I noticed in the first movie they cut out most of the Muslim imagery, as well as the Fremen guy who kamikazes a ship (iirc). Guessing there's more of the same in part 2?
Nope Americans are just so deeply misinformed they miss the obvious and think all the good guys and resistance fighters are them. Movie has plenty of Arab and Berber allusions.
Second movie is much better about it, though they still refuse to use "jihad" as a term probably for burger reasons (it would send 80-90% of an american audience into a berserk state)
"Excuse me, but why are they called 'Fremen' then? Don't you get it? Fremen=>Free Men=>Land of the Free=>Americans! And you better believe I'm going to salute Da' Troops! [various barking/grunting noises]"
Every film in America needs to have a disclaimer at the beginning where the main character faces the camera and says "I am the protagonist of this film. This does not mean I'm a good guy. This film is simply centered around my perspective. Protagonists can be bad guys." And then the movie proceeds as normal except every 15 minutes the protagonist faces the camera again and reminds the audience about the disclaimer at the beginning
At the end of the movie the protagonist will then explain all the bad things they did and why they're bad.
In the 8th grade my fucking ENGLISH teacher corrected my answer for what a protagonist is saying the point of view character in the story with an addition of *the character the reader roots for
I went to them after, pointed out a few examples of protagonists being bad people, which even at age 14 was pretty easy. I think I just listed a bunch of Scorsese movies and Trainspotting. They still wouldn't give me the point so I got a dictionary and showed him the definition. In his credit, he did back down and fully eat crow after. Apparently this character the reader routs for xrap was part of the curriculum answer and I'd noticed other lessons used this incorrect definition before and he was a long term substitute who didn't want to rock the boat.
i had something similar told to me, that the lead character is the one who the audience should identify and sympathize with. I was also told that determining the theme of story involves a math equation of how many times certain sentences are said relating to the theme. My teacher did like in Dead Poets Society and made an X-Y graph on the board of "theme intensity" versus number of times a theme is explicitly stated.
I tried like you did, saying that maybe a story's themes aren't always explicit or even internal to the text. I got a little intense and the teacher told me to sit down (i was an annoying teenager)
It takes place in a sexist society if that's what they meant. Every female character except the police chief is some kind of servant, prostitute, or both. One of the female characters isn't even a person, she's a commercial product simulating a domestic servant
“Why won’t you commies let me enjoy my slop???” Actually I can enjoy it while understanding that it is politically problematic. The orcs in LOTR are basically the Nazi vision of Judeo-Bolsheviks and it’s no surprise that the Ukrainians were calling Russians orcs during the SMO.
I'm going to a massive sound and visual sensory paid event that requires subtitles not for the hard of hearing, but because the director's Oscar worthy genius* only allows those on the Spice Melange to actually hear the actors.
Ive got very mixed feelings about this one, I can’t help but think the way religion is depicted is 2010s reddit atheism at best and pure orientalism at its worst. Really my only criticism is towards the depiction of cliches and stereotypes, the rest is amazing, especially the score. I also really dislike the way conviction and belief is treated, maybe im just too cranky but it reads a bit like “both sides are stupid, anyways bask in my glorious wisdom while i fence sit”.
Mixed feelings to the adaptations from the book too, i really dont know how theyre going to resolve the very heavy changes in the third film, especially how changed chani is in this version.