, and tightly plotted story, but still take exception to what is clearly Orientalism.

And it is frankly such a shame that we have to place this movie under that header, because the story of Dune is so sympathetic to the Middle East and its peoples, and as I said in the beginning I actually loved the film and found it very beautiful. It was also exciting to see Islamic themes used creatively in mainstream media, but while Frank Herbert clearly wrote the story as an exposition on the exploitation of natural resources, particularly oil, in the MENA region, the truth is that the racism and exploitation that he was protesting are very much alive today and contribute to the oppression of millions. It's particularly disappointing to see the message of the movie sail over the heads of people watching it when Arab Muslims in Palestine are being dehumanized and obliterated at this very moment, and while Libya was one of the latest Arab nations to be targeted for its oil resources, only a decade ago, with European oil companies moving in directly after the downfall of Ghadafi (which makes the timing extremely suspicious, one might say):

And even after the US finished their occupation of Iraq, Western oil companies remained en mass to continued drilling:

Egypt to this day remains economically destabilized while Western nations exploit its oil stocks, to no benefit at all of its peoples:

I'm sure I could cite dozens of other cases, but it's clear that there is a one-on-one parallel between spice melange and oil, making any protests of apoliticism in an inherently political story utterly vain.

I could go on, but I needn't. In short, this beautiful movie could have done so much good even beyond its obvious artistic merits, but instead it is still towing the political line. Much as was the case for Jessica and Paul, sometimes you can be a Harkonnen and not know it.

#dune #dune part 2 #meta #islam #arabic #history #orientalism #paul atreides #lady jessica #chani kynes #oil drilling #colonialism #arrakis #north africa #the middle east

40 notes · View notes

alatismeni-theitsa · 11 months

Note

Some mention how they didn't race swaped Triton as well in the little mermaid...

Can i remind you that Triton was the son of Poseidon and Amphitrite?? The literal Gods of the sea in Greek mythology? Race swapping him too would be too much and would only add fuel to the fire.

It's too bad Disney instead of casting Halle as an different heroine with her own story they again used a beloved classic to create controversy and political debate over skin colour.

It's quite good they cast a Mediterranean actor for the role of Triton! It's... an improvement even - which I think happened accidentally 😂 They wanted to make a fictional Carribbean (from what I've seen) and so the Spanish-French type could have matched their vision. I....can see their reasoning but I find it really odd.

Also, regional gods and heroes are immersed in the culture and people who formed their worship. Triton is the same case. (And even his name is Greek, obviously). That's the reason you look for a Chinese person to play a Chinese god or warrior. (Or at least an East Asian person who looks like they could've come from China).

If your reasoning starts and ends with what needs to be represented in Hollywood, then you are not actually respectful of that foreign culture. With that reasoning, if in 100 years there's an abundant of Chinese people in the US media, they "should" start casting other races to play the Chinese deities. That's not how it freaking works 🙄

As for the changes of old characters... it's just weird, man. I absolutely do not mind seeing minorites excelling on screen. What is weird is how they re-skin old stuff all the time "but make it diverse". It's not the end of the world but it's obviously a thing we can talk about. And big companies use this discourse and discord as marketing often so it's not unreasonable to accuse them of pandering and using minorities as fame tokens.

Would I love to see more women on Greek TV? Yes! Will I cringe with a Greek show that makes Karaiskakis or Erotokritos women and that claims to "correct" history and bring modernity? 100% yes. Greeks are also a cultural and racial minority in many countries worldwide. That doesn't mean I want to see them replacing other minorities in media if they don't look the part. (Other minorities have played Greeks because they looked the part. Hell, now Javier Bardem plays a Greek deity and it's...mostly fine)

Just... please make new stories with great diverse characters and with plots and character arcs that make sense!

#answered #representation #the little mermaid

9 notes · View notes

eekology · 5 years

Text

no offense to Javier Bardem and especially no offense to Zendaya but it’s fucking ridiculous not to cast any MENA actors as fremen when they’re literally out in the desert speaking ARABIC. and lmao it’s just the same situation you see with the Aladdin remake with movie makers deciding that anybody tan is just interchangeable and (at least in the case of Disney) making the choice to completely divorce the film from any elements, both casting-wise and design-wise, that would place it in the middle east? and I’m happy that in both cases they’re at least making an effort to cast people of color (tho Javier Bardem isn’t lmfao) and I’m happy for those people who get to see themselves represented on screen but on the other hand our cultures are not like interchangeable and given the current situation re:international relations it just feels very political that neither of these films set in the middle east/~the Middle East in space~ are willing to acknowledge that. Anyways. Cast me as liet kynes denis and all will be forgiven.

#o #dune

1 note · View note

theinquisitivej · 7 years

Text

‘mother!’ - A Movie Review

…um.

This film is…no, I probably shouldn’t mention that.

Okay, so the set-up is… well, no, I probably shouldn’t risk spoiling that.

It…okay, screw this: this film is really good. It’s one of the most memorable experiences of the year, goes to some insane places, and the technical craft involved is laced with meaning and really impressed me. I particularly liked the use of claustrophobic close shots, disorientating camera movement, and unnerving sound design that oppresses you with silence until normal, everyday sounds erupt from the film with deafening volume.

But I don’t want to tell you much more than that. It is so worth seeing for yourself, because there’s nothing else quite like it, and the surprises it has in store will throw you for a loop a dozen times over before the film has ended. And yet it is such a strange movie that I think the best way to experience it is not to read up on it and have a solid understanding of its premise and plot, but to go in with nothing else but a vague sense of the tone, and let the film wash over you as you dive deeper into its mad descent.

Having said that, I do think it’s worth knowing one or two things that might help you decide whether you want to see it, because the places it goes will not be for everyone. The most important factors you should know is that Jennifer Lawrence and Javier Bardem play a married couple, and they live in a lovely house out in the middle of nowhere. The story is told from her perspective, and things get tense and disturbing. And… that’s it. That’s all I’ll say about the plot. It is an extremely polarising movie, as it is so unapologetically committed to presenting its strange narrative that you will be either passionately on board with the interpretive ride, or be infuriated with its nonsensical twists and turns. Having said that, even if you end up hating it after being curious enough to check it out, I reckon you’ll still be glad you saw it. If nothing else, you’d have had an experience like no other that you’d remember, which I think most people can appreciate, even if they don’t wind up enjoying it.

The one thing that bears mentioning is that this movie is intense and uncomfortable from minute to minute, and its most dramatic peaks are violent, disturbing, and horrifying. If you’re not okay with shocking material (and I don’t mean in general, I mean, REALLY uncomfortable subject matter), then some of the things that happen will not sit well with you, and I would recommend steering well clear of this movie. But if you know yourself well enough to feel like you’d be alright with watching potentially upsetting material, then I would urge you to consider giving ‘mother!’ a try.

The two lead actors both do a great job, especially Lawrence. When she has a role that she’s invested in and trying, she is a strong presence on screen. But over the last year or so we’ve seen a few performances where she didn’t seem to care all that much about the material she was given; I wouldn’t call any of her performances terrible, but in these weaker moments she does come across as being on autopilot. That is not the case in ‘mother!’, as she is up front and centre, playing the character whose point of view we share. So much of the film is focused on her and how she reacts to things, and Lawrence holds up well under the pressure, managing to convey her character’s mood and internal thoughts through subtle fluctuations in her facial expressions. The film’s intensity is sold to us because she makes us believe how much everything that’s going on is affecting her character. She is quite literally the face of the movie, and she doesn’t falter with the film’s weight on her shoulders.

Javier Bardem is an excellent and distinct actor with a rich voice that I can’t get enough of. But there’s no denying that he’s a creepy dude. As I touched on in my Pirates 5 review, he is often cast as a villain, but what I like best about him is that he isn’t just doing the same thing every time. He gives each of his characters little ticks and unique attributes that make them all feel unique from one another, and then brings them to life with his off-kilter yet charismatic delivery. When I first heard about a film called ‘mother!’ and how it was about Jennifer Lawrence being married to Javier Bardem, I was immediately suspicious of his character. Without giving away what his character is like or what his deal is, I was once again immensely satisfied by Bardem’s performance. You can see why Lawrence’s character is attracted to his romantic side, but you’re constantly aware that there’s something just beneath the surface that you’re both eager and afraid to understand. Very effective casting, and a suitable counterbalance to Lawrence and her character.

What makes ‘mother!’ one of my favourite films of the year is how it encourages the viewer to keep thinking about the movie long after they’ve finished watching it. It invites you to deconstruct it and come up with your own interpretation of it, which makes me keen to watch the film again and reconsider it from a different angle. It also, more than any film I can think of from this year, incites conversation. If you can, watch this film with a group of people, because you will need to talk about ‘mother!’ after you’ve watched it, and your discussions will carry on deep into the night. I saw this movie with my girlfriend, and she and I have got just as much out of talking about the film as we did from watching it. The following is her brief thoughts on the movie:

“I definitely need more time to process and articulate my thoughts! However, this film has got to be one of the most memorable of the year for me. I've not seen anything quite like it. I really like the way they use sounds to great effect. In fact my mind just keeps running through the story. Trying to make sense of it all. That doesn't happen too often. I think it is one of those films you are going to think is either a masterpiece or utter rubbish. I think it is clever even if I don't agree with all the metaphors...”

Since we got back last night, we’ve looked up countless videos of people talking about ‘mother!’, because we’re that desperate to absorb as much discussion of the movie as possible. I maintain that this film will not be for everyone, and you definitely shouldn’t dive into it casually without reflecting on whether you will be okay with the experience. But for the people who are okay with going into uncomfortable territory, ‘mother!’ has so many fascinating metaphors and hidden meanings to think about and discuss, and that makes for deeply rewarding cinema.

If this review has been vague, I apologise. I truly do think the best thing you can do if you’re interested in ‘mother!’ is go in without any preconceptions. But just because I haven’t talked about the details of the film’s contents doesn’t mean there’s nothing to say about them. I will be talking about this movie with people who have watched it for a long time, and I encourage as many of you as can take its disturbing imagery to join in on the conversation.

9/10.

Intimate yet grand, ‘mother!’ is compellingly constructed and has fascinating depths that make it one of the most unique films of the year, and I will definitely be revisiting it.

6 notes · View notes

weekendwarriorblog · 4 years

Text

30 Minute Experiment: Evil #30ME

Okay, let’s do this. DiBlasio is not saying anything that I need to hear. Muting him and putting on some music while I do today’s #30ME. Part of this challenge was to prove to myself that I could write about any topic, and very early on, I put it out there that I would write about whatever was thrown my way.

Today’s topic of “Evil” was suggested to me by my good friend, David Spaltro, although I have a long list of possible topics and all of the 7 deadly sins were listed on there. I thought it would be interesting if I could sit down for 30 minutes and just write about “Sloth” or “Envy” or “Greed” and see what comes out of that.

Because “Evil” was already on the list, I knew I would have to get to it eventually, but it also seemed like one of those loaded topics that would lead brilliantly into one of my non-sensical rants (like the one I produced yesterday.) Again, the idea is to take a topic, start a 30 minute timer and then start writing with no outline, no preconceived idea of what I’m going to write, etc.

One of the reasons “Evil” could be a loaded topic is because it obviously could lead to a full blown rant about, say, President Donald Trump, who many of my friends consider “evil,” and yet, he certainly doesn’t line up with my own notions about what is “evil.”

To even start discussing this topic, I feel like the term “evil” needs to be defined very clearly and to the most minute detail, since there really should be binary decide on whether someone or something is “evil” or “just very bad.” Mind you, I’ve read a lot of comics in my day, and anyone who knows me even slightly knows that I tend to gravitate towards the bad guys. It’s not that I see them as role models or inspirations or anything like that, but I feel that they make for far more interesting characters in any sort of fiction.

It’s true in comics, it’s true in books and it’s true in movies. It’s why Christoph Waltz and Javier Bardem won their Oscars, because they were so good at playing bad guys and at being “evil” that they ended up being the most memorable parts of the movies in which they appeared and were honors. Granted, if you dared to ask Waltz about playing a “good” or “bad guy,” you’re likely to receive one of his many rants, since he hates being lumped into one category even when it’s obvious his characters in certain movies (like Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds) is obviously evil.

Part of the problem with the idea of someone being “evil” is that few truly evil people would ever think of themselves as evil by any definition. The people who do things solely because they want to be thought of as “evil” are more likely sociopaths or flat-out psychopaths and maybe somewhere in their mind, they feel they have to do the actions which are deemed “evil.”

I could certainly take a few examples of people who have been painted as evil. Is OJ Simpson evil? Sure, despite getting off from the original trial, to most people, he killed his ex-wife and a waiter at a restaurant, so does that make him evil? It would make him a murderer and probably some level of sociopath but if he did do it, he has somehow in his mind made the decision that a.) He didn’t do it and b.) at a much deeper level, he must have thought that his reasoning for murdering two people was sound that he might get away with it.

