"Mongol"

By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

“Do not scorn a weak cub; he may become a brutal tiger.” Most individuals have heard the name Genghis Kahn, but few have heard of Temudjin. Likewise, and true to the Mongolian proverb which prefaces “Mongol,” most individuals know the protagonist of this Best Foreign Film nominee as a brutal tiger, not the weak cub who was once scorned. Although this story of Genghis Kahn’s rise to power is surely a fictional portrayal, “Mongol” is a genuine cultural experience, both charming and alarming.

Temudjin is a proud and disciplined young boy whose father is a Kahn, the leader of his clan. Temudjin’s future seems certain: he will choose a wife and rule the clan in prosperity. However, when the Temudjin’s father suddenly dies on the way home from a trip to help find his son a wife, the headstrong boy’s secure future dies as well. Instead of becoming the young Kahn, Temudjin is immersed in a dangerous environment more suitable for experienced warriors. Temudjin is driven from his home and left for dead. Yet with the aid of an unexpected friend, the rightful Kahn returns, but only to be captured and made a slave.

The next few decades of Temudjin’s life are a struggle to stay alive, to stay free and to grab what is his. He fights his enemies as well as his friends, making sure to form plenty of grudges along the way. In this Mongolian culture, everything is transitory. What is yours is that which you are strong enough to take. Whether it is horses or a wife, property and relationships trade hands as often as territories in a game of Risk—often as if settled by a roll of the dice. At one and the same time, Temudjin learns to both embrace and scorn this way of life. He believes his wife and his horses are his own, yet he often shows a willingness to play the power struggle game, and in the process endangers that which he holds precious. A very fine line between greatness and great failure develops, and if the audience did not know how the story turned out, they might have wondered whether Temudjin was destined to be a king or a slave.

This film only reveals glimpses of Temudjin as Genghis Kahn, the king of all the kings; a man who expresses his desire to bring law to Mongolians, even if he has to kill half of them. Herein lies a central ideological conflict that remains unsettled. Was Genghis Kahn’s legacy positive because he brought order to mayhem, or was it negative because he was part of the mayhem—perhaps the most brutal part? Which is worse, anarchy or dictatorship? These unresolved conflicts are intentional and important. The tagline for this movie, “Greatness comes to those who take it,” appropriately portrays Temudjin, with all his moral complication, as a great man for his willful persistence and disciplined focus.

In addition to being a unique ideological experience, the setting and production of this film is sharp and beautiful. Not since “The Lord of the Rings” has scenery in a movie been this appealing. However, “Mongol” also had its flaws. Those who come to see Genghis Kahn the warrior will be mostly disappointed. This movie is slow and sometimes sprawling, punctuated with a few fast-paced battle scenes. The film’s transitory feel is critical to its themes, but at times this sensation causes detachment from the audience and hurts the logical flow of the story. “Mongol” will always be interesting, but you may have to be in the right mood to enjoy it.

“Mongol” is rated R for sequences of bloody warfare.