Soon after Samsara begins, we find ourselves on a roof of Thikse Monastery in Ladakh, between the Kunlun and the Great Himalayan mountain ranges in northern India. In the distance is a spectacular mountain landscape, while directly in front of us two young monks in maroon robes and arched yellow hats blow conch shells, the deep thrum echoing in the valley below. An old woman fingers her prayer beads, quietly chanting. Fledgling monks turn a massive prayer wheel and dance in a walled courtyard. The footage is wondrous and charming, but I’m afraid that image overuse in the spiritual marketplace has made many of us a little wary. When the monks scurry up stone steps to an inner shrine room where a colorful sand mandala is under construction, I begin to feel a little uneasy, fearing that the movie will begin sinking in cliché. But as it turns out, it does the opposite, leaping into unexplored territory.

Samsara the film uses known forms quite well when it wants to, and the rest of the time it takes us into worlds, visually and philosophically, that we’ve never seen on the screen before. The movie is astonishing to look at and persuasive exegetically. It succeeds in revealing the meaning of the mysterious Indian concept of samsara, which in our culture is almost a secret.

* * *

Before seeing the film I had no idea how it had been reviewed, but afterwards I was so impressed with it that I wanted to extend the experience. As soon as I got home I checked online to enjoy what I naively expected to be a lavishing of praise and helpful commentary. So I was surprised to find that a fair number of critics were irritated by the film; they felt visually preached to. Others were impressed by it, but also a bit perplexed. Was it beautiful or horrifying? If it was both, then what did that mean? In an attempt to be helpful, some pulled out dictionaries and translated samsara for their readers, typically describing it as the “Wheel of Life.” Although no one compared it to the “Circle of Life” from The Lion King, it was clear that in most reviewers’ minds there wasn’t much difference. And why should there be—wheel/circle, what’s the big diff? So with this definition the film’s message became something like: “Terrible things may happen, but for a purpose—so life is good. And anyway there sure are a lot of nice landscapes!”

Night tree

Night tree (courtesy Magidson Films)

However, based on this rendering, the film fails. The reading leads to confusion over too many aspects of the story, especially, if I may paraphrase: “Why the mix of timeless beauty and relentless Malthusian horror? …I thought this was s’posed to be a blissful head-trip. And why are all these people staring at us, like they’re trying to make us feel guilty?…It’s disturbing, doesn’t make sense.”

A Mursi tribesgirl

A Mursi tribesgirl (courtesy Magidson Films)

But the film-makers—Director Ron Fricke and Producer Mark Magidson—are making sense, lots of it. The meaning of samsara is more challenging than hakuna matata. Getting at it favors truth-seeking over entertainment-seeking, and the resulting understanding is not so much comforting as it is devastating. For many people, “getting” samsara amounts to something like a conversion in worldview: One leaves the Judeo-Christian realm of Heaven and Earth and the modern/scientistic realm of Materialism for a new one—which the film illuminates with uncanny precision.

* * *

The sacred, timeless world in which the film begins does not last long, and we quickly enter dark territories in our world. But first we are given a special kind of vision. Time-lapse photography records quotidian landscapes—a massive stone face in Turkey, Petra in Jordan, Anasazi ruins in the Southwest—while night flashes by within seconds. We feel ourselves outside of time and able to peer into time’s effects. Having quickly established this god-like perspective, the movie presents its data.

Mount Nemrut, in Turkey

Mount Nemrut, in Turkey (courtesy Magidson Films)

Most obviously—and at certain points, unnervingly—beauty is everywhere. The film takes us from the top of the Burj Khalifa Tower in Dubai to the bottom of the Kawah Ijen sulfur mine in Indonesia; we fly over Los Angeles at night and visit vast shanty towns and city-sized dumps. But in all of it, the harmony of the images suggests similarity more than difference. Lock-stepping Chinese soldiers become a single elegant organism, no less appealing than Chinese girls impersonating an enlightened goddess. Later in the film I felt persuaded that even bullets have their own beauty.

In fact the camera reveals the world to be profoundly self-similar, appearing like itself at all scales of size and time. In one dazzling example, an incalculable number of Muslim worshippers in Mecca become one body spiraling around the preternaturally black Ka’bah in the Great Mosque, evoking, at one end of the spectrum, a river of tiny particles of sand; and at the other, the swirling Milky Way galaxy from a previous time-lapse montage—which itself spirals around a great black hole at its center.

Mecca during Ramadan

The Ka’bah in Mecca during Ramadan (courtesy Magidson Films)

Moreover, the time-play reveals the world to be inextricably interconnected. In one exceptionally effective sequence, after we have witnessed the stupefying precision of pork-packing plants in China, automated chicken harvesting in Denmark (via macabre rolling wheels spiked with rubber chicken catchers), and shopping carts filled to overflowing in a Costco warehouse, the camera settles on an obese trio of Americans eating at a fast-food restaurant while the film speed quickens past quadruple time. Percussive music crescendos in the background, somehow managing to punctuate each speed-bite of a burger or flash-gnosh of a French fry. In another movie, this would be cultural critique. But in this one, it’s simply one small piece of data regarding a cosmic automated organization that has time itself as the Chief Operating Officer. The mechanisms that we consciously produce—whether they are factories, driving ranges, slaughterhouses, or prisons—appear as minor sub-themes of a Grand Theme already overwhelmingly in play.

Japanese driving range

Japanese driving range (courtesy Magidson Films)

When we see disturbing images of the mechanized breeding and slaughter of pigs and chickens, or the assembly-line milking of forlorn, dirty cows, the images are less disturbing for the minor gore than for the similarity with other forms of automation, which we perform most of all upon ourselves. The robotic aspect of human life, literally and figuratively, is brought to the fore by mutually reflecting images of humanoid robots, Thai prisoners in synchronized dance, Japanese sex dolls with and without their heads, and Chinese iron-makers hard at work. But there is, at bottom, no criticism here—this is the relentless automation of life as it is.

Sex dolls' missing heads

Sex doll heads in production (courtesy Magidson Films)

In other words, these interconnected processes are so unfathomably vast that they appear beyond our control. It’s as if time has its own creative power—and from beginning to end, the movie demonstrates the inexorable and overwhelming force of this power. Time speeds up and a day passes in 5 seconds, or it slows down to catch the expression on the face of a Chinese chicken cutter; it doesn’t matter, least of all to time itself—the whole circus is moving forward. But who or what is the Chief Executive Officer? What’s behind it all?

* * *

The film presents a clue in the order it finds everywhere. Not reason, but order. Effects follow causes, and moreover, effects multiply. The wish for meat creates a slaughterhouse; the wish for wealth creates a vast, hyper-efficient slaughterhouse. The wish for a single bullet has diverse results that include a bullet factory, pink rifles, and the extension of gun-related death into every obscure corner of the globe. But one cannot find the first, original cause: doesn’t a slaughterhouse also create the wish for meat, and gun-related death, the wish for a bullet? The film connects the dots, both forwards and backwards. Since the film is unconstrained by time, we can see both sides.

Mursi tribeswoman

An assault rifle in an unlikely place (Mursi tribeswoman, courtesy Magidson Films)

In one memorable sequence we start with a surreal result. We are in Ghana, surveying caskets in bizarre forms—a fish, a coke bottle, an airplane, a car—and the camera stops at a dead man in a pistol-shaped casket, his family gathered around. We walk to the graveyard and lower the casket, and then trace the cause backward, watching handguns and bullets being built, the guarded faces that admire and use them, and much further, into mechanized and ritualized war-making throughout the world. But then, are we going forwards or backwards? Effects branch forward into the future; causes branch backward into the past, but what is the difference?

Who can say what the cumulative results of our vast networks of intention will be? (Who would have guessed a gun-shaped casket?) We can’t say what the results will be—that’s time’s job, out of our hands—but they will come, inexorably. So again, what is behind it? The film doesn’t speak so it can’t give a word, but let’s try this one: karma—cause and effect. Negative results flow ineluctably from negative causes; positive results flow from positive causes. Samsara is the result of karma, and karma is a wheel: cause and effect chasing each other endlessly. This is a deeper understanding of the Wheel of Life, and I’d suggest that the film-makers are demonstrating it to us in images. Some reviewers accuse the film of preaching. I would agree, but the question is, can I hear an Amen? Are they right, or what? The preaching is certainly not that fast-food eaters or bullet makers or even industrial polluters are guilty (which seems to be the understanding of The Wall Street Journal movie reviewer). This world has some dependence on our intentions and actions—that’s a fact. But this is not grounds for moralizing; we all find ourselves already overwhelmingly embedded as bit players in time’s organizations. We are faultless, at fault, both, and neither.

Martial arts academy (courtesy Magidson Films)

Rather than presenting mere cultural critique or religious message, the film-makers allow their images to reveal a story that they could not make up: An alluringly beautiful, self-similar, vastly interconnected and inescapable rolling juggernaut of a world in which actions multiply in precise yet unpredictable ways: this is samsara, this world. Because our actions tend to be robotic—and whenever so, uncaring—thus samsara is a heavy place. One could say it does not have to be so (“if only we all had better intentions”), and this is true enough…but it is what it is. And as good as it ever gets, it always ends in death—whether you believe in rebirth or not. It is not a redemptive “Circle of Life” (cut to the lion cub held above the cheering throng), not according to Indian philosophy. Buddhist scripture describes samsara as “a trench of fire, a thicket of razors, a cesspool from top to bottom.” One is advised to work to free oneself from it, as if one’s hair is on fire.

The idea of freedom from it is the idea of nirvana. Samsara the concept is part of the dyad samsara/nirvana; the idea of samsara always includes its complement, otherwise it becomes some sort of dark, nihilistic vision of life. But whenever the idea of nirvana is introduced (no less than samsara), there is great possibility for misunderstanding. One can’t get out of this world, for example, by slowing down and escaping to an African hut, or even by devoting one’s life to meditation in Thikse Monastery in Ladakh. In a real sense, one cannot leave samsara, not ultimately. Nirvana is not a place (though the temple complex in Myanmar at the beginning of the film sure looks like it, by my lights). In fact, even samsara is not a place, but that’s a whole other story.

Temples in Bagan

Temples in Bagan, Myanmar (courtesy Magidson Films)

* * *

On the one hand, as the Russian mystic Gurdjieff taught, “Man is a machine.” See this movie, and you see what Gurdjieff was talking about. But on the other—at least as it is taught by Buddhism, the main purveyor of the samsara/nirvana dyad in our culture—man or woman is also Buddha. Not like a Buddha, not even a Buddha—Buddha. Selfish machine-like man is simultaneously Buddha and the world is simultaneously samsara/nirvana. These concepts are tough nuts to crack, and it’s immensely ambitious to attempt to address them in film. It’s easy to get them wrong: for example, it isn’t that man/Buddha and samsara/nirvana are mixed. It’s not that humans are both demonic and angelic, and that the world is both terrible and beautiful. Movies which tell these stories might be interesting and even great, but that is not the Indian philosophical teaching about humanity or the world.

The simultaneity of this unified vision boggles the mind: it doesn’t make sense. To get to the bottom of it one has to do more than see an inspired movie or even be a lama in Ladakh, for that matter. The innate perfection of samsara is a paradox that one might spend one’s life as a Buddhist resolving. But the path starts with understanding the particular way that this world, as it is, is a deadly trap. This is why a highly detailed symbolic portrait of samsara is painted on the front door of Tibetan monasteries. Many Tibetans are illiterate, yet they need the understanding, because it’s the key to the door. The film-makers present a timely addition to the genre, but I’m not surprised if people don’t recognize the key. The only way one can truly accept the message of samsara is to intuit nirvana, already. Otherwise the vision is too heavy, and wrong. Better not to entertain it in that case.

The Wheel of Life in the grip of Yama, Lord of Death (courtesy Wikipedia Commons)

* * *

Perhaps the most startling thing about the movie is that its vision of the sacred seems almost subtle enough to address the topic of nirvana. I don’t think it quite succeeds, but I don’t know if a movie could. And anyway its topic is samsara, and that’s quite enough. Near the end, the film returns to the sacred world in which it began. First we are at Thikse Monastery, and predictably, the head lama crosses out the sand mandala. I knew we’d come to this scene at the beginning of the film, and at that time, I dreaded it: a pat tying up of the strings. But having been through the experience of the film, I was struck when, moments before, the lamas stood together looking down at their work with genuine caring. Then they cautiously, almost lovingly, moved the sand to the center and with cupped hands, transferred it to a bowl (which, as I understand the ritual, would later be brought down the mountain and tossed in a river). I felt a burst of joy at having encountered Buddhism and its revelatory metaphors and pointers towards the way out of samsara. One could see such a pointer in the lamas’ faces.

