Arrakis, Dune, Desert planet…
After re-watching one of my favourite sci-fi
films,
Dune,
for probably the fifth time (I first saw it in the cinema when it was originally
released in 1984), I was struck by the unmistakable—some might say
glaringly obvious—parallel to the ongoing situation in the Middle East
over the manipulation of nation states and the supply of oil.
The film depicts two warring factions (House
Atreides and House Harkonnen) fighting against a backdrop of political plotting
and contrivances designed to ensure that the supply of the spice 'melange', upon
which the whole of civilisation depends for interstellar transport, remains
stable. Thinking about it now, the parallel seems fairly obvious. The warring
factions are most likely Iran and Iraq (a country whose name bears considerable
resemblance to 'Arrakis', which is what got me started on this line of thinking
in the first place, and also consists mostly of arid desert). The arrogant and
manipulative Emperor—curiously named Shadam IV—represents the
titular head of the Western world, i.e. the President of the USA. The spice is
an obvious reference to oil, which underpins our current system of transport,
and with it the global economy. Professor Kynes, the imperial ecologist, may be
a thinly veiled reference to modern, now sadly deceased economic guru, John
Maynard Keynes (although I must confess, I don't really know enough about his
political views to know if the parallel stands up). And the moral of the story?
Don't mess with other people's countries or you may find that you've bitten off
more that you can chew…
OK, not
everything quite fits into this contemporary reading, but I'm sure Frank
Herbert, the original author of the
Dune
books was more than a little influenced by the political goings on in the Middle
East while he was writing them, and the text is littered with references to
religion, holy war
('jihad'),
as well as the more mind-bending properties of the mysterious spice (which may
be a reference to something altogether less political!). However, even if the
premise of the story is based on actual events, I'm less convinced that it is
pure allegory because, as with Lord of
the Rings before it, there are too many layers
and levels to the writing to read it as a direct and literal translation of
what's going on in the real world. (For example, who are the Fremen? Is Frank
Herbert trying to say that the indiginous people of the Middle East will find a
mysterious saviour, rebel and take over the region? Well,
maybe…)
In any case, it's a
blindingly good film, and one that I think stands up well after over 20 years,
despite having received a panning from the critics (notably Barry Norman, who I
think said it was one of the worst films he had ever seen). It's a great pity
that David Lynch's original 3-hour cut of the film was never released (and
possibly doesn't even survive), and indeed Lynch himself seems to have had
nothing to do with or say about the film since it was released. He's reportedly
still quite pissed off about the whole thing—and who wouldn't be? But it's
a great piece of work all the same, and perhaps has some lessons to teach
today's world leaders, who still seem to think that messing around with other
people's countries is a good way to get what you want in the world arena. No
doubt history will be the judge of that old chestnut.
Posted on Sunday - September 11, 2005 at 08:59 AM
