Unmistaken Child (2008, Nepal)
This documentary chronicles the Tibetan Buddhist process of finding the reincarnation of a recently deceased high lama. Israeli director Nati Baratz was already working on a documentary – something with Tibet and Jewish connections – when world-renowned teacher and master Geshe Lama Konchog passed away in 2001 at the age of 74.

Baratz must have been thinking on his feet to get footage of the funeral and cremation, and eventually he changed the topic of his film and gained permission (and trust) to follow Lama Konchog's heart disciple/attendant, Geshe Tenzin Zopa (Geshe is a title indicating the equivalent of a Ph.D. in Buddhist studies), in the search for the reincarnation of his master.

I've already read things about the process, so it was familiar ground for me. So when the film shows a rainbow in the sky during the cremation scene and the smoke blowing, I knew that the imagery meant something to Tibetans, although it's not explicitly stated in the documentary. I haven't heard any confirmation that the rainbow filmed occurred during the cremation.

Nor is it explained that precious "relics" can be dug out of the cremated remains of a highly accomplished master. This is shown in the film as monks sift through the ashes with spoons, uncovering pearl-like "jewels" and collecting them. I'm not sure what the scientific explanation is for this, and I haven't looked into it, although I'm sure Tibetans wouldn't mind a scientific inquiry into what appears to be their miraculous nature. I think if it is shown in the film, Baratz should have included some explanation.

Also intriguing is the search and interrogation process to find the reincarnation in children "one to one-and-a-half years old". Even though Baratz is not a Buddhist and doesn't believe in reincarnation, he presents the process in a fairly straightforward way and without a lot of skepticism. As such he leaves a lot of questions and doubts about the process unanswered.

In the end, we get a straight-forward view and think, "ah, this is how they find the next Dalai Lama or Panchen Lama". But there are also a lot of "hey, wait a minute"s. Like I said, I was a little familiar with the process, and the process shown in this film was precisely to script.

I think Baratz did a great job and I commend the film, but I also question the constraints he may have placed on himself to withhold his possible skepticism. Obviously he was trying to be respectful to the subject matter, and I don't fault him for that. A little more in depth inquiry would have made this film a lot more fascinating and challenging.

For example, in the film the child they find is suddenly talking with the assumption that he is, in fact, the reincarnation of Lama Konchog, and there is no indication of how that transformation came about. The suggestion seems to be that he is so enlightened that he came to the realization himself, but I'm wondering how much the child was conditioned to believe this by his environment and everyone assuming and telling him he was the master's reincarnation.

That's an example of what would be along my line of inquiry, but I also watched a Q&A with the director after a screening in Greece, and the subject matter is so radical that other people's questions are totally different.

One person focused on whether the parents of the child felt pressured to give up the child to the monastery because there were cameras around, and I thought that was ridiculous. This is a documentary, not a reality show. Parents aren't going to give up their child just because cameras are around! Only such a vain, self-conscious modern industrialized world view would even think of that. But it is a difference in mindsets.

Maybe Baratz was showing his skepticism by presenting such a straight-forward view of the process. There are a lot of holes and I don't think the process is shown in a way that it's trying to convince the viewers they should believe in this. As respectfully as he handles the subject, supporters of Tibet will fall all over this film, but he also leaves it open for the skeptic to say, "This is total bunk".

I'm not going to rate this because I don't think my rating would have any meaning, due to the nature of the subject matter and the problems I had with the film, but I highly recommend this film to anyone interested in Tibet, Buddhism, or reincarnation (rather Tibetan reincarnation, as my beliefs on reincarnation fudges a little with the Tibetan orthodoxy). I don't recommend the film to anyone who doesn't have the slightest interest. It won't teach or reveal anything worthwhile.



Billu Barber (2008, India)
I've watched Bollywood music videos – the song and dance clips culled from Bollywood films – since "Namaste America" started airing on Saturday mornings sometime during my college years, but I've never watched a whole Bollywood movie before. So this is my introduction to the genre. And I know there must be crap Bollywood films, but this one was pretty excellent.

I am under the perception that Bollywood takes filmmaking very seriously, and whether a film is good or not, they are probably more often than not huge productions. Directors are amazing, cinematography is amazing, and . . . choreography is amazing. I think Bollywood films are characterized by their musical numbers (which is the reason why I watch Bollywood music videos – amazing Indian dance choreography). And "over the top" is to be expected.

"Billu Barber" is about a barber, Billu, who lives in a small village, and a huge film star, Sahir Khan, who decides he wants part of his next film shot in a small village. And he chooses the village in which Billu lives. However, Billu has made claims in the past that he knows Sahir and everyone starts pressuring him now to introduce them to him. But Billu is just a poor, lowly barber and resists saying he's sure Sahir has forgotten him and it would embarrass him if it was known he knew such a lowly person.

When I watched this film, I read a religious or spiritual message in the film, and I felt vindicated when I learned that the story was based on a story involving the Indian god, Krishna (a king in human form), and his relationship with Sudama, a poor Brahmin – a caste much lower than the royal Krishna.

But I liked the angle in Billu Barber better. The original story focuses on the greatness of Krishna and his all-enveloping love and acceptance, no matter what caste. Billu Barber, I think, focuses more on the humility of greatness, or godliness. Sahir is worshiped as a god, and everyone wants to use Billu to get closer to this god, when really the person with the true greatness is the virtuous, humble one among them.

Who's the prophet, who's the god? Does the prophet make the god, or does the god make the prophet? I'm gonna say I loved this film and give it 9 out of 10 tomatoes.