jdkraus The tale of the 14th Dalai Lama is very much like the story of the Last Emperor of China, Pu Yi. A boy handpicked to be a ruler of a country, grown up within confined solitude, kicked out of reign from Communist China, and then labeled as a criminal. The only real significance is that Pu Yi faced years in a concentration camp while the Dalai Lama managed to escape to India. That aside, it is not surprising to find in Scorsese's "Kundun" that he was heavily inspired by Bernardo Bertolucci's epic film "The Last Emperor". There were times when I was watching "Kundun" that I could not help wonder if this was an unofficial sequel. The costumes, techniques of candle lit lighting at night, story arc, and overall biography character-type was similar. I am not claiming Scorsese a copycat at all. It's just these two films are so alike. Just one happens to be about China's ruler and the other Tibet's. What worked so well for "The Last Emperor" is that despite its fancy set pieces and costumes, Bertolucci punched good in character drama and an overall intriguing plot. "Kundun" lacks both of these. Each scene in this movie drifts from one part of the Dalai Lama's life to another chronologically and in a sort of schizophrenic nature-the movie itself does not seem to know what it is really about. This is the biggest danger a filmmaker can fall into in making a bio-pic film, trying to cover too much ground without enough time nor interest to piece it all together. The acting suffers not from bad actors, but bad writing. Every moment is devoid of emotion, depicting every Tibetan character in a careless monotone. Then again, most characters are Buddhist monks and emotion is not their strong point. When I watch a movie, however, I expect to be engaged by an actor's talent. This magic is lost in this movie."Kundun" does succeed at least in the technical aspects. Roger Deakins cinematography is stunning to watch and almost pushes the barrier on what can be done with a camera, whether it be an elaborate steadi-cam shot or a detailed close-up. Philip Glass's score creates a sort of mood that hints to an ethereal supernaturalism, combined with a brooding choir, a lush percussion, and bombastic brass. It supports the visual images nicely. I admit that it seems to take over the movie to the point that there is no other sound present, especially with the horn blasts of flatulence caliber. The one factor that presented mild interest for me was how fair Scorsese treated the Tibetan culture. Little nuances like the funeral rites, the teachings of Buddha, and the Dalai Lama's philosophy are interesting. Yet great cinematography, a sublime soundtrack, and a good treatment of a lost culture cannot save a film. It is a bit disheartening since Scorsese has made some very good movies outside of the gangster genre (ex: Hugo, Shutter Island). While he kept his visuals and artsy elements at full throttle, all other elements are at a loss. This kind of movie is clearly not his cup of tea.

chaos-rampant I think I am well versed in Buddhism to say that, contrary to the majority opinion, this is a superficial smattering of a wonderful practice. I don't know whose fault it is, certainly Scorsese's though he is an outsider so that is sort of to be expected. I suspect the Dalai Lama's circle were fine with a superficially romantic portrayal, so long as it generates awareness for their just cause.Why do I say this? The main narrative device that gives this any sort of shape (otherwise it is one long picture-pretty rambling), is the DL meditating in exile, possibly at that balcony at the Indian border, possibly at a much later time. This would be in line with the recurring motifs of prescient visions and the spyglass (looking from a distance) which is first introduced right after the screening of a silent film (the association is with memory, illusions and time gone - all things to purify the mind from in meditation).This would somewhat excuse the fragmentary nature of the narrative and quaint focus of it on young boy versus evil empire of millions, since it was all experienced from his end. Somewhat. It is still absolutely tepid as a historic film if we switch to the 'objective' pov. Now, this last segment of the crossing to India is accompanied by the one powerful visual meditation in the film, it is not mentioned but what you see is the Kalachakra initiation with the Great Sand Mandala being constructed and brushed away, a powerful and sacred occasion.Get it? This is it, this one moment. The DL is heartbroken and his courage waning, and lost in meditation, he finds peace in reminding himself of the transience of all things, which is what the ritual represents and a core Buddhist precept, the cosmos being washed away back into river-sand. The entire rest of the film is a pageant; oracles hiss, rituals go on, dances, ornate ceremonies, hushed whispers of banality.Scorsese mistakes here the theater of appearances (the religion) for the essence. He films the ritual as the thing-in-itself, as spectacle, instead of as the space that allows you to cultivate a compassionate mind. The postcard instead of the real spiritual landscape. How rich this would be if, for instance, we had contrasts between flows of remembered ordinary life and abstractions in three- and twodimensional space in the dances and mandala, and all of that (all the costumes, the ceremonies, the symbols and human suffering) understood as different sides of one image -empty- brushed away as the mind heals itself. I am in awe of the possibilities! No dice. Scorsese films operatic platitudes.Skip this if you want to know Buddhism. Go straight for Why Did Bodhidharma Left for the East? or even Herzog's Buddhist doc, which he also filmed around the Kalachakra. Blowup, if you want deep, incidentally Buddhist essaying on the roots of suffering.

paul david This is quite a long movie, as most historical type movies tend to be. Kundun clearly has meaning for the Darli Lama and I have watched this movie for first time thirteen years after its original release, a filler in summer 2010 when there are no more good movies to watch at the moment. Watched it with my 12 year old son who turned to the net afterwards to check information about the Dar ly Lama and Tibet and also the Chinese invasion of Tibet. It is a beautiful film and the story is well told, if a little slow and tedious at times. this is in a different category of film making for Martin Scorsese and this will for me stay in the memory. A film for all ages, nothing graphically or verbally uncomfortable about this movie, it does the job of entertaining me one Sunday afternoon!

bismuthine First, I will say I am one of the strongest admirer of Scorsese work. He is on my top list with movies like Taxi Driver, After Hours, Goodfellas, the Age of Innocence.However Kundun did not felt right. Yes the cinematography is stunning, the editing perfect, the music original. Yet I felt this movie did not reach the truth of the actual Chinese/Tibetan drama. This was not the great movie it should have been.The fact that Tibetans and Chineses were speaking English was quite annoying. Philip Glass music was too much. I longed for silence, for this Buddhist silence. Mysticism was underplay, the political plot took over. The actors were not really convincing - the one playing the Dalai-lama and Mao especially.Is this a bad movie? No. You are captivated. You learn if you did not already know about this terrible war, genocide, invasion. You feel the pain. But yet, you don't feel it the way it was felt there, you feel it as an American would: the struggle between the good guys and the bad guys.