Martin Scorsese’s film Kundun is one of several new Hollywood movies on Tibet, writes Ed Douglas
Long ago, in a land far, far away, a gentle people who believed in the spiritual force that joins us with everything else in the universe was overrun by an evil empire that believed in nothing beyond the material and tried to crush all dissent. Many of them fled with their spiritual leader across high mountain passes and frozen wastes to live in exile.
From there, they appealed to all nations for their freedom and preached compassion and forgiveness for their enemies. In a fractured and shallow age, this attracted an awful lot of Californians but drew little support from world leaders more worried about winning contracts to build the evil empire’s new airplanes and broadcast its satellite television.
Reducing Tibet’s recent history to a brief plot outline may seem trite, but for a generation of Hollywood film producers brought up on Star Wars, the easy clichs of a lost Shangri-La and its Yoda-like guru mixed with the easy chic of Buddhism are an irresistible combination.
And, because Hollywood always needs a villain, China’s occupation of Tibet has also helped fill the vacuum left behind by the collapse of the Soviet Union. There are currently at least seven films about Tibet either finished or in production as well as numerous documentary projects all of varying consequence.
First out of the blocks and the most worthy effort is Martin Scorsese’s Kundun – a term of respect which translates as “presence” – which will be released in South Africa this Friday. It tells the story of the current Dalai Lama’s early life, up to the moment of his departure for exile in India following the Chinese occupation in 1950. Apart from Scorsese, the only other big Hollywood name involved is Harrison Ford’s wife, scriptwriter Melissa Mathison. Along with a cast of Tibetan refugees, the Dalai Lama’s younger sister Jetsun Pema plays their mother.
Seven Years in Tibet, released in the United States last year, tells the story of the charismatic Austrian explorer Heinrich Harrer,who was a tutor to the young Dalai Lama. Costing $50-million, the movie stars Brad Pitt and was directed by Jean-Jacques Annaud, whose previous work includes The Name of the Rose.
Other projects in the pipeline include Dixie Cups, a vehicle for actor-producer and Tibet obsessive Steven Seagal, who plays a CIA agent working with Tibetan rebels in the 1960s.
Merchant Ivory, better known for languid period dramas such as A Room with a View, have bought a script about two Americans who were in Lhasa during the desperate uprising of 1987, which was ruthlessly suppressed by the Chinese and ended a brief period of relative freedom begun after Mao Zedong’s death.
And Superman producer Ilya Salkind is said to be planning a movie about a liaison between an anthropologist and a yeti which, if the yeti is true to legend, will be messy and short.
It doesn’t end there. Hollywood is full of big names falling over themselves to schmooze with the Dalai Lama and climb aboard the Free Tibet bandwagon.Best known is Richard Gere, who made such an impassioned appeal for the Tibetan people at the 1993 Oscars that he hasn’t been asked back again. But the list also includes such disparate talents as Harrison Ford, Oliver Stone, Bjrk and Adam Yauch of the Beastie Boys.
The problem with these Western attempts to portray significant periods of Tibetan history is that all, with the exception of Kundun, approach the subject through the eyes of outsiders, illustrating perhaps that Hollywood is more interested in the stand it is taking rather than the future of Tibet itself. “The films will offer some support for the Tibetans’ historical claim to independence,” says Robbie Barnett of the Tibet Information Network, “but apart from one or two characters there is a risk that films of this kind will cast Tibetans as sweet, cuddly toys whom we can make decisions for.”
Barnett, who was in Lhasa during the riots of 1987 and held organise medical relief for its victims, argues that this portrayal of Tibetans is anachronistic. “The films will create emotional support but that is of little use politically because it includes the implication that Tibetans are victims, not political agents. They emphasise the Dalai Lama’s religious qualities and how much the Tibetans have suffered, but they are unlikely to do any good in terms of empowering Tibetans and conveying their seriousness, modernity and effectiveness.”
The current glitzy attention has not impressed the regime in Lhasa, for although most of the films do not deal directly with Chinese atrocities during the occupation, they illustrate that Tibet was once an independent and peaceful country – which contradicts China’s claim to sovereignty.
In their best tradition, the Chinese have responded with an intense counter-propaganda campaign and threatened economic sanctions. In 1996, Beijing warned Disney, the financial backers for Kundun, that Disney’s plans for theme parks and films in China would be jeopardised if Kundun went ahead. Under pressure to support freedom before profits. Disney refused to back down and called China’s bluff.
Seven Years in Tibet also hit trouble. After spending $1-million hunting for a suitable location in northern India, the film’s producers were refused permission to work there when the Indian government allegedly came under pressure from the Chinese. Annaud took his crew to Argentina instead. Scorsese was forced to shoot in Morocco and all the stars in both films have been banned from ever visiting Tibet.
The hijacking of Tibet’s spiritual hierarchy has worrying implications for the future. The Dalai Lama himself is now in his 60s and when the time comes to select his replacement the Tibetan government in Dharmsala in northern India fears that the Chinese will intervene again to gain control over Tibetan Buddhism.
There is an increasing urgency to persuade the Chinese to negotiate the future of Tibet before the foundations of the once-independent state are further eroded. Some may feel the current Dalai Lama is getting too close to the self-important world of Hollywood, but in the absence of action by governments, he and his people need all the help they can get.