Well finally we get a full review of KUNDUN the new Scorsese film. I've been dying to read a good long review of this film. And now here it is!!! This film should be of interest no matter what. Aguirre our faithful reporter on the search for cinema gold is on the spot again. Bask in the glow of the review. There are spoilers in the review, and I left them in because Aguirre wrote a damn good review. Enjoy...
Had the chance to see the new Scorsese work Kundun yesterday. From what I can gather, after limited release (read: Oscar consideration) the film is going to open around January 21st nationwide.
Kundun is more like a painting than a film, told in brushstrokes that are at times delicate and others violent. Scorsese's talent for explosive dialouge has been replaced here by subtly beautiful images that move the story along. This isn't A to B to C filmmaking- it's more like A to A to A filmmaking, moving along the same plain of existence and linked together by a deeper, more spiritual harmony. I think I'm even over my head right now. Many films begin with a vaugeness that eventually settles into a more linear story. Kundun is vauge the full way through. But at the same time, it's entirely sincere. Oxymoron, I know, but I'll try to explain.
Basically the story isn't linear- yes it is, it just doesn't go from dialouge and images in one scene that find an obvious complement in the next. What links the scenes and the story is the film's spirit, and I mean that literally. I know there's going to be a lot of talk about how this is such a departure for Scorcese, and I think any discussion of that is boring and pointless (the man has made a movie, let's talk about it — we'll analyze where it sits in his body of work later). Just know this- he's made a spiritual film that has genuine spirit, and a more difficult thing for a filmmaker to do I can't really think of.
The story is about the 14th incarnation of the Dali Lama, discovered as a two year old boy in 1937. His studies and growth are juxtaposed against the backdrop of a Tibet that was being pressured by China and eventually was conqured by it. The films jumps sequentially from different periods of his life (starting at age two to four years later to five years later etc...) The images of the undiscovered Dali Lama at age two are really, really brilliant. The camera sees the wonder of being young, and at the same time very old (this kid's spirit has, after all, been around 13 times before) that, man, it's incredible that, considering his past films, Scorsese can present a child in a such a magical light. It's remiscent of Satygit Ray's Apu—and that's about the highest compliment I could ever give a director.
The images of the monks, the monastery's, the countryside are all stunning. Colors, more specifically red and gold, are a huge part of the movie, expressing the majesty and dignity of the Buhhdists against the barren, dead brown landscape. Even the damn Touchstone logo at the beginning and end of film is gold and yellow- and I hope that's a little screw-you from Disney to China after all the trouble concerning the film these past few months. There's some beautiful matte paintings, and even some sfx done by Dreamquest.
SPOILER- I'm pretty sure a buzzard scene includes some cg buzzards. Some of the transitions- especially one of a sand painting of a mountain being blown away to reveal the real thing, are jaw-droppingly gorgeous. There's also a birds eye shot of the Lama as he stands, surrounded by dead monks, that keeps zooming out and out and out...if this wasn't an effects shot, someone deserves a pat on the back for figuring out the logisitcs of having 500 monks lay dead and not breath.END OF SPOILER
The cast is all unknowns- except for the actor who plays Mao-tse-tung, who even under heavy makeup I've seen before- and they are all very good, especially the actors portraying the Dali Lama himself. Now for a problem in the film I can be sure about- there is not enough developemnt of the characters, specifically the Dali Lama. The Dali Lama is a great man- yes, but that's not enough to base the character on. Even though he's a real person, even though people the world over have heard of his struggle, that doesn't mean the film doesn't need to build up his character. There aren't enough sceens of him just being human, doing human things, those little infintessimals that let us in on his character, his personality, things that endear us to him. There's a great little sceen of the young Dali Lama eating an egg, defying his teachers like a bratty little kid would. There's another one of him driving a car. Those sceens work, those sceens make us care and understand him. The whole second and third acts of the film present the Dali Lama in one utterly significat scene after another. Not saying that the Lama should break into song and dance, but I didn't feel there was enough build-up with the Dali Lama or the people to have these later sceens effect me as much as they could have. I keep telling myself that if I knew the story better, if I knew more about the beauty of Buhddism and the Dali Lama, the despiration the Lama would hit me deeper. Good films don't neccesiate a knowledge of the subject matter beforehand- they have the power to tell the story on their own. Not that it's not a good film—Kundun is an extrordinarily beautiful film-but there is so, so, sooo much more to it that, as much as I wanted to be a part of it, I couldn't understand. I wanted to feel for the plight of these people more than I did. The fact that I didn't made me a bit sad because, while I can attribute a whole lot of it to my own ignorance, some of the blame has to fall on the director. Sorry Mr. Scorsese.
But there is some imagery in the film that more sublty conveys this sense of loss, and for a few of these I can only sit back in complete amazement. I don't want to ruin it, but there is an image of a intricate, amazingly ornate, blow-you-away-when-you-think-of-the-amount-of-effort-put-into-it sand painting that is used a few times that is still sitting in my gut effecting me. Words don't do justice to the sceen. If I described it, it'd sound like a simple idea. To see it is to see brilliance. I'm gushing here, but my God, it was incredible.
How much credit should go to Dante Ferreti for the production and costume design I'm not sure. Yes they're incredible, but how much of it is simply working with costumes and palaces that have been in existence within the Buhhdist culture for centuries? In any case, I suppose even if that is the case, Ferreti had a massive responsibility to portray these people as they are, and therefor he should get the praise for majesty that the Buhddists on-screen look and feel exude. I hope that doesn't read as a slight to Ferreti because I don't mean it as one. I'm sure I could never begin to comprehend the work he did for the film. I don't know where this fits in, but there is a credit for a "Rat and Yak rangler" in the film. Not two seperate credits- a rat AND yak rangler. Wow. Now that is damn funny. How do you get into that? "I'm gonna go to Hollywood with a dream- to become the best damn rat AND yak trainer in the business!" Heh-heh. Sorry...
Another thing I can be sure of, and this is the main problem with the film, is the score. The music, by Phillip Glass, is at times very, very good. Great. Very tied into the theme of the film, natural, gently flowing, at times lapping up like small ripples on a pond, at others cascading like a waterfall. Christ that's a cheesy metaphor. But at other times IT DOES NOT FIT. Keyboards, there are keyboards in the score, it must be keyboards, violns don't end so curtly. The keyboards sound terrible. Horrible, very bad, so detracting from the beauty on screen. No, no, no, no keyboards. Don't do this. Another problem is from the ill-timed horns. I realize Glass wanted to incorporate native instrumentation, but there's an overuse of those giant Tibetian horns that have that deep, bellowing sound. They come so suddenly and inappropirately into score at times that it's more reminiscent of..well...than...shit, sorry, the damn horns sound like farts, okay?
This is a big review, but the film deserves no less. I don't know, I just don't know. The film could be a masterpiece, it could be a misstep. Who the hell am I to say whether someone as infinitely talented as Scorsese has made one of the best films of his carreer? I do know this; I'm still thinking deeply about it, and it took me a full day of it knocking around in my head before I could even put a word down. No matter, even my misgivings about it don't deny the fact that this film has a life to it that makes it unique and important to see.
