LITTLE BUDDHA
A film review by John Walker
Copyright 1995 John Walker
My form of "rating": I don't believe in reincarnation. I regard the philosophical foundations of Buddhism to be a fascinating impossibility: the embrace of absolute self-contradiction. But sitting in the theater watching LITTLE BUDDHA, I could easily see myself saying, "Well -- maybe...."
That, I think, is a pretty high rating -- even if it's a really a measure of how loosely held my own beliefs are, or how susceptible I am to the world around me (in this case, the film). Even if it's merely a measure of my ability to get into a flick, then LITTLE BUDDHA got me to look at the fantasy/reality interface. It's one thing to get into, to appreciate, someone's world, but when that means getting ready to swallow their world-view, that's something else.
In brief: On one level, LITTLE BUDDHA is a very simple story -- almost a children's story. On another, it's a fascinating study of how a filmmaker like Bernardo Bertolucci can communicate the "givens" of another universe.
Will you like it? I don't know. But I don't think the dividing line will be what people's *beliefs* are. (Religion, spirituality, class, culture, etc.) I think one dividing line will be how people regard the use of naive, simple materials to make important statements; another will be how they regard the presentation of ideas of that are ultimately from an alien universe.
<>
The story is simple: Tibetan monks in exile in Bhutan have signs that they have found the reincarnation of an important lama. The possible reincarnation is nine-year-old Jesse Conrad (Alex Wiesendanger). They make contact with the boy's parents, Lisa (Bridget Fonda) and Dean (Chris Isaak)--of no apparent religion. Led by Lama Norbu (Ying Ruocheng), they introduce themselves and a bit of Buddhism to the Conrads. Although the Conrads don't really believe any of it, they agree to let Jesse go to Bhutan for further examination. Dean, going through personal and professional problems, goes with them as a time to sort things out.
Alongside this, we see the story in a book that Lama Norbu gives to Jesse. The book is LITTLE BUDDHA and tells the story of Prince Siddharta (Keanu Reeves). We see it in fragments alternating with Jesse's story. The Prince, born attended by miracles, grows to manhood sheltered from pain, age, and death. When he sees them, his compassion moves him to begin his journey of enlightenment. He will become the Buddha, the Awakened, or Enlightened, One.
<>
The screenplay of LITTLE BUDDHA is by Mark Peploe and Rudy Wurlitzer--based on a story by director Bertolucci. Bertolucci has said that he wrote a story accessible to children because "In the West, we are all children as far as Buddhism is concerned."
Well, some of us may know "too much" about Buddhism. What some of us get in college is frequently the more philosophically "interesting": Hinayana Buddhism, the lesser (smaller) vehicle in which only a select few can ever ride. Mahayana, the greater (larger) vehicle is one upon which a society can be founded. Westerners have frequently been trapped between the two. The one fits in with our individualism, with following our own path--but therefore it can be just another self-indulgent personal trip. The other gives us a world, a universe that is actually alive--but it's almost completely alien.
One image in the film lasts only a few seconds, says a lot. The Dharma Center in Seattle is in an old building that might have been a church. Outside, it's a tacky turn-of-the-century or 1920s building covered badly with aluminum siding. Only the new porch announces what's inside. Inside, craftsmen are building something straight out of the Himalayas.
Another statement is the filming itself. In Seattle, the world has a blue cast to it, cold, grey, even in the sunlight. In the Siddharta story, things seem to have a gold hue. Only modern-day Bhutan and Nepal seemed to be what I expected as "normal" light. (Cinematographer Vittorio Storaro even used different film stocks for each.)
Altogether, Bertolucci gives us the story in such a way that we don't necessarily have to believe anything. The newspapers have reported similar suspected reincarnations in the West; this just gives a story of what one case might have been like. But the use of the child's book lets Bertolucci give us the story of the Buddha as a *given*.
Again, we don't have to believe it. But if we accept it as a child might, it makes everything else hold together. Our freedom of interpretation permits LITTLE BUDDHA to be a sophisticated bit of proselytizing. By going through the process of acceptance in fantasy, we may be more receptive in practice.
It would be interesting to take a poll of audience reactions. For some, it would just look like "Buddhist cathedrals" and "Buddhist bishops". It would look oddly *familiar*. Others are already shocked by most of Roman Catholicism, High-Church Anglicanism, and Eastern Orthodoxy. Tibetan Buddhism would be even more alien. Who would be the more susceptible? And what about whether or not they have a grasp of basic Buddhist philosophy?
<>
I gather lots of reviews have begun with references to BILL AND TED'S EXCELLENT ADVENTURE. Bertolucci's casting Keanu Reeves as Siddharta has raised a lot of eyebrows. In fact, one complaint--that Reeves's style can be "wooden"--is actually a requirement here.
Reeves is called to play an *icon*, and everyone around him (all Indian actors) similarly behave in a stylized way. The Siddharta parts are written that way.
Take, for instance, when Siddharta first sees *old* men and asks his sidekick Chana (Santosh Bangera) about them.
Chana! Chana! Who are those men?
They are men like the rest of us, my lord, who once sucked
milk from their mother's breast.
And why do they look like that?
They are *old*, my lord.
What do you mean, *old*?
Old age destroys memory, beauty, and strength. In the end,
it happens to us all, my lord.
Cinema verite' this ain't.
In fact, I found only two wrong notes in Reeves's Siddharta, and neither were strictly his. In one, he cuts off his long hair with a knife--and comes away perfectly coifed! In another, his expression is simply unconvincing--but so noticeable that I assume it was Bertolucci's decision.
In dealing with the Siddharta story, the stylization, and American notions of what a beautiful babe should look like, may be sticking points for some. But otherwise, everyone's performance should be very easy to take. Well, perhaps Wiesendanger may strike some as a bit *too* cute to take seriously. But his performance is natural and believable. And he's able to give a hint of knowing or suspecting more than we'd expect from a nine-year-old. If you wish to believe it, he'll let you think that maybe he *is* a reincarnation--without undermining his essential nine-year-old-ness.
Similarly, Isaak and Fonda are believable as not believing, yet not closing out these odd visitors from another continent, another planet.
Much of the weight for that rests on Ruocheng as Lama Norbu, and on Sogyal Rinpoche as Kempo Tenzin, who makes the first contact here in the States. They project both earnestness and innocence, cheerfulness and concern. It's easy to think that Jesse's parents would be willing to give them a chance.
<>
So where does that leave us?
Is LITTLE BUDDHA a charming, updated fairy tale? With a little religious-history thrown in? Or is it a simple presentation of a world-view? An introduction to another belief system? Or is it subtle evangelizing?
Or is it an indication that Western artists and audiences, having lost their own faith, will wander around trying on the faith of strangers? (Get a faith buzz without the work that real belief might call for. Or get a mental aspirin for the pain of a world without meaning--but without turning it into an addiction, the way believers do. Both believers and anti-believers can feel superior.)
Remember that those alternatives are *not* exclusive. Fairy tales can communicate important values. Simple photographs can be persuasive. We can do all sort of things from all sorts of motives.
The meaning and purpose of LITTLE BUDDHA will, I think, depend on you. Whatever Bertolucci's intention, he has created something--like many children's tales--whose meaning depends on its hearers.
John Walker walkerj@access.digex.net
.
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews