Published by: World Tibet Network News Thursday, December 25, 1997

Kundun scenes December 25, 1997

From Reviewer Paul Tatara

(CNN) -- I can already hear the pious response I'm going to get to my review of Martin Scorsese's new Dalai Lama picture, "Kundun," so I suppose I should begin by addressing the mind-set that'll send lots of people into spasms of self-righteousness when I point out that the movie is dull and not all that good. There's a solid chance that this year's Oscars will be another "Gandhi" situation, in which filmmakers stand up and say that the award they're

receiving is not being given to a film, but... (pregnant Hollywood pause)... to a man. If that's the case, they should have mailed the Mahatma an Academy Award while he was still around to enjoy it. I'm sure it would have been a nice holiday from the colonialism and the hunger strikes.

I've briefly mentioned this in a couple of previous reviews, but this is Important Film Season, so I feel it's appropriate to more fully explain my position. In a nutshell, my argument against "Kundun" is that an honorable subject matter does not automatically make for a good movie. Period. God will not penalize you for disliking "Kundun." It is, after all, a movie. You're not

suggesting that you disagree with the life-embracing teachings of a holy man if you don't happen to care for a film that was bankrolled by Disney and released just in time to be nominated for lots of awards. The same rule applies to "Amistad," which (though it's a far more interesting piece of work than "Kundun") is periodically as dry as a story can get and still be considered not only worthwhile, but downright spiritually enlightening.

If anyone but truly brilliant filmmakers like Spielberg and Scorsese (who rightfully get to bask in the light of their previous accomplishments) had made these movies, most people would, in all likelihood, be eagerly ignoring them. Instead, one woman (who posted a response to my "Amistad" review on our CNN bulletin board) claimed that I was jumping on some imaginary "I hate Spielberg"

bandwagon by stating my honest opinion of that particular film. Never mind that, earlier in the review, I called the guy the single greatest visual story teller of the past 40 years. In other words, maybe the pope does sometime wear an odd hat, but, if you bother to mention it, well, you can just go to hell.

Odd hats abound in "Kundun," but the costuming and pageantry are the only things of any interest in the film. Scorsese, who was famously fascinated by the priesthood while growing up in New York's Little Italy, is obviously still awed by the ornate robes, the vibrant colors, and the chanting...and he lingers on it. Again, I understand why so many talented people wanted to tell the story

of a peaceful man who's considered to be the reincarnation of Buddha, but nobody seemed to realize that in terms of pure cinema there's nothing going on here. It doesn't help that, when something is about to go on, Scorsese quickly cuts away for more teaching and chanting. After a while the movie is like taking medicine, and I didn't even know I was sick.

Scorsese

The screenplay, by "E.T." scribe Melissa Mathison, is reverent to the point of exhaustion. Though there are some light chuckles scattered throughout the story, for the most part you're sitting there being laboriously taught (as the maturing Dalai Lama is) that conflict is for the birds and anger is a useless crutch for the unthinking. Well, that sounds great. There is, however, the cardinal rule of screen-writing, which is that stories are comprised of conflict. By "conflict" I don't mean robots with blazing guns, but the simple human friction that causes things to happen. Even love can arise via conflict, and it does all the time when you watch a movie.

Of course, China eventually invades the peaceful country of Tibet, and that's nothing if not a confrontation, but it's represented by a shot of some marching troops and a huge hole being blown in a rock wall. (Earlier, Chairman Mao invites the Dalai Lama over for tea and proceeds to mince around like the world's most evil party hostess.) Scorsese is obviously trying to side-step the bloody stuff that's come to be his trademark over the years, but (like he

did with "The Age of Innocence") he denies the very essence of what makes his best movies so powerful by fleeing from the possibility of sudden, violent outbursts.

Whenever he attempts to make a movie with a minimum of blood in it, Scorsese ends up with a movie that has no blood in its veins. I'm sure that, in his heart, he's bringing the same flaring passion to his work in "Kundun" that he did with something like "Taxi Driver" or "Raging Bull," but his over-ripe approach to filming is given a cold shower here, and there's nothing left but an artist doing the best he can to avoid doing the best he can.

The acting (the movie is cast entirely with Tibetan performers) is as solid as you would expect from a director who's so good with his actors. Surprisingly, the best performances are given by the kids who play the pre-adolescent Dalai Lama (Tenzin Kunga and Guyrme Tethong.) There's also a recurring image of a sand mosaic that's clinically shot and powerfully utilized as a symbol of a crumbling

society. This didn't happen by accident. Scorsese is a thoughtful, incredibly talented man, but missteps are going to take place. "Kundun" looks pretty, and there's certainly nothing wrong with the message, but next time I would rather just receive a telegram about non-violence, then rent a copy of "Mean Streets".

"Kundun" is as un-nude and un-profane as they come. There's one incredible dream sequence in which hundreds of dead monks surround the weeping Dalai Lama, but that's about it. I happen to love Philip Glass' film scores, but this one, ironically, sounds like a large group of people snoring. Rated PG-13. 125 minutes.