By Susan Valek
'40s Adventure Story Gets '90s Sensibilities And Tries To Turn Into Chick Flick, Fails
In World War II, two men escaped a prisoner of war camp in India (3 times) and penetrated Forbidden Tibet, finally reaching even Lhasa, the capital, which was practically unheard-of for foreigners. Along the way they learned to deal with unfriendly local officials, bad-tempered yaks, the altitude, strange food, raiding nomads, and having to retrace their steps and redraw maps. Not only that, but in Lhasa, one of the men comes to attention of the youthful Dalai Lama and becomes his tutor. Then the war ends and Tibet faces the Communist takeover of China.
One of the two, Heinrich Harrer, wrote a book about it, called 7 Years in Tibet. This ought to be plenty of material for a two-and-a-half-hour movie, wouldn't you think? But no. Never underestimate modern Hollywood filmmakers.
All of a sudden: (1) Harrer no longer has studied Tibetan in the prison camp but instead plays The Ugly American on the road, shouting down the locals in English at the top of his voice when they don't understand. (2) Harrer is a prima donna among mountain climbers and fellow travelers instead of a team player. In the 40’s? When his and the other men’s lives are at stake? Puhleeze! (3) A prologue is added in which Harrer leaves for a mountain-climbing expedition with his wife six months pregnant. The book, on the other hand, starts when the men are taken prisoner, and no mention is made of wives or children (it's kind of irrelevant in the context of an adventure story). Valuable minutes of screen time are wasted watching Brad Pitt overemote with supposed remorse. (I say "supposed" because it doesn't change the way he acts later.)
But saddest of all is: (4) the treatment of the Tibetans. The lamas in Lhasa, and the Dalai Lama himself, come across excellently, with great dignity. But we are encouraged to laugh at the common people. ('90s sensibilities failed miserably here!) The moviemaker could have encouraged us to be impressed or intrigued, or at least puzzled, by the way the common people of Tibet acted. Instead he encourages us to look down on them and laugh at what can only be termed "their antics."
Harrer did not do this in the book. He had a healthy respect for differences between East and West. The movie 7 Years in Tibet lacks respect for, or understanding of, differences between East and West. It thinks the not-that-admirable personality of the main character is more interesting than trying to see where another person, or another culture, is coming from. It does not encourage respect or understanding of those different from oneself. It was a grave disappointment.
So, if you want to experience 7 Years in Tibet, skip the movie, which cutesifies and trivializes almost everything it touches. Read the book!
The Edge Lives Up To Its Billing
In a lot fewer words, I can tell you how good The Edge is: 4 stars or 5 stars (whatever your system allows). It stars Anthony Hopkins as a billionaire with a plane, a beautiful wife, and an understanding of what's important in life, and Alec Baldwin as a fashion photographer with his own kind of smarts. These two men are pitted against the elements and each other when their plane crashes in the Alaskan wilds.
This movie addresses important questions, such as, "Why do some people die in the wilds after a plane crash when others make it out alive?" and "When is a person going to be tested in life?" As you watch the billionaire handle crisis after crisis, you know its not an accident that he has all that money. The Edge is a movie with plenty of food for thought.