Educational Media Reviews Online

After a general introduction to the current demographics, geography, culture, and political status of Burma, the film proceeds chronologically, starting with the establishment of military rule in 1962. There is agreement across the commentators that the country has the potential to be very wealthy due to its natural resources, but that the problem lies with the fact that a small ruling group benefits while most of the country lives with very little on a daily basis. There is limited discussion of acts of resistance by the people of Burma—Aung San Suu Kyi’s fight for democracy and the 2007 Saffron Revolution are briefly mentioned—and no depth to help viewers better understand what life is like in Burma. Instead, we must rely upon interpretations offered by the narrator while he travels through one part of the country and whose reason for making the film or level of expertise about the country is never provided.

The interview segments with scholars and activists are insightful, with the more poignant parts of the film occurring when there is discussion of the intersections of Buddhism and national politics, as well as geopolitics. Discussion of Burma’s history, contemporary economic and political situation, and how trans-national corporations are extracting resources out of Burma helps the viewer understand how complex Burma’s place in the world has become. Most of the film focuses on the contrast between trans-national corporations that pay the Burmese government for access to natural resources and attempts by governing bodies (Australia, the United States, France, and more) to impose sanctions on the Burmese government.

The narrator has a tendency to exoticize Burmese practices, and representations of life in Burma have a tone reminiscent of the colonialism that created many of the problems addressed throughout the film. The narrator, who is also the director and cinematographer for the film, offers analogies based on stereotypes in an attempt to sound clever, but comes across as belittling how people at the mercy of a military regime live. The filmmaker does not interview any of the people he interacts with in Burma, but instead films himself complaining about bus rides and bragging about how much alcohol he bought for only a few dollars.

The film concludes with the narrator stating that he should give the people more money than they ask for when he buys something because they are nice people. The tourist-like version of Burma offered by the narrator is disjointed from the seriousness of the commentary offered by scholars. This ‘short version of Burma’ is incomplete and consequently perpetuates narratives that people in underdeveloped areas of the world are backward and need Westerners to tell their story.