For all its spiritual density and visual richness, "Kundun" is a rather straightforward biopic chronicling the coming-of-age of the fourteenth emanation of Buddha, also-known-as the Dalai Lama. It starts with the discovery of a young little boy who passed all the tests and left no doubt about his 'identity' to his departure to Lhassa, followed by years of initiation and finally, the confrontation with the Chinese Imperial Force, that made him witness the horrors perpetrated against his people and his fruitless attempts to awaken the world about Tibet's condition, leading to his exile.
There's nothing the film shows that can't be covered by a good documentary but one would expect from cinema to tackle its main subject with more curious and investigative eyes, especially when the director happens to be Martin Scorsese. Now, that's the core of the riddle, Scorsese's movies have always centered on characters who tried to relieve themselves from a cultural or life-related burden and couldn't accomplish such a feat in a peaceful way, his movies always culminated with a bloodbath or an outburst of violence highlighting the statement made in his seminal movie "Mean Streets": "You don't make up for your sins at church, you do it on the streets".
There seems to be a connection between a Scorsesian character and sins to some degree, even his Jesus Christ wasn't an angel immune to temptation but was about to change the face of the world for worse by embracing the very parcel of humanity that allowed him to reach people, talk about a double edged sword and a haunting character study. As a fervent catholic and a former aspiring priest, Scorsese knew one thing or two about Jesus and could handle him on a personal level. But the Dalai Lama is a such an untouchable figure or so remote to Scorsese's world that he can never really get "personal" with him. "Kundun" has a lot of things going but not the 'Scorsese' touch.
So I spent the whole film being touched by that little child trying to fit in the saintly shoes too big for him, by his homesickness, enjoying the devotion of the monks, the immersion into the closed world of Tibetan temples but the film never manages to transcend itself, to use spiritual vocabulary. It has been praised for being at least more accurate and serious than "Seven Years in Tibet". I still have to re-watch Annaud's movie but I don't think this is the right angle to judge the film. "Kundun" should be compared to a similar Asian epic biopic, which is Bernardo Bertolucci's "Last Emperor" and on that level, "Kundun" fails by contrast, even in the costume and visual richness' department.
Bertolucci's Best picture winner was a masterpiece in the way it portrayed the emperor as a fallible human being, victim of a contradicting condition, he started his life believing he was above anyone else and the end, being just a cog in China's society. The transition between the two states and how it overlapped China's History is a school-case of how to make a riveting biopic, it didn't even rely on linear narrative. Maybe the subject was different as he wasn't deified, but then I guess the Dalai Lama is too sacred to make a good biopic. Or maybe Scorsese wasn't the right director.
By that I mean Scorsese respected Buddhism so much that he told the story as if he believed the Lama was Buddha's reincarnation. I don't mind a movie embracing the religion it deals with but then it keeps the character so remote from the audience, so enigmatic that we have no other choice than suspending our own disbelief and accept it as a reality. Fair enough, but there's never a real bridge allowing us to reach him, moments of doubts or self-introspection. Even in the crucial and entertaining exchange with Mao with that infamous "Religion is poison", the Lama doesn't react, he lowers his eyes, and we're just trying to interpret his body language.
"Kundun" is a movie that constantly seems in awe of its own material, and while there are many elements to praise and the film was certainly paved with the best intentions, I think it might have did a disservice to the cause it embraced by deifying the Lama a tad too much, it focused on the religion before making it a human cause. Here is a man who represents a civilization that has rejected non-violence for centuries and is confronted to the indifference of the world and violence from an overwhelming opponent, on the scale of history; he was the ultimate "underdog". Now, what if the Lama felt some a violent impulse for rebellion as a reaction from this injustice, in the name of love?
Maybe there would have been some artistic licenses that's what the film lacked at one point or another: a daring move. In the end, it's too purist and pure for its own good and prevent the narrative from a powerful internal or emotional conflict that could have been pure Scorsesian. In the end, we've got a movie only good enough to earn Oscar nods for Cinematography and Production Design. In the end, we have what seems like an oddity in the Master's body of work, a movie where there's not much to criticize but not much to love so much you'd love to give it a second watch. Finally, the name of Scorsese is its greatest blessing, publicity-speaking.
I think the Dalai Lama or the Tibetan cause deserved better, but sometimes you have to deflate a few figures and de-sanctify them to reach people, there's a time for gazing, praying and "looking" and there's a time for something more gripping especially on the screen. A wasted opportunity.
There's nothing the film shows that can't be covered by a good documentary but one would expect from cinema to tackle its main subject with more curious and investigative eyes, especially when the director happens to be Martin Scorsese. Now, that's the core of the riddle, Scorsese's movies have always centered on characters who tried to relieve themselves from a cultural or life-related burden and couldn't accomplish such a feat in a peaceful way, his movies always culminated with a bloodbath or an outburst of violence highlighting the statement made in his seminal movie "Mean Streets": "You don't make up for your sins at church, you do it on the streets".
There seems to be a connection between a Scorsesian character and sins to some degree, even his Jesus Christ wasn't an angel immune to temptation but was about to change the face of the world for worse by embracing the very parcel of humanity that allowed him to reach people, talk about a double edged sword and a haunting character study. As a fervent catholic and a former aspiring priest, Scorsese knew one thing or two about Jesus and could handle him on a personal level. But the Dalai Lama is a such an untouchable figure or so remote to Scorsese's world that he can never really get "personal" with him. "Kundun" has a lot of things going but not the 'Scorsese' touch.
So I spent the whole film being touched by that little child trying to fit in the saintly shoes too big for him, by his homesickness, enjoying the devotion of the monks, the immersion into the closed world of Tibetan temples but the film never manages to transcend itself, to use spiritual vocabulary. It has been praised for being at least more accurate and serious than "Seven Years in Tibet". I still have to re-watch Annaud's movie but I don't think this is the right angle to judge the film. "Kundun" should be compared to a similar Asian epic biopic, which is Bernardo Bertolucci's "Last Emperor" and on that level, "Kundun" fails by contrast, even in the costume and visual richness' department.
Bertolucci's Best picture winner was a masterpiece in the way it portrayed the emperor as a fallible human being, victim of a contradicting condition, he started his life believing he was above anyone else and the end, being just a cog in China's society. The transition between the two states and how it overlapped China's History is a school-case of how to make a riveting biopic, it didn't even rely on linear narrative. Maybe the subject was different as he wasn't deified, but then I guess the Dalai Lama is too sacred to make a good biopic. Or maybe Scorsese wasn't the right director.
By that I mean Scorsese respected Buddhism so much that he told the story as if he believed the Lama was Buddha's reincarnation. I don't mind a movie embracing the religion it deals with but then it keeps the character so remote from the audience, so enigmatic that we have no other choice than suspending our own disbelief and accept it as a reality. Fair enough, but there's never a real bridge allowing us to reach him, moments of doubts or self-introspection. Even in the crucial and entertaining exchange with Mao with that infamous "Religion is poison", the Lama doesn't react, he lowers his eyes, and we're just trying to interpret his body language.
"Kundun" is a movie that constantly seems in awe of its own material, and while there are many elements to praise and the film was certainly paved with the best intentions, I think it might have did a disservice to the cause it embraced by deifying the Lama a tad too much, it focused on the religion before making it a human cause. Here is a man who represents a civilization that has rejected non-violence for centuries and is confronted to the indifference of the world and violence from an overwhelming opponent, on the scale of history; he was the ultimate "underdog". Now, what if the Lama felt some a violent impulse for rebellion as a reaction from this injustice, in the name of love?
Maybe there would have been some artistic licenses that's what the film lacked at one point or another: a daring move. In the end, it's too purist and pure for its own good and prevent the narrative from a powerful internal or emotional conflict that could have been pure Scorsesian. In the end, we've got a movie only good enough to earn Oscar nods for Cinematography and Production Design. In the end, we have what seems like an oddity in the Master's body of work, a movie where there's not much to criticize but not much to love so much you'd love to give it a second watch. Finally, the name of Scorsese is its greatest blessing, publicity-speaking.
I think the Dalai Lama or the Tibetan cause deserved better, but sometimes you have to deflate a few figures and de-sanctify them to reach people, there's a time for gazing, praying and "looking" and there's a time for something more gripping especially on the screen. A wasted opportunity.