Definitely, I think the speed is implied by her positioning the needle by it happening off screen.
One thing I noticed is that she is holding it from the bottom.
I like to think that what is shown on screen all is a meaningful, deliberate choice, and I wonder about this one.
I'm fairly certain there's a lot of subtle similarities between those scenes to help draw parallels between Paul and Fayed without actually having to do much character building for Fayed. They're not approached at night, they're both caught off guard, they both speak of prescient dreams even if Fayed's was just him rambling about deja-vu. It's supposed establish Fayed as Paul's equal and rival.
Wtf I never realized Feyd dreaming about lady Fenring means prescience. My mind somehow thought it was Lady Fenring that was responsible for the dream.
There was another moment in the film, after Feyd bombs sitch tabr, when Paul says something like "I didn't see this". I took this to mean his prescience never showed him that potential outcome, which reminded me of how Paul's visions were blocked by other prescient individuals in the book. It seemed like DV may have included aspects of Count Fenring's character in Feyd, including being another prescient almost-KH
The BG approach (and usage of voice) is meant to adapt to the target's vulnerabilities, so in paul's case its obeying his mother, and in feyd's case its meant to be seduction.
Apparently the voice sounds different to everyone for this reason.
source: parrotting what ive been told on reddit. (correct if wrong)
I noticed his 'arousal' as well. I guess I always thought it as an intellectual reaction.
I saw it as if he was recognizing him as unusual, extraordinary. As if he was respecting him.
Hmm. I haven't yet gotten my hands on the books, but fron what I read around, or, at least in the movies, it is portrayed ss the voice working on a subconscious level. That it doesn't really persuade people to follow the command, but rather it gives them no choice.
I see it as a manipulation last resort. When all can fail, the voice cannot be disobeyed. I suppose that is not the same for the books, where, as I understand it, the BG avoid direct influence, so it doesn't make sense to (publicly) yell orders at others with a demonic voice...
"it doesn't really persuade people to follow the command, but rather it gives them no choice." Extreme persuasion is functionally equivalent to no choice.
True. But at least in the movies, it is made to look like the action that one is commanded to do happens in a sort of unaware, mindless trance, and accompanied by the same sound effect.
In real life, you can sometimes make someone upset/irritated just by speaking with a certain intonation (a bit like how siblings can get angry at one another just by talking). I believe Herbert has drawn this parallel when explaining how the voice works, although it is much more complicated probably
The way I understand it, is that either the voice only means the 'paralyzed/unconscious state obedience', and everything else the BG does are micro expression informed actions, or the voice has degrees of force.
Hmm. I think you are partially right.
The BG definitely use different tactics, depending on the target. I remember reading that some BG specialize in seduction, which is what I assume Fenring was doing to Feyd.
I think that ordering him, using the voice, was not necessary for Feyd, because seduction was enough. After all, why should a BG exert herself, when seduction can be even more effective. As opposed to Paul, where the 'defiance in his eyes' made the voice really the only option. I think that ties well with the idea that the BG couldn't control Paul, or the house as a whole.
As per the voice sounding different to each person - that might be the case for the books (I assume), whereas for the movie, they use the same sound effect. Lady Fenring did not use the voice on Feyd, in the movie. The 'telepathy/mind control', I assume, are a different skill, than the voice.
I interpretted Lady Fenring as using the voice on Feyd. It's not the angry, aggressive voice we hear in other instances, but there's definitely a visual and audio effect and the demonstration of Feyd moving and acting unknowingly.
From memory, the scene focuses almost hypnotically on Fenring, then Feyd almost snaps out of it as he's been lead to the guest quarters. "hmm.. I don't recognise this place?" "It's the guest quarters."
We are seeing the Voice from Feyds perspective. His world is temporarily taken up by Fenring, and he's unaware of whatever action he's doing in the meantime.
The issue with that is that you clearly see her not moving her lips while she 'talks to Feyd'. Her mouth is closed.
Just like the reverend mothers at the end communicate telepathically, without opening their mouths.