Thousand-Hand Guan Yin (courtesy Magidson Films)

Next, in the second to the last scene of the film, we return to the Chinese Thousand-Hand Guan Yin dancers. Guan Yin is a Buddha, the embodiment of compassion. At the beginning of the picture, after they had captured the creation of the sand mandala at the Monastery, the film-makers cut to the beautiful face of a lone Guan Yin dancer, a line of young women hidden behind her. When she closed her eyes, the film moved on. Now the camera is on her hands, and we watch them open, revealing eyes in the center of her palms. (In Buddhist symbolism, these are wisdom eyes; she uses them to guide her compassionate actions.) Next her arms and those behind her begin to move in fantastic patterns—symbolizing the activity of a Buddha. The delicate golden costume, her ethereal beauty, and the precision of the movements all evoke a more subtle order of existence, a kind of purity. According to Buddhism, there is an inner purity within every being in every moment, even if we don’t realize it. Samsara as a monolithic juggernaut of suffering occurs when this depth of being is unknown. When it is fully known—that’s nirvana. This a-logical purity is intimated here and elsewhere in the movie, sometimes by the very images that demonstrate tragedy.

Guan Yin closes her eyes (courtesy Magidson Films)

To enable the final scene to occur, Guan Yin closes her eyes again, and we find ourselves in the desert (the movie is called Samsara after all). This is also a place we’ve seen before, the same place we’d arrived at the beginning of the film, just after our first encounter with Guan Yin. It’s a lifeless looking place, lonely. As we fly over the dunes, sand is carried up into the sky by the wind. Samsara is a desert and we can’t escape it. But simultaneously, we’ve never actually been bound by it.

All of this is a lot to say in a movie, that’s for sure. It probably couldn’t have been done if there were words. But I sensed in some reviewers that the story I’ve suggested here was coming through. Roger Ebert spent four paragraphs trying and failing to explain why he was so moved by the plight of the chickens at the chicken processing plant. That is a better homage than this entire review. “I fear I haven’t communicated what an uplifting experience the film is,” he writes, and finally concludes: “It is a rather noble film.” Yes, it is.


19 Responses to “Misunderstood Brilliance”

  1. Bob Says:

    Very thoughtful analysis and contemplation, very much inspiring me to see the movie. As a longtime Buddhist, I feel you’ve done well to try to explain the inseparability of samsara and nirvana, which perhaps images can do better than words. Thank you!

    1. Mark Robert Says:

      Thanks so much for the kind commments, Bob. And right on about images vs. words…I’d recommend trying to forget everything you read here and then seeing the film on as large a screen as possible! There are many many “Buddhistically fascinating” scenes in this movie…I’d love to hear what strikes you. I expect to see it again and will write more in time,

  2. What a fantastic review, Mark, a stunning work of art in itself. Thank you so much! I have bought the DVD and will do as you said to Bob, (try to) forget what I have read and watch the film.
    Thank you!

    1. Mark Robert Says:

      Thanks for such a kind note, and sorry to take so long to say this! My little world has been busy of late. Did you like the film?

  3. Susan Fenner Says:

    The Samsara movie bowled me over. So powerful without any commentary – simply my own internal responses. Simply showing. No judgments. The following day, the movie’s images and the thoughts roused in me would not go away, so I googled around searching for some sort of resonance. I finally found it in your blog. Thank you.

    1. Mark Robert Says:

      You’re very welcome, and sorry to take a week to respond. I had the same response as you did, searching the WWW for resonance. I didn’t find any at the time, so I wrote a review for readers like you. How did you find it I wonder? I’ve googled for it and had to go through a dozen pages to find it. Seems I have something to learn about internet publicizing…

      1. Susan Fenner Says:

        I found reference to your review in the comments section at the end of the Globe and Mail’s lackluster review. As for internet publicizing – I’m clueless.

  4. Marianne Says:

    I loved this review! You are a great writer. (I clearly am not) 😉

    I have been meaning to watch this movie for a long time as I loved Baraka. It blew me away, even more so than Baraka.

    I really wanted to know the scene locations and have not been able to find a good list in order. I found your site on the first page after searching for “samsara scenes in order” just so you know.

    I loved your review because it made me look at the movie in a whole new light. And I think you really are spot on. Thank you.

    1. Mark Robert Says:

      Well, I thought your review of my review was great! 🙂

      I’m really happy to hear that the writing enriched your experience of the film…I’ve hoped its audience would find it somehow. Funny that you found the page by searching for a list of scenes. One has to wade through lots of links if searching for “Samsara the film” or “Samsara film review.” Do you know how I might make it easier to find?

      Thanks again for your kind response. And, I think I recall seeing a list of scenes somewhere … if I remember where I’ll pass it on.


