Talk:Seven Years in Tibet (1997 film)

==

Invented family?

In the film, Harrer is given a wife and child, whom he leaves behind when he goes mountaineering. Not only are they not mentioned, the book indicates that they never existed. Thus in the chapter Life in Lhasa II, Harrer says:

"I would have been happy to bring out a wife from home, but at first I could not afford to do so and later politics intervened.

"So I lived alone, and my independence proved a great advantage when subsequently I came into close contact with the Dalai Lama. The monks would have probably disapproved still more of our meetings if I had been married. They live in strict celibacy and are forbidden to have anything to do with women."

Gross inaccuracy from Hollywood? Does anyone know more?--GwydionM (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Family

I've now got Harrer's biography. What the film shows is reasonably accurate about his first wife. Nothing that Harrer says supports the theme with his son, who was in fact raised by his first wife's mother. --GwydionM (talk) 11:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Added some more details, and removed the 'needs more' tag. --GwydionM (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Citations

The demand is a bit excessive. Regarding Anschluss, Lhasa Gonggar Airport and the Seventeen Point Agreement, you only need to click on the link to find a well-referenced Wikipeida article. Isn't that enough?

I've added more explicit references for other matters. --GwydionM (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't enough. You can't use Wikipedia as a citation/source. Comments such as To have said that in 1939 would have been extremely bold, since Austria had been part of Greater Germany since the Anschluss of April 1938 are certainly OR. John Smith's (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

What is 'original'? To mention the fact that Austrian had officially vanished, which is not in dispute? Or to assume that Nazis didn't take kindly to criticism?

I'd have though 'original research' was claiming to have uncovered new facts, not generally known. Not pointing out an unlikely event in a supposedly true story.

Seriously, do you believe that Harrer would have got away with such a remark? --GwydionM (talk) 17:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

OR or not, it would've been bold (though assuming he would have been instantly shot is probably a hyperbole). In any case, it's a fact that when Harrer climbed the Eiger-Nordwand, he carried a German flag (which was, at least due to its being official at the time, the one with the NS insignia) with him. So no, he wouldn't have said it, however much he was Nazi or not Nazi (he claims that his membership in the SS was a mere career move)...--2001:A61:21D6:5A01:39E8:E43D:DD29:AB8E (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Accuracy ==

"The film shows shocking violence by the Chinese Army against Tibetans, including helpless non-combatants." - No, it doesn't. The only scene in which the Chinese Army attacks civilians is a dream sequence in which the Dalai Lama sees his birthplace attacked, but there is no insinuation that it is actually happening that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.46.108 (talk) 09:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The film strongly implies that it was a visionary dream and a few scenes later the conflict is confirmed by a report. Of course in real life there is no such thing as a visionary dream, but firstly this is a work of fiction and secondly, the film does its utmost to tell the viewer that what was portrayed really happened, vision or not. 82.139.86.10 (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• in the film Harrer is portrayed as disliking the Nazis, while in real life he was a member of both the SS and the Nazi party 78.42.252.102 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Questionable Citation

The wiki mentions Brad Pitt is banned from entering China, and cited bio from AllMovies. However citation 14 does not mention China or Pitt being banned. (ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Years_in_Tibet_(1997_film)#cite_note-14)

Bobby fletcher (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Also Brad Pitt's wiki page has no mentioning of him being banned. This movie is widly available in China.

http://movie.mtime.com/166927/

Bobby fletcher (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Saying 'invasion' is factually untrue

Whether or not you think Tibet merited independence, no authorised body ever recognised it. This is the norm for new states to be established.

So it was not an invasion, simply an assertion of control by the lawful government. See https://gwydionwilliams.com/42-china/tibet/tibet-and-international-law/ and https://gwydionwilliams.com/42-china/tibet/how-tibet-emerged-within-the-chinese-empire/. --GwydionM (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

GwydionM, this is an article about a movie, it is not a historical article. The synopsis is merely telling what the movie is telling, whether based on facts or fictional.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Farang Rak Tham This movie is made to describe the historical events occurring, and so the info should be kept as accurate as possible as well. Tibet experienced "de facto" independence from 1912–1951, but like GwydionM said, Tibet was unrecognized by most of the world. The Tibet (1912–1951) page lists Tibet as an "unrecognized state", and in 1945 was seen as part of China by the UN.