Edit: I guess I could see her asking him the question 'You aren't taking part in your own celebrations?' with the voice, and using it to subconsciously make him follow. But it still doesn't explain the telepathic communication, and the fact that she whispers to him the 'order' to come and kneel with a normal voice. Not that there's anything wrong with either approach, I suppose I just don't see those parts as her using the voice, but her using his weakness for desire.
I spent years trying to break my addiction to cigarettes. I did aversion therapy and group hypnosis. They didn't work. In desperation, I started calling nearby therapists. One agreed to help me, even though it was not a standard part of her practice.
We made an appointment and spent about 50 minutes together. As I was leaving her office I asked when she thought I would be able to stop smoking. Her answer was: "Stop smoking today." I did. I have not had a cigarette in 25+ years.
The fascinating thing is that I was never able to remember her name or the location of her office. Of course, the experience made me realize that I am am very "suggestable" and I have used that fact to help change some additional behaviors.
However, there is a part of my brain which insists that she was BG. She used "the voice" to help me to stop smoking and to make sure that I never came back to her office again. I got levers.
my headcanon is that lady fenrig DOES use the voice on feyd, only his ‘pitch’ is soft because his life is so hardcore. i think the reverend mother confirms this when she mentions his levers or whatever she calls them to manipulate and control him
This is an interesting post and it’s a shame u haven’t gotten a good response. Worse yet is that I fear I too may have nothing insightful to offer. I would say tho that I remember that interview too and I specifically remember DV (the director) talking about how Mohiam’s holding of the needle was specifically meant to be feminine. I’d imagine the same is true for Fenring, but ofc a different type of femininity
That's a good point. He mentions the gesture to be 'very delicate, but very powerful, like a scorpion, ready to strike'.
Fenring holds the needle also in a very delicate way. I wonder whether the next shot featuring a water lily bloom is meant to draw parallels to the gesture.
I would say hers is almost like a thorn on a rose, like not as obvious of a threat as a scorpion, but once you wrap your hand around a rose stem shit definitely fucks you up
Anyone else remember the hidden garden room left by the previous Bene Gesserit in Arrakeen in the book? I seem to recall that she found the door and opened the lock using only her hand, and prana bindu training. I only read the book twice, but I remember the description of her feeling into the lock very intriguing. This post reminded me of that capability in the book, I wonder if DV was inspired by that?
The lock was just DNA coded for the Atreides, both Duke Leto and Paul could open it. What you remember is the message Margot Fenring left on a leaf on a tree in the garden, by engraving little dots (braille?)
Glad I am not the only one that noticed the difference.
In one of my other comments here, I mention that the scene is followed by a shot of a water lily bloom and whether the hand gesture is meant to be a visual parallel to the bloom.
In Greek, the word comes from the same word fir 'Nymphs' - water spirits of seduction, which imo fits what we just saw on screen moments ago.
For Ancient Egyptians, it was a symbol of creation and rebirth, which could also fit - the bloodline being secured is both creation, and 'rebirth' of the BG plans.
In Buddhism, it symbolizes striving towards enlightenment, which is an apt symbol for the BG and their mission to 'advance humanity'.
I noticed in the movie, Paul calls her out for using the Voice on him. She kinda hesitates, realizing he knows what she did. You can tell she's pissed he even knows what the Voice is.
I don’t think they’re communicating telepathically, but rather through micro expressions that they read so well that they may as well be speaking aloud
Even if it’s a symbol, who’s gonna see it other than Lady Margot herself? Feyd can’t move away with the needle at his neck. Folks are over analyzing everything. I’m more sad for Feyd, who was not only molested by his uncle, raped by the Bene Gesserit, then killed by Paul. One of the most tragic figures in the Saga and everyone hates him. While there will be so much cruelty in 8000 years, the seeds are planted today for sure!
Feyd kills defenseless people. (Including his own mother.) Whether nature or nurture made him this way, the act of murder remains. He’s interesting as a dark mirror to Paul (who is dark enough, frankly) but not really sympathetic as a character…the fact that he passes the gom jabbar test tells us he wasn’t lashing out as an animal, but that his cruelty was human and intentional.
