This movie is basically a failure as a dramatic experience. The plot is virtually non-existent. The viewer will learn almost nothing about the real internal struggle of Tibet. The music (by Phillip Glass) is unlovely and grating after the first hour (yes, I don't like Mr. Glass as a composer, give me Steve Reich any day). I can't fault the visuals of the film, parts are lovely, the depiction of life inside the Potala Palace of Lassa was nicely photographed.
As a movie, as a art form that seeks to combine visuals with human acting and sound to create a "film" this is a failure. There was no acting to speak of (with the notable exception of the man who played Chairman Mao. I believe this is the very first time I've ever seen someone "perform" Mao and I found it fascinating). There was no plot, just short little scenes from a life.
The comparison with the film "Gandhi" couldn't be more unfavorable to "Kundun". In my opinion, "Gandhi" had it all: super acting, brilliant visuals, stirring music and the incredible story about how one man helped India gain its independence. By contrast, "Kundun" has nearly no acting, music I never want to hear again, and a plot that shows one small boy being pushed around by older people for his entire life.
Minor note: Heinrich Harrer, the man who wrote "Seven Years in Tibet" does not show up in this film. Instead it is the Dalai Lama who is shown running the movie camera (a task which Harrer performed). The film "Seven Years in Tibet" is vastly superior to "Kundun".
Political note: One thing is certain, the Tibetan practice of investing political power in the hands of a child, raised from a very young age to be a Buddhist monk is seriously flawed. From 1937 till 1950, a critical period of world history and critical for Tibet, the country was, in theory, ruled by a child (first a regent acted for the child, then a senior council acted for him). Perhaps no one could have saved Tibet from a victorious Communist Chinese government, but if Tibet had real political leadership during the intervening 15 years, it might have had a chance at independence. Obviously the Dalai Lama can't be blamed for the system which he "inherited". He tried to make the best of situation for which he was personally and educationally ill-equipped to handle. Its sad that he failed, but not surprising.
As a movie, as a art form that seeks to combine visuals with human acting and sound to create a "film" this is a failure. There was no acting to speak of (with the notable exception of the man who played Chairman Mao. I believe this is the very first time I've ever seen someone "perform" Mao and I found it fascinating). There was no plot, just short little scenes from a life.
The comparison with the film "Gandhi" couldn't be more unfavorable to "Kundun". In my opinion, "Gandhi" had it all: super acting, brilliant visuals, stirring music and the incredible story about how one man helped India gain its independence. By contrast, "Kundun" has nearly no acting, music I never want to hear again, and a plot that shows one small boy being pushed around by older people for his entire life.
Minor note: Heinrich Harrer, the man who wrote "Seven Years in Tibet" does not show up in this film. Instead it is the Dalai Lama who is shown running the movie camera (a task which Harrer performed). The film "Seven Years in Tibet" is vastly superior to "Kundun".
Political note: One thing is certain, the Tibetan practice of investing political power in the hands of a child, raised from a very young age to be a Buddhist monk is seriously flawed. From 1937 till 1950, a critical period of world history and critical for Tibet, the country was, in theory, ruled by a child (first a regent acted for the child, then a senior council acted for him). Perhaps no one could have saved Tibet from a victorious Communist Chinese government, but if Tibet had real political leadership during the intervening 15 years, it might have had a chance at independence. Obviously the Dalai Lama can't be blamed for the system which he "inherited". He tried to make the best of situation for which he was personally and educationally ill-equipped to handle. Its sad that he failed, but not surprising.