Seven years in Tibet
A film by Jean-Jacques Annaud
Released by TriStar
Opening at Hoyts on December 4
Review by Allen Myers
First things first. The Tibetan people should have the right to self-determination, including complete independence from China if they desire. And, after nearly half a century of oppression by the brutal and corrupt Stalinists in Beijing, it would be little short of miraculous if they desired anything else.
But that is not the subject of this film, even though it certainly tries to trade on the popularity of the Tibetan cause. Rather, Seven years in Tibet asks the question, "Is it possible for an egotistical, self-centred Nazi mountain climber to achieve enlightenment, or inner peace, or something approaching socialised behaviour, through mere association with the child ruler of an absolutist theocracy?"
Even more unlikely — and unconvincing — than the question is the answer. I don't have to tell you what that is; this is Hollywood, after all.
The first half of the film is pure boys' own adventure stuff, and probably quite entertaining if you're entertained by people dangling off mountainsides and attempting to escape from prisoner of war camps.
In the second half, the pace slows abruptly. Heinrich Harrer (the egotistical etc, played by Brad Pitt) and Peter Aufschnaiter (non-egotistical etc, but also a mountaineer, played by David Thewlis) make themselves at home in Lhasa while waiting for the war to end. Aufschnaiter marries a local woman (Lhakpa Tsamchoe); Harrer keeps busy instructing, and building movie theatres for, the child Dalai Lama.
Just when boredom threatens to become terminal (in the audience), the Chinese invade, trampling sacred objects underfoot and posing aggressively with AK-47s on Lhasa street corners. This substitute for plot development sends Harrer back to Austria, where he seeks out the son he has never seen: together on a mountaintop they calmly face fate as they are engulfed by a tidal wave of schmalz.
Tibet before the Chinese invasion, Aufschnaiter declares, was "paradise". It was nothing of the kind in reality.
Even in the film it can be made to look paradisiacal only by the silly device of having no-one work regularly. This leaves the population plenty of time for going on pilgrimages, smiling happily, worshipping the Dalai Lama and looking exotic for the camera. Who provides their food, clothing and similar necessities is never explained.
In the real Tibet of the period, the material wealth consumed by the Dalai Lama and his court was produced by poverty-stricken peasants, and the latter really didn't smile happily about it at all.
The film is based, apparently rather loosely, upon Heinrich Harrer's book, which itself was not especially noted for fidelity to historical detail. TriStar finesses this by declaring, "This story is based upon actual events and persons ... any similarity to the name, character or history of any person, living or dead, or any actual event is entirely coincidental and unintentional."
That says it all, except for one other thing: the Himalayas in the film are really the Andes.