      1. marianney Says:

        Thanks Mark.
        You know I’m not an SEO expert but I do know that if you want to come up for certain keywords, you’ll want to include them in your page(s). It’s funny because “samsara” and “film” are both in your URL, but it could be because you only have one page?

        Search engines look for internal links to your own content as well as external links from sources on related topics.

        Not sure where you could get those backlinks from but it’s something to think about.

        Try adding an about page and maybe some more info about the film on other pages/posts. That could help. And use your keywords in context, not in a spammy way, and that should help a bit.

        Maybe you could add your own list of scenes if you know what they are. You seemed to know a lot of them. 🙂

      2. Mark Robert Says:

        Thanks a lot for your suggestions and sorry for the late reply. Also, your blog looks great! I’ll see if there are some things I can incorporate into this one. Also, since I think I’ll do some posting in other blogs related to this….maybe that’s the way to find more readers….though then I would have to do more reading and responding!

      3. Marianne Says:

        Haha thanks Mark.
        I don’t know all that much about SEO, but be sure to try and use the keywords you want to found for in your posts/pages. It also helps to link to your own pages (internal links) and to have incoming links as well from sources related to your topic. Hope that helps!

        Why not add that list of scenes here too! 😉

      4. marianney Says:

        Thanks for the compliment on my site. Btw, not sure why I said you only had one page since you don’t. Must have been a brain-fart that day 😉

  5. Ankur Says:

    d best review online i have read till now……great job
    was look online to understand d movie better

    according to u wht is d movie trying to portray with religion shown so many times

    1. Mark Robert Says:

      Thanks for your comment. I’d love to answer your question, but need to know a little more from you. “Samsara” as a concept emanates from Hindu and Buddhist philosophy and religion. So it makes sense that the film makers would use religious images (even though, one could argue, they’re not necessary). Is your question why are there many references to other religions besides those? Or why do they show images of religion at all?

  6. Cherie Clark Says:

    Greetings, I am a Professor at a University teaching in a small town in Uganda. I was looking for film that I might introduce to my students to show them a larger view of the world. They are sadly limited in what they are exposed to and stumbled across this breathless film on my own back in the US with jet lag. I think of taking it back to show my students, who live a very simple life. Oddly my thought was that I would have to say that this is deeply serious and that if you laugh, feel the urge to laugh, exit the room, for I fear that the meaning is so deep, so profound, so awesome that it might not even be seen as real. I have lived and visited many places that were shown in this film and therefore for me it has context. I immediately began searching around for others who were moved as I was. So happy to be here in Colorado with jet lag reading your words. Grateful that you wrote this and that I could share it with you, at least.

    1. Mark Robert Says:

      Grateful here to share appreciation with a stranger. I loved what you wrote, “so deep, so profound, so awesome that it might not even be seen as real.” Exactly! The word “samsara” is like a little conceptual doorway into an entirely new way of experiencing the world. In order to walk through the doorway, my own sense is that one needs to *already* have some intuition of enlightenment, nirvana, freedom (whatever word you wish) — or else “samsara” doesn’t really make sense. It becomes a kind of nihilism, when actually it’s merely a description. Even within the traditions that use the term, there are degrees of subtlety and profundity of understanding. Hell is not just a hot place underground, if you get what I mean. Would be fascinating if some students got something right away — samsara is universal but descriptions of it are very much culture-specific, a point well made by the film. I’d love to hear what they think of it. I suspect a Coloradoan and Ugandan classroom wouldn’t be so different! Thank you again, and take care.

  7. Sherry Ford Says:

    This film is simultaneously beautiful and haunting. I’ve watched once and will continue to watch…thank you for your review. Samsara in Hindu philosophy is “simply” the cycle (wheel) of birth, death, birth, death…until a person achieves samadhi (moksha, liberation), realizes the true Self (Purusha) and no longer needs a body (Prakrti). References of study are the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali or the Bhagavad Gita. Om Santi…

    1. Mark Robert Says:

      Thanks very much for the comment Sherry. My sense of the Hindu tradition is that there is a bit more emphasis on transcendence than in (most) Buddhist traditions. Within Mahayana Buddhism, enlightenment is liberation, but it is also liberation from the need for liberation. Part of the beauty of this film, for me, was its evocation of the simultaneity of samsara and nirvana — something very difficult to understand, let alone experience as true. As you say, the film rewards re-viewing and reflection. Best to you!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s