Alright then, Desp2002. Just know that I will be visiting this page regularly to find out if there is any pattern of editing going on that fits a pro-Chinese agenda (or pro-Tibetan, for that matter). There have been such attempts in the past, completely ruining articles, and —with all due respect— often by people who like to stay anonymous.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Farang Rak Tham Thanks. Desp2002 (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Plot

It seems that when it comes to plots of films based on some aspect of life that the plot should not be looked at as an effort to tell the entire story. It is not a history. it is not an academic paper. It is not the only source of the events that either take place or are used to represent the action.

1938--film says 1939

mountaineers--harrer is only one climber not two

British India (present-day part of Pakistan)--we do not need a history lesson or geography lesson. We are more likely to refer to BI than at the time as it was just plain I.

in the present-day Indian state of Uttarakhand--most people outside of India couldn;t tell you one state from another and it was never mentioned in film

Harrer and Aufschnaiter escape the prison and cross into Tibet. After being initially rejected by the isolated nation, they manage to travel in disguise to the Tibetan capital city of Lhasa--it really is a camp rather than a "prison" and it is quite some time before they ever get to Tibet that was at one time 68 kil's away; and their arrival in Lhasa is after a round about way of evading their deportation "guides" and intermingling with those that do have permission to enter Tibet.

Kungo Tsarong-- is referred to as Tsarong

Ngawang Jigme -- is referred to as Ngawang and he is at one time only a translator until he somehow seems to get turned by the Chinese.

gifts of custom-made Western suits--the technical term for the clothiung made is bespoke and they are western style clothing rather than suits as they are not matching jackets and trousers.

Harrer plans to return to Austria. However, he receives a cold letter from his son, Rolf, rejecting Harrer as his father, and this deters him from leaving Tibet.--he says he intends to return to austria but never leaves and then the next we see is his son rejecting hoim. Nothing is ever said about what "detered" him

Harrer is invited to the Potala Palace and becomes the 14th Dalai Lama's tutor in world geography, science, and Western culture.--He is invited by the mither to attend her next monthlky audience. No mention is ever made to become a tutor although DL does want as part of the consy=truction of the d=cinema to discuss his world. That is really not a "tutor' especially as harrer could not get an official invite for him to meet with DL

Ngawang Jigme ends up surrendering and blows up the Tibetan ammunition dump--someone else actually lit the weapons on fire

after the one-sided Battle of Chamdo--that is a POV

Harrer condemns Ngawang Jigme for betraying his country, declaring their friendship over. Harrer further shames the senior official by returning the jacket that Ngawang Jigme gave him as a present, which is a grave insult in Tibetan culture--Ngawang really befriends them rather than just gives them the clothing as a gift because he very well may have done it in response to overhearing the conversation with the ministers and the appeal to have them stay in Lhasa. Do we really need a lesson in Tibetan social shaming?

Dalai Lama is formally enthroned as the spiritual and temporal leader of Tibet-- we all bascially know what happens when Dalai lama is crowned. do we need another lesson/

Harrer's son, Rolf, refuses to meet him at first, but Harrer leaves a music box that the Dalai Lama gave him and this piques the boy's interest.--we really do not know of Rolf's interest is piqued only that he hears it and goes to it. POV is being imposed.

Years later, Harrer and Rolf (now a teenager) are seen mountain-climbing together, suggesting they have mended their relationship.--"suggesting"? Sounds like another POV being imposed.2605:E000:9149:8300:543B:5538:4D31:42BA (talk) 08:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I reversed you, because you pointlessly rip out interesting details. If you are right on some small points, please change just those. --GwydionM (talk) 09:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

You are going to have to be more specific as to what is "interesting" rather than to the point of a plot. This is not a substitution for a history lesson2605:E000:9149:8300:543B:5538:4D31:42BA (talk) 09:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

No, the burden of evidence is on the person making changes. Kindly learn the rules before taking it on yourself to enlighten our ignorance. --GwydionM (talk) 08:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)