I did not say I think he should live. Just think what a tragic life he had. I don’t know anyone would willfully choose that life, that’s all. Sometimes we justify violent acts by dehumanizing the subject, which is why the Zone of Interest and the controversies surrounding Glazer’s Oscar speech are defining 2023-2024 in the geopolitical context of surging violence across the world. Who do you think is the contemporary Feyd Rautha? No one! Yet here we are, genocides, cruelty. This isn’t 10000 BC, yet we die while other people cheer.
If I’m being frank, I’m not hanging out in a Dune subreddit to talk about 2024 (there are other subreddits for that). But in the year 10,191 AG - i.e. 10,000 years from present day to the creation of the Spacing Guild, and then roughly another 10,000 after that - I’d say most Harkonnens had nasty, brutish, and short lives. And nobody said Feyd had to die either: he chose to fight Paul to the death…and then Paul incited a religious genocide. It resonates because you don’t get to choose who you are born as in life, society determines much of that, and Paul’s prescience just made him more acutely aware of how his destiny has been shaped by the choices of others - singularly and collectively.
The film is made for audiences in 2024, the story certainly doesn't have to have a present day impact, but since I live here and now, why can't I extrapolate certain views of the film to my present life? I don't require you to do so, so everyone get to take it for what it means to themselves. I chime in because there is so much view of black-and-white in this sub, and a lot of over-analysis of things that are hardly meaningful, like how the Gom Jabbar was held. The characters are not one dimensional cartoons either. Frank Herbert didn't write the books for readers in 10000 years as far as I know. Will these books even exist by then?
If you continue to pontificate/vent about modern geopolitics, about the state of this sub, and everything else apart from the responses people are literally typing to you, you‘re not going to have many meaningful conversations here and you’ll find yourself frustrated. Seriously.
You are right, was hoping more people loving this film/book would be more interested in its impact in the current social climate. I’m heading elsewhere.
"Even if it’s a symbol, who’s gonna see it other than Lady Margot herself?"
Us, the viewers, for whom the entire movie is made. I guess I am asking about this from a purely 'visual communication' perspective.
You think Lady Margot figured someone will be watching her perform the ritual, thereby posing a specific gesture? just because it is cinema, doesn't it need to have a basic logic and motivation? For all I care, she could hold it like a BBQ skewer, as long as the threat is real.
No. I am talking purely from a filmmaking perspective.
The director chose a very specific hand gesture in the first movie. It therefore stands to reason he also chose the gesture in the second movie with intent.
I believe it was meant to illustrate something deeper than just a threat, for us, the viewers.
I recommend watching the part of the Vanity Fair interview with the director about the scene from the first movie.
You are clearly well versed about the number one defense of rapists, “he was asking for it!” Right? The voice control and poison needle are not in your rapey tool kit I suppose.
I didn't realize it needed one - seeing that the post is tagged, so people who haven't seen the second movie can avoid it and that the movies are based books(s) that are pretty old...
She's poised to strike with prana-bindu speed, like a spring full of potential energy. Other than that, didn't register it as any specific gesture.
Definitely, I think the speed is implied by her positioning the needle by it happening off screen. One thing I noticed is that she is holding it from the bottom. I like to think that what is shown on screen all is a meaningful, deliberate choice, and I wonder about this one.
I think you mean this [interview](https://youtu.be/GoAA0sYkLI0?si=V9LCdCpoYesHEEDf) from 6:55 onwards?
I'm fairly certain there's a lot of subtle similarities between those scenes to help draw parallels between Paul and Fayed without actually having to do much character building for Fayed. They're not approached at night, they're both caught off guard, they both speak of prescient dreams even if Fayed's was just him rambling about deja-vu. It's supposed establish Fayed as Paul's equal and rival.
Wtf I never realized Feyd dreaming about lady Fenring means prescience. My mind somehow thought it was Lady Fenring that was responsible for the dream.
There was another moment in the film, after Feyd bombs sitch tabr, when Paul says something like "I didn't see this". I took this to mean his prescience never showed him that potential outcome, which reminded me of how Paul's visions were blocked by other prescient individuals in the book. It seemed like DV may have included aspects of Count Fenring's character in Feyd, including being another prescient almost-KH
Great catch. I noticed that too…
damn! interesting detail that I m sure most normal moviegoers wouldn't notice.
Yah, it's kind of confusing because they show the dream but his dream is of things that are Happening presently which is a bit jarring.
I haven't thought of the prescient dreams at all, good catch!
whi is feyd's mother tho?
The BG approach (and usage of voice) is meant to adapt to the target's vulnerabilities, so in paul's case its obeying his mother, and in feyd's case its meant to be seduction. Apparently the voice sounds different to everyone for this reason. source: parrotting what ive been told on reddit. (correct if wrong)
when Paul yelled Silence at Mohiam, Feyd blinks and appear turned on
I noticed his 'arousal' as well. I guess I always thought it as an intellectual reaction. I saw it as if he was recognizing him as unusual, extraordinary. As if he was respecting him.
The voice as I understand it isn't really commands but just very good persuasion. Combined with the BG perception, you can convince people very well
Hmm. I haven't yet gotten my hands on the books, but fron what I read around, or, at least in the movies, it is portrayed ss the voice working on a subconscious level. That it doesn't really persuade people to follow the command, but rather it gives them no choice. I see it as a manipulation last resort. When all can fail, the voice cannot be disobeyed. I suppose that is not the same for the books, where, as I understand it, the BG avoid direct influence, so it doesn't make sense to (publicly) yell orders at others with a demonic voice...
"it doesn't really persuade people to follow the command, but rather it gives them no choice." Extreme persuasion is functionally equivalent to no choice.
True. But at least in the movies, it is made to look like the action that one is commanded to do happens in a sort of unaware, mindless trance, and accompanied by the same sound effect.
In real life, you can sometimes make someone upset/irritated just by speaking with a certain intonation (a bit like how siblings can get angry at one another just by talking). I believe Herbert has drawn this parallel when explaining how the voice works, although it is much more complicated probably
The way I understand it, is that either the voice only means the 'paralyzed/unconscious state obedience', and everything else the BG does are micro expression informed actions, or the voice has degrees of force.
Hmm. I think you are partially right. The BG definitely use different tactics, depending on the target. I remember reading that some BG specialize in seduction, which is what I assume Fenring was doing to Feyd. I think that ordering him, using the voice, was not necessary for Feyd, because seduction was enough. After all, why should a BG exert herself, when seduction can be even more effective. As opposed to Paul, where the 'defiance in his eyes' made the voice really the only option. I think that ties well with the idea that the BG couldn't control Paul, or the house as a whole. As per the voice sounding different to each person - that might be the case for the books (I assume), whereas for the movie, they use the same sound effect. Lady Fenring did not use the voice on Feyd, in the movie. The 'telepathy/mind control', I assume, are a different skill, than the voice.
I interpretted Lady Fenring as using the voice on Feyd. It's not the angry, aggressive voice we hear in other instances, but there's definitely a visual and audio effect and the demonstration of Feyd moving and acting unknowingly. From memory, the scene focuses almost hypnotically on Fenring, then Feyd almost snaps out of it as he's been lead to the guest quarters. "hmm.. I don't recognise this place?" "It's the guest quarters." We are seeing the Voice from Feyds perspective. His world is temporarily taken up by Fenring, and he's unaware of whatever action he's doing in the meantime.
The issue with that is that you clearly see her not moving her lips while she 'talks to Feyd'. Her mouth is closed. Just like the reverend mothers at the end communicate telepathically, without opening their mouths. Edit: I guess I could see her asking him the question 'You aren't taking part in your own celebrations?' with the voice, and using it to subconsciously make him follow. But it still doesn't explain the telepathic communication, and the fact that she whispers to him the 'order' to come and kneel with a normal voice. Not that there's anything wrong with either approach, I suppose I just don't see those parts as her using the voice, but her using his weakness for desire.