Is Bill Cosby evil cause he drugged and raped many women? Sure. Doing something like that certainly could be seen as evil and there’s absolutely no way to forgive him for such actions, although he also did a lot of good things in his career and inspired so many people. Same can be said about Michael Jackson and others who have done unmistakably unforgivable actions. But are they truly “Evil”?

And yes, can we even consider Donald Trump “Evil” because he regularly lies and does absolutely awful things that right now are leading to thousands of deaths? There’s a lot of things Trump is... a xenophobe, an idiot, a liar, an arrogant blowhard, and lots more... but do all these things lead up to someone being evil? In this case, it feels more like he’s just been blinded by his own delusions of self-grandeur that he feels like he can say or get away with anything and not have to deal with any repercussions. I mean, the stuff Trump has done is on the level of some of Lex Luthor’s biggest evil plots in the comic books. (Does anyone remember when Lex became President?) But it’s hard to think that Trump is outright “evil” because he’s not waking up every morning and thinking, “How can I kill every single American?” which would definitely be evil. No, he thinks he’s doing what’s best for America by using his xenophobe to keep out anyone who might steal jobs or commit acts of terrorism. So there is an inherent and hugely flawed idea of his actions having some good behind them.

But yeah, to those who have lost their lives and family or been deported to places where they surely will be killed, Trump’s actions and those that follow his orders are evil. Trump has been compared to Hitler, who actually was outright evil if there ever was evil in human form in the real world. He literally probably woke up every day thinking of how to kill every Jew on the planet and he managed to get others to think the same way. THAT IS EVIL.

Yes, a lot of evil acts have been committed thinking that it’s what Trump has wanted all along, and he’s done nothing to dissuade such actions, but this may be more because there are a lot of actual evil people out there who see the new President as a role model pushing them to commit their heinous crimes.

Listen, I said very early on that I didn’t want to solely focus on Trump and “is he or isn’t he evil?” so maybe I’ll use the last 11 minutes of today’s experiment to try to determine, “What is Evil?” (Sadly, this hasn’t been covered in the Disney+ series “Forky Asks a Question”?)

I think if your first thought when you wake up to when you go to be is, “I want to kill people today” or “How can I get everything I want today without worrying about others?” (that’s a big one) or even that Joker classic from The Dark Knight about “wanting to see the world burn” -- another good example of an actor displaying true evil on screen -- then yes, you may be evil.

I think the big problem with the minds of people who are truly evil is that there’s probably a switch in all of our brains that we work so hard to keep on the right side of what we consider good or evil, and the strain for some to do good sometimes impedes the awareness that the switch has been on the other side for so long that they missed it. Or even the idea that the whole thought of good and evil is so skewed in their brain compared to other “normal people” that they are not even aware that what they’re doing, whether it’s lying or stealing or outright murder is indeed bad and yes, evil.

Because of this I’m not really sure there’s a way to stop evil outright putting someone in solitary confinement away from other people for the rest of their lives. It’s where most evil people in fiction end up (if not outright dead) but I think that even the greatest psychologist on the planet would have a tough time actually reforming someone who is evil. This may be why so many people on the planet have no problems with the death penalty or the executions done in other countries. Although there are so many third world despots who are actively killing people for other reasons than punishment and that surely can be deemed evil.

Again, I didn’t want to make this all about Trump, but there has to be an invisible line where once he crosses that line, he is officially evil on the level of some of those despots such as Hitler, Idi Amin, North Korea’s despotic Kim family, etc. I don’t think cutting off immigration is that act/line although it really pissed a lot of Americans off, and for very good reason.

Since I only have about 3 minutes left, i probably can’t go off on another rant about that (as I have on Twitter) but I do feel that when someone thinks of others as “evil,” they really need to look into their own minds and hearts of what they consider evil before declaring such as fact. (It’s one of the biggest problems of “cancel culture”... someone does or says something that doesn’t connect with other’s mind sets and they’re immediately deemed “evil,” which if you think about it, is kind of insane.) I said early on that this was gonna be a loaded topic, and I’m sure it’s one that i can write more about even if I don’t think I fully encapsulated my thoughts on the topic in this relatively short period of time. It’s one of those topics that really requires a lot more thought and planning, for sure, but time is up, so that’s all for today... thanks for reading!

#30ME #30MinuteExperiment #evil

0 notes