The Dancing Lamas of Everest: Cinema, Orientalism, and Anglo-Tibetan Relations in the 1920s gave a typical account of how Europeans, the West in general, and the British use Orientalism, consciously and unconsciously, to the detriment of Asian cultures.

One of the parts I found most interesting about this story is the backdrop on which it took place. Only four years before Mallory’s expedition to Everest, and Noel’s film (possibly even after that, the article does not say), the British had been sending weapons to Tibet. The article points out power-relationships, and it is very obvious who is on what side of this power relationship. It seems the British wanted Everest for scientific achievement, but also “achievement of the spirit”. It was not political aspirations that drove Mallory and Irvine to their death, and even Noel’s film seemed less political than it was individual interest. But the fact remains that it was a highly political endeavor that they all undertook. After the “Sino-Tibetan border escalated into a wider war in 1930, Tibet again turned to Britain for more weapons and diplomatic assistance with China.” (Hansen 742) As offending as the Dancing Lamas may have been, the Tibetans had little ground on which to complain.

The outcomes of people’s actions such as Noel’s film can still be felt today. Noel’s motivation came from a very genuine place, and that is what makes it all the more believable, powerful, and insulting to Tibetan culture. Because “Noel and his wife- he was a Roman Catholic, she was a psychic- were deeply influenced by Tibet.” (Hansen 738) Noel was not creating some piece of propaganda for the British government- say about the British conquering mountains for the sake of putting a flag on a peak, it was much more insulting. The seven lamas who went with him underline this point, because they too did not have political ambitions we know of, but they were trying to display their culture. We do not know why the lamas went along with this farce, one would think it would be obvious how incorrect and insulting Noel’s film was, but their actions make the movie even worse. It is an endorsement from Tibet, even though they do not represent the government, they are probably some of the only Tibetans in the whole of Britain, and without doubt they are putting an impression into the minds of the British people harder than any other Tibetans had in the past.

The mindset of Europeans engaging in Orientalism would not be possible without the political and military leg that they need to stand on. Because the Tibetans were coming to the British for weapons, the Brits have a diplomatic advantage over the Tibetans, perhaps this even influenced the Dali Lama’s decision to allow the film to be made. When Europeans engage in Orientalism of this sort, it leaves a very long lasting impression on people’s minds, that may take generations to overcome. Portraying the Tibetan lice eating scene, and parading them around London and the Zoo was bad publicity for the Tibetans. It is hard for me to imagine the truth to the line “the dancing lamas were aware of how they were portrayed in the press, and they attempted to resist Orientalist representations.” (Hansen 738) If they aware of their impression on the people of London, the best thing would have been to leave immediately. In my opinion, their ignorance or carelessness is what led to the bad publicity stunt, and it is also why many of them never returned to Tibet.

Seeing your own country-men walk into the distance onto everest, contrasted with Tibetan lamas making a fair bit of a fool of themselves at the same time, does not do well for imperialistic or superior opinions. The genuineness of all participant involved proves how powerful conceptions such as Orientalism can be, especially when it seems like they are endorsed by their own kind.