[Buddha-l] Film: The Angry Monk http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/the-angry-monk/

[Curt Steinmetz]

 >> Schaedler clearly has an agenda with this film to push his own ideal 
of a free Tibet. What he overlooks, however, is that the monks and the 
nuns and the monasteries are also an integral part of Tibetan culture. 
Before Buddhism came to Tibet, Tibet was historically a feared and 
war-mongering country that frequently raided other countries. The 
history of Tibet itself is very much about the pull of violence on one 
side and peace on the other. Schaedler could have done more justice to 
an overall perspective on Tibetan culture in the film by not 
deliberately excluding the point of view of the Fourteenth Dalai Lama or 
from Tibetan Buddhist monks and scholars with a different perspective 
than the scholars he chose to interview, who all, oddly enough, mirror 
Schaedler's own views on the necessity of preventing Tibetan culture 
from "stagnating".

In his zest to make a different kind of documentary about Tibet, 
Schaedler goes too far in showing only the point of view that bolsters 
his own opinion, which ultimately weakens the film. As a result, Angry 
Monk becomes less a film about Gendun Choephel, the monk, the man, and 
the scholar, and more a film that uses Choephel's life as a metaphor to 
drive Schaedler's view on the politics of Tibet. <<

The above is taken from Kim Voynar's "Sundance Review" of the film "The 
Angry Monk" - the full review is here: 
http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=12,2214,0,0,1,0

Curt Steinmetz