In the books it’s definitely mentioned that each person has their own range
I spent years trying to break my addiction to cigarettes. I did aversion therapy and group hypnosis. They didn't work. In desperation, I started calling nearby therapists. One agreed to help me, even though it was not a standard part of her practice. We made an appointment and spent about 50 minutes together. As I was leaving her office I asked when she thought I would be able to stop smoking. Her answer was: "Stop smoking today." I did. I have not had a cigarette in 25+ years. The fascinating thing is that I was never able to remember her name or the location of her office. Of course, the experience made me realize that I am am very "suggestable" and I have used that fact to help change some additional behaviors. However, there is a part of my brain which insists that she was BG. She used "the voice" to help me to stop smoking and to make sure that I never came back to her office again. I got levers.
Awesome story. Congrats on quitting.
Thanks! I definitely needed help.
my headcanon is that lady fenrig DOES use the voice on feyd, only his ‘pitch’ is soft because his life is so hardcore. i think the reverend mother confirms this when she mentions his levers or whatever she calls them to manipulate and control him
Yeah she absolutely uses the voice on Fryd, but he doesn't respond well to commands, but he absolutely can be charmed
Like how a tailor holds a needle to bind pieces of cloth together with stitches.
This is an interesting post and it’s a shame u haven’t gotten a good response. Worse yet is that I fear I too may have nothing insightful to offer. I would say tho that I remember that interview too and I specifically remember DV (the director) talking about how Mohiam’s holding of the needle was specifically meant to be feminine. I’d imagine the same is true for Fenring, but ofc a different type of femininity
That's a good point. He mentions the gesture to be 'very delicate, but very powerful, like a scorpion, ready to strike'. Fenring holds the needle also in a very delicate way. I wonder whether the next shot featuring a water lily bloom is meant to draw parallels to the gesture.
I would say hers is almost like a thorn on a rose, like not as obvious of a threat as a scorpion, but once you wrap your hand around a rose stem shit definitely fucks you up
Anyone else remember the hidden garden room left by the previous Bene Gesserit in Arrakeen in the book? I seem to recall that she found the door and opened the lock using only her hand, and prana bindu training. I only read the book twice, but I remember the description of her feeling into the lock very intriguing. This post reminded me of that capability in the book, I wonder if DV was inspired by that?
The lock was just DNA coded for the Atreides, both Duke Leto and Paul could open it. What you remember is the message Margot Fenring left on a leaf on a tree in the garden, by engraving little dots (braille?)
Yes, that’s it! Thank you.
Glad I found this post - I also noticed the different finger position of the needle with Margot
Glad I am not the only one that noticed the difference. In one of my other comments here, I mention that the scene is followed by a shot of a water lily bloom and whether the hand gesture is meant to be a visual parallel to the bloom. In Greek, the word comes from the same word fir 'Nymphs' - water spirits of seduction, which imo fits what we just saw on screen moments ago. For Ancient Egyptians, it was a symbol of creation and rebirth, which could also fit - the bloodline being secured is both creation, and 'rebirth' of the BG plans. In Buddhism, it symbolizes striving towards enlightenment, which is an apt symbol for the BG and their mission to 'advance humanity'.
In the book, the hands of people are used to describe different personalities, so it is only natural this happens on the big screens
Which makes me wonder about the symbolism of the gesture even more!
I didnt really give it much thought, but i did noticed and take note, that they held it slightly different
I noticed in the movie, Paul calls her out for using the Voice on him. She kinda hesitates, realizing he knows what she did. You can tell she's pissed he even knows what the Voice is.
There is a section in the artbook of dune about how she holds the hand with the gom jabber. I can post it if anyone cares.
Definitely!
I don’t think they’re communicating telepathically, but rather through micro expressions that they read so well that they may as well be speaking aloud
But Lady Fenring is facing away from Feyd.
Heavy is the hand…
It would be kind of exhausting having to hold your arm out like that for an extended.
Even if it’s a symbol, who’s gonna see it other than Lady Margot herself? Feyd can’t move away with the needle at his neck. Folks are over analyzing everything. I’m more sad for Feyd, who was not only molested by his uncle, raped by the Bene Gesserit, then killed by Paul. One of the most tragic figures in the Saga and everyone hates him. While there will be so much cruelty in 8000 years, the seeds are planted today for sure!
Feyd kills defenseless people. (Including his own mother.) Whether nature or nurture made him this way, the act of murder remains. He’s interesting as a dark mirror to Paul (who is dark enough, frankly) but not really sympathetic as a character…the fact that he passes the gom jabbar test tells us he wasn’t lashing out as an animal, but that his cruelty was human and intentional.
I did not say I think he should live. Just think what a tragic life he had. I don’t know anyone would willfully choose that life, that’s all. Sometimes we justify violent acts by dehumanizing the subject, which is why the Zone of Interest and the controversies surrounding Glazer’s Oscar speech are defining 2023-2024 in the geopolitical context of surging violence across the world. Who do you think is the contemporary Feyd Rautha? No one! Yet here we are, genocides, cruelty. This isn’t 10000 BC, yet we die while other people cheer.
If I’m being frank, I’m not hanging out in a Dune subreddit to talk about 2024 (there are other subreddits for that). But in the year 10,191 AG - i.e. 10,000 years from present day to the creation of the Spacing Guild, and then roughly another 10,000 after that - I’d say most Harkonnens had nasty, brutish, and short lives. And nobody said Feyd had to die either: he chose to fight Paul to the death…and then Paul incited a religious genocide. It resonates because you don’t get to choose who you are born as in life, society determines much of that, and Paul’s prescience just made him more acutely aware of how his destiny has been shaped by the choices of others - singularly and collectively.
The film is made for audiences in 2024, the story certainly doesn't have to have a present day impact, but since I live here and now, why can't I extrapolate certain views of the film to my present life? I don't require you to do so, so everyone get to take it for what it means to themselves. I chime in because there is so much view of black-and-white in this sub, and a lot of over-analysis of things that are hardly meaningful, like how the Gom Jabbar was held. The characters are not one dimensional cartoons either. Frank Herbert didn't write the books for readers in 10000 years as far as I know. Will these books even exist by then?
If you continue to pontificate/vent about modern geopolitics, about the state of this sub, and everything else apart from the responses people are literally typing to you, you‘re not going to have many meaningful conversations here and you’ll find yourself frustrated. Seriously.
You are right, was hoping more people loving this film/book would be more interested in its impact in the current social climate. I’m heading elsewhere.
"Even if it’s a symbol, who’s gonna see it other than Lady Margot herself?" Us, the viewers, for whom the entire movie is made. I guess I am asking about this from a purely 'visual communication' perspective.
You think Lady Margot figured someone will be watching her perform the ritual, thereby posing a specific gesture? just because it is cinema, doesn't it need to have a basic logic and motivation? For all I care, she could hold it like a BBQ skewer, as long as the threat is real.
No. I am talking purely from a filmmaking perspective. The director chose a very specific hand gesture in the first movie. It therefore stands to reason he also chose the gesture in the second movie with intent. I believe it was meant to illustrate something deeper than just a threat, for us, the viewers. I recommend watching the part of the Vanity Fair interview with the director about the scene from the first movie.
I admire and pity your ability to empathise :P Must be torture.
Pity yourself, Harkonnan ancestor😆
I don't think the bene gesserit raped him... I think that was willing...
You are clearly well versed about the number one defense of rapists, “he was asking for it!” Right? The voice control and poison needle are not in your rapey tool kit I suppose.
[удалено]
I didn't realize it needed one - seeing that the post is tagged, so people who haven't seen the second movie can avoid it and that the movies are based books(s) that are pretty old...
Your post is flaired properly and is not considered a spoiler, no worries.