Squeezing Dune

Dune, the 1965 SF novel by Frank Herbert, has been adapted for the screen twice: first as a feature film by David Lynch in 1984 and later as a miniseries by John Harrison in 2000. A third effort is currently underway.

It's hard to squeeze Dune into a single movie. The book is a good 500 pages long, which fits better into three movies than into one. But if you are determined to fit it into a single movie, it should be possible. Here's one way:

ACT 1 (30 min) Start in Arrakeen, with the Atreides already in charge. Leto is the kind master, Paul his formidable young son. Their rivals are the Harkonnen, a nasty bunch (they abuse servants). Introduce Arrakis as the source of the Spice, possibly as part of Jessica's training of Paul in esoteric disciplines. The Fremen are mentioned, but as a minor impoverished rabble. Meanwhile, the Emperor, the Space Guild, and the Harkonnen meet and agree to replace the Atreides in order to maintain control of the Spice. The Harkonnen attack, Leto dies, and Paul and his mother flee to the desert. End with Paul looking back and vowing revenge.

ACT 2 (30 min) Paul and Jessica encounter the Fremen, and are taken in by them. Paul tests himself against young Fremen fighters and is impressed; they are very good, but he is better. He accompanies them on a raid against the Harkonnen, and is again impressed. He joins the Fremen, and becomes a worm-rider. He learns the true size of the Fremen from seeing one of their secret meetings. Jessica speaks of the Voice from the Outer World prophesy. Following Jessica's advice, Paul decides to lead the Fremen against the Harkonnen. Meanwhile, the Harkonnen are making a cruel mess of Arrakis.

ACT 3 (30 min) Paul campaigns to become the Fremen war-leader. This effort is shown as a montage of knife fighting and speeches before increasingly large gatherings. Harkonnen cruelties continue. The Emperor announces plans for a visit. Paul, Jessica and Stilgar begin training the troops, incorporating her and Paul's esoteric training. They wait for a sandstorm and attack in force with wormriders. Fight scenes between Fremen and Hakonnen. The fight goes to the Fremen. The Emperor flees in a ship. Paul addresses the crowds of Arrakeen from a balcony proclaiming a new day on Arrakis, with the natives in charge.

I think that could work. But some elements does get left out, given the compressed time-line: the spice as a mutagen, the nature of the Bene Gesserit and their goals, the Kwisatz Haderach, Paul's Harkonnen heritage, Paul's duel with Feyd-Rautha, and everything about Liet-Kynes.

Why might an atheist be trustworthy?

One of the charges that's sometimes leveled at atheists and agnostics is that they cannot be trusted to do the right thing because ultimately they don't have any reason to fear consequences when they do wrong. If no one's watching, the thinking goes, people steal. For believers there is always Someone watching but for unbelievers, there isn't. Therefore unbelievers cannot be trusted to do the right thing. This is a serious claim, and deserves a serious answer.

To begin with, is religious belief sufficient for moral behavior? Are all believers virtuous? No. Visit any of our prisons, or watch any program about them, and you'll see plenty of religion there. There's no shortage of God-talk and God-work in prison. If Jesus is everywhere, he seems to make a special point of visiting every jail-house in the land. So belief is not sufficient for moral behavior.

But if it isn't sufficient, might it be necessary? Does only belief motivate people to do the right thing? A believer who does something because he believes God will punish or reward him is motivated by feelings of fear (of consequences) or greed (for reward.) Greed and fear are certainly feelings that drive behavior. But they are not the only ones. Think of a mother comforting a crying child when she could just as well have let him cry himself out. She's doing it out of love. Or think of a soldier staying up through the night on guard when he knows damn well sarge is fast asleep in his bunk. He's doing it out of feelings of duty. Love and duty are feelings that can drive people to do the right thing, quite apart from fear and greed.

The feelings of duty can be specific or general. They can motivate the soldier to do his duty to his unit or corps, but they can also apply to larger duties, including the duty to do what is right in a broader sense. And it is these feeling of duty that an atheist can feel just as keenly as any believer, and which may lead him to do what is right.

Will they necessarily do so? No. Some real scoundrels don't have these feelings of duty. And even for people who do have them, they sometimes aren't sufficient to overcome temptation. But then the fear and greed that are supposed to motivate a believer aren't always sufficient either. Both believers and unbelievers may do wrong. My point is simply this: fear and greed are not the only feelings that may motivate people to do what is right. A feeling of duty may do so also. An atheist may feel a duty to do what he believes is right just as keenly as the most pious believer. And that's why an atheist may be trustworthy.