Seven Years in Tibet (Widescreen Edition)

When this movie was released, it stayed in the theaters for such a short time that I never got a chance to see it. Reviews were bad. It was called too long, too boring, and badly scripted. However, someone I know who had actually lived in Tibet recommended it. I am always intrigued by places of the world that I know little or nothing about. And so I was glad that this film is available on video.

I was pleasantly surprised. And not at all bored, even though the movie is 136 minutes long. It takes at least an hour for Brad Pitt to even get to Tibet and there are a lot of scenes involving mountain climbing and a long trek through the Himalayas. I understand the movie was actually filmed in the Andes, but it didn't matter to me. I was impressed with the scenery, the photography, the vistas. I was especially impressed with the human endurance to keep going. I was less impressed with Brad Pitt's acting. He doesn't seem to be able to portray subtle emotions. Most of the time, the audience is left to guess just what is going on iside of him. Not so with his supporting teammate, David Thewlis. This actor has a greater range and emerges more real than the wooden Pitt. The teenage Dalai Lama is wonderful. He has a way of smiling, of opening his eyes wide, of showing both childlike and mature emotions that mark him as a true professional. Hopefully, we'll see him again some time, but this movie is so specific that this might be his one-picture glory.

I learned something about Tibet, about the Tibetan people. Their plight is now real to me. They are under Chinese rule, an old story of a weak people being conquered by the strong. I recommend this video. It's a welcome change of pace. You'll learn something about Tibet. And meet a bright young actor named Janyang Jamtsho Wangchuck who plays the Dalai Lama. Just make sure you give yourself enough time to get into it. It's worth it.


Where lies the truth?   February 27, 2004
Professor Joseph L. McCauley (Austria+Texas)
11 out of 14 found this review helpful

I haven't read the book of the same title by Mr. Harrer, but have seen the film twice, once in English and later dubbed in German. I liked it very much, and so did my sons. Watching it the second time on Austrian TV had the advantage afterward of seeing an interview with Mr. Harrer by a female journalist who questioned him pretty hard about the facts.

The film is taken from Mr. Harrer's popular 1952 book of the same title, describing his personal experience in India and Tibet. In the interview he stated that, for an American film, he likes it, likes the way it portrays Tibet, and has seen the film about a dozen times. His friendship with the 'Dalai Lama' (a western title unknown in Tibet) still stands, that they speak largely Tibetan with each other whenever they meet (the Dalai Lama likes Austrian food, and Mr. Harrer said that the Tibetan kitchen is also very good). In response to the questioner's attempt to find weaknesses in the film, Mr. Harrer said mainly that the film does not really give the sense of the hardship and adventure of surviving in the mountains all the way to Llasa (I believe it!), that their experience was far more 'abenteurlich' than is portrayed. So, according to the interview, the film is largely faithful to the facts, grossly seen, including the end scene of Harrer with his son planting a Tibetan flag on an Austrian peak.

Finally, the interviewer asked Mr. Harrer about the '97 Stern magazine article uncovering his Nazi past. This is where my problems begin in reviewing this film. The film is not about Brad Pitt, who is completely irelevant, the film is about Heinrich Harrer. I have a severe problem with films and novels that are not true to history. As one of the earlier Popes said, one should tell the truth even if it causes a scandal.

Mr. Harrer spoke in the TV interview of having 'mitgemacht' (participated) with the Nazis, and that he very much regrets it. An open admission of a very bad choice is a good sign. His expression and words had the ring of thoughtfulness, not of having been cooked. But why did he agree to a whitewash in the film until the Stern article appeared, and why was the past not accurately portrayed in his book?

Meanwhile, I have read the 1997 Stern article. According to that article, papers in the government archive in Berlin show that Mr. Harrer had joined both the SA and SS, which was a big step beyond the then then-standard required participation of teenagers with the Hitlerjugend. Apparently, Mr. Harrer regrets and rejects his early terrible choices, but Hollywood directors should not use a good story to make a film without first establishing the facts. Harrer's and Aufschneiter's Nazi affiliations were brought into the American-made film only after German journalists made public pressure by writing the facts in a German magazine. Germany was occupied by Allied forces until the mid-ninties. American bases still persist in Germany from that period. Historic responsibility for the Holocaust is taught in German public schools. Therefore it is not an accident that sharp reporters smelled something and went after it.

I plan to read Mr. Harrer's book. I would like to know his account of how he and his partner survived in the Himalayas during their escape from the British prison, and how they came to terms with learning to speak Tibetan in Llasa. That it was a great adventure is beyond question. That the SA and SS performed savage criminal acts under completely psychopathic leaders is also beyond question. Kristalnacht took place in 1938, street battles with guns took place between the SA and armed socialist paramilitary groups in the early thirties, and Hitler had long before that published Mein Kampf in the twenties. No one from that period can convincingly claim to have been ignorant of the intentions of Hitler and his Nazis.

In any case, that doesn't take away from the extraordinary adventure that Mr. Harrer tells us about. Will be interesting to read his book and compare with Elliot's "An Unexpected light: Travels in Afghanistan".