|
By Curtis P. Ferree 'Seven Years in Tibet' is too much of a good thing
War breaks out during the expedition, and after the attempt fails, Harrer and his friend Peter Aufschnaiter (David Thewlis) are placed into a British internment camp. They escape and make their way to Tibet, where they enter the forbidden city of Lhasa, home of the Dalai Lama. Eventually, Harrer becomes tutor to the young Dalai Lama, teaching him about the western world, until the hostile takeover of Tibet by China forces him to leave. Harrer's transformation from a self-centered, ill-tempered Nazi to a man who learns compassion, both for himself and for others, is the underlying story of the film. Filmed over an 18-month period in three locations, the film features, apart from the leads, a cast consisting mostly of non-professional actors. There are some beautifully filmed scenes and good performances all around, especially from Pitt, Thewlis and B.D. Wong ("Father of the Bride"), who plays the Tibetan diplomat Ngawang Jigme. Jetsun Pema, the real-life sister of the Dalai Lama, was cast as the young Dalai Lama's mother. The scale of the film is incredible. As most of the film was shot in Argentina, everything had to be made to look like Lhasa. The Buddhist monks were transported from a real monastery in India and all the yaks in the film had to be shipped in from a ranch in Montana. The costumes are nothing less than exquisite, made from authentic Tibetan fabric by Italian costume designer Enrico Sabbatini. The film, as a whole, has a beautiful, epic feel. The problem with telling an epic story, however, is that there is often too much information in the story to get across adequately in a two-hour film. A director is forced to make choices about what aspect of the story should be told. It seems in this film Annaud has bitten off more than he can chew.
Trying simultaneously to tell the story of Harrer and the story of the crisis in Tibet, the film struggles with both. As a result, we never really get a good sense of Harrer; his character comes across as too flat. While we see the change he goes through, we don't get enough about the process of the change, which is crucial to fully understanding the character. We don't see enough of the interaction between Harrer and the Dalai Lama, which is surprising since their relationship is what supposedly brought about the personality transformation in Harrer. Likewise, the history, especially of the Tibetan predicament with China, functions more as a backdrop than the viable presence it would need to have to sufficiently tell the story of the Tibetan plight. In short, there's almost too much story here for one movie and, as a result, nothing is as developed as it could and should be. Despite this, the movie is entertaining, and at times, heartfelt. It is not the masterpiece that other historical epics such as "Lawrence of Arabia" and "Ghandi" are, but it is worth seeing. For that matter, it should be seen on the big screen so that the photography and elaborate sets can be fully appreciated. If nothing else, this is exactly the type of film favored by Oscar voters, and we will probably hear more about it come Academy Award time in March.
|