CoastalCruiser

I've lost track how many times I've viewed the first installment of this Dune reboot. The original 1984 Dune was a flawed masterpiece I've also viewed countless times. Even with its defects I could not imagine that Dune could be done better. But Denis Villeneuve's Dune has achieved the near impossible. Dune Part 1 is a true masterpiece.

Why then did I leave the theatre after taking in Dune Part 2 feeling slightly disappointed? I liked the film well enough, but didn't exit the theatre with that feeling of magic that the first film in the series had imparted. It was only upon watching the film again months later that I realized what was wrong. It was the treatment of the character Chani. Why did Villeneuve change the part so much? Why did Gurney Halleck yank our dear Chani to the floor like that? Twice!

It was a few weeks later when I got a possible answer. In spite of my long standing credo to "Never meet your heroes" (they are just mortal human beings and will inevitably say or do something to shatter the illusion), I tuned into a cast interview about the movie. Big Mistake. First up was Zendaya. She spoke about approaching Villeneuve to give her character "more agency". Uh oh. More agency? Had Zendaya read the Frank Herbert novel? He had given Chani the exact right amount of "agency", which we will assume to be the character arc, and what Zendaya may have successfully lobbied for; a greatly enhanced storyline, more screen time, and unlike all previous productions of Dune, second billing. A virtual co-starring role. Well, the Chani story was certainly altered, and given far more screen time, with the result that the beautiful character of Chani was morphed into an angry, dumbed down brat that still didn't get it even when Paul fully showed himself as the Lisan al gaib. Nice work Zendaya.

Thankfully, I am able to look past that error in the story and have found my way back to the magic that Villeneuve has infused into the Dune story. It's just that now when I watch Josh Brolin yank the Zendaya to the floor... I cheer. But because of the needless story alteration, Denis Villeneuve produced the same category of work as that of David Lynch... a beautiful but flawed masterpiece.

First, a lament for Kelly Choi. She hosted the first two seasons of this series. Kelly will be missed. She was pretty, articulate, and unlike non-chef Padma Lakshmi, Kelly did not seat herself at the judges table. Speaking on behalf of all males, we didn't appreciate the lovely Kelly being replaced by a neanderthal. It's less of a show without her.

Moving on, the chefs were given several "challenges" in this episode. The water was cut off. The time to complete was cut by 1/2 hour. And the servers didn't show. Those aren't challenges. They are sabotages. This is how I would have reacted if I had been a master chef on the show...

First, when the water was cut off I would have done what any chef would have done in a real restaurant. Find a cell phone and CALL A PLUMBER!

Then I would have conspired with all the other chefs to complete their dishes according to the original schedule. THEY COULDN'T SEND US ALL HOME!

Finally, when time to serve the meal I would have stepped into the restaurant and announced that since there were no servers, the patrons would have to file into the kitchen to be served, one table at a time. The patrons would have the privilege of arbitrating the order of being served. It would give them a chance to get to know each other. The judges would be instructed to remain seated and be served at their tables, AFTER ALL THE OTHER DINERS HAD BEEN SERVED.

How do you like that, show runners?

Look. Up on Netflix. It's a drama! It's a comedy! It's a political thriller! Yes. It's all those things, and that is due to a great story, a just as good script, with excellent dialog delivered flawlessly by talented actors. Every major character is perfectly emoted by the cast. Take Ali Ahn, powering CIA operative Eidra Park. She kind of plays her character like Daria with a career. So funny. But everyone is funny, because the absurdity of the situations are really quite laughable. Not because they are unrealistic exaggerations of real life politics, but because they are plausible.

But is The Diplomat "woke"? More suggestive than woke. There is a black, female chief of staff when there has never been such an appointment in real life. The Vice President is in charge of the Russian defense network. Has that ever been true? Although there are several males in leading roles, their female counterparts are smarter, and they are the ones really calling the shots. And the inter-racial relationships, as usual, feel obligatory. But I think the real agenda of the series is that the producers and writers are conditioning the public to the accept the idea of a female presidency. That's the punchline. The producers are suggesting to Americans that it's time for a female president. We've been exposed to such conditioning for one left leaning agenda item or another at least as far back as Rob Reiner's An American President (another great production). Film is very persuasive.

Do I care? I care that viewers stay aware that what they are watching is fiction, and not confuse fiction with reality. The show is not portraying current reality. It is portraying its own vision of a future reality. The messaging of the show is that females are smarter, more capable, and can be trusted to have the interests of the nation at heart. In point of fact, there are men and women who have such attributes. And there are men and women who lack them.

It's about the individual, not the gender/sex. Let's try to remember that.