MovieChat Forums > Beyond Rangoon (1995) Discussion > Sounds like a leftist fantasy to me...

Sounds like a leftist fantasy to me...

posted 20 years ago by donpawa
32 replies | jump to latest

Ok, let me get this straight. I don't know a single thing about Thailand except for the name, that it's somewhere near Laos and Vietnam, and that it's Sagat's country in the Street Fighter game. I didn't even know that a military dictatorship had taken place.

But I live in Chile, and I know what it is to have complete chaos in your country, to have a large mass of revolutionaries who actually encourage a civil war attitude, to then have a military dictatorship taking place, to then have the army fighting the revolutionary militia, then to have the army win that post civil war, and finally to have the militia leftovers claiming for their human rights as if they never had a warlike attitude towards soldiers.
The worst thing is that the only ones who get out of the country to tell their version of the dictatorship are obviously the ones against it. The result is an international nazi-type portrait of the new government which is quickly accepted since the public commonly shares some sort of desire for some hero-villain stories.

In Chile, our military dictatorship, which set the standards for our constitution and political orientation to this day, had a reputation quite similar to the one "Beyond Rangoon" portraits. In Spain and Sweden during the 80's, were went most of the Chileans who escaped or were exhiled, the circulating number of people slain in the dictatorship during the 70's was somewhere around 100,000. Which makes you think about the credibility of exhiled people's stories, since after a deep investigation carried out by national human rights organizations once the dictatorship was over in 1990, it was revealed that there were only 3,000 reported "missing" people during the ENTIRE 17 years dictatorship. At the same time, the new General of the army revealed that 400 members of the armed forces were killed during that period, soldiers, policemen, marines, etc... Nazi-type political oppression?? or post civil war confrontations? You make the call...

So ever since I went to Spain and realized that in the Spanish Parliament, speaking in favor of Chilean dictatorship leader Augusto Pinochet was actually prohibited, I've been quite careful regarding supposed "nazi-type" dictatorship stories. It's not that I automatically reject those stories, but unless I hear about different points of view, I'm not forming any opinion.

So when seeing this movie a couple of hours ago, some scenes left me with a sense of "ok, it COULD have happened, just don't reject it right away". However, ever since the slaughter began and Patricia Arquette started running, the main thought that popped in my head regarding that and most of the following scenes was simply "my ass...".

These are a couple of the scenes which made me realize that the movie is nothing more than a leftist revolutionary's wet dream:

- The first shocking thing we see once Patricia Arquette starts running is a street with the army on one side and a group of students "fighting for democracy" on the other side. I don't doubt that. What is truly absurd is that a student with a rose in his hands walks towards one of the soldiers forming part of an army human barrier, gets on his knees before the soldier, and while crying and begging for mercy to an attack which that group of soldiers had not even started yet, he gives the rose to him. Now I don't know what kind of left-wing groups did the writers of this movie hang out with, but a guy getting on his knees before a soldier and handing out flowers to him certainly does NOT fit with the profile of a leftist revolutionary student. The soldier's response is ridiculous as well: he starts kicking him. If I were an evil soldier, why would I care about a whining guy when there are hundreds of those in front of me??

- Then we have that whole "escape through the city" moment were apparently soldiers have no concept of military formation and just wander around on their own near public places waiting for a person to get near and kill him/her. I don't know how the army in Thailand works but the scattered carnivorous plant in ambush formation sounds ridiculous to me.

- After running through the streets, Laura and her friends get on a truck and have to pass through a checkpoint. When two soldiers start checking the truck, a group of civilians surprise the soldiers, disable them, and beat them up for one or two seconds before they get back on the truck. "Soldiers killed their brother so he feels like killing them as well" explains U Aung Ko. Excuse me, but had that actually happened, the civilians would have more likely taken at least a few minutes to crucify that pair of soldiers and burned them to death. But obviously an evil army vs struggling civilians movie can't afford that.

- Later, they get to a jungle and a monk confesses that he was actually a soldier. "I ran away when they told me to kill children" he says. Note that I don't justify the killing of children in any possible way, but I do know that if there was firing against children, it couldn't have just been a situation were soldiers were walking by, saw a group of children, and decided to kill them. There HAD to be a context even though it obviously didn't justify the killing. But the fact that the filmmakers didn't care to explain it is proof that the film is severely biased.

- In the jungle as well, Laura asks "How can they murder their own people?", which is basically the writers saying in your face "the ones from the other political movement are subhuman sadists with no principles". Any film which portraits one of two different political movements in conflict as "Sauron and his evil forces" is just rubbish propaganda if you ask me.

Thank you for your time.

[–] Selke 20 years ago

To start, I'm not trying to start something here. I actually agree with a lot of what you've said in your post. It's hard to believe the words of people who are so violently opposed to the people they're speaking of.

But the movie didn't take place in Thailand. The characters were escaping into Thailand, from Burma, now called Myanmar.

Also, from what I understand, with the young man, the flower, and the soldier, it could have a large part to do with the man's Buddhist beliefs. In Burma, all men spend an amount of time as a monk when they're young children, so that could very well play a role in the man's showing respect to the soldier.

I've been told that the riot shown was actually much worse than what happened in Tiananmen Square. Of course, there's very little evidence of it, but the blame for that can be placed on the government there. For many years, reporters, journalists, and even tourists weren't/aren't allowed in Burma. It was completely closed off. Journalists had to be snuck in, and were never allowed back. There was a small amount of time that people were actually allowed in, and even then they had to go with government appointed guides.

I have to admit, most of what I know is from a Burman woman, who left a while before the troubles in Burma, so you could argue with what I know...

Again, I mean no disrespect. This is just what I've been told.

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kate_halprin 19 years ago

Since a) this poster admits it knows nothing about the political situation discussed in the film; b) this poster seems desperate to discredit talk of the atrocities of the Pinochet regime while pretending to political neutrality; and c) the word 'leftist' is used exclusively by American rightwing extremists, I find myself inclined to believe that the only fantasist at work here is the original poster itself.

[–] donny-31 18 years ago

I'm SO with you on that, Kate. When I lived in Miami I had many friends from Chile, so I know a thing or two.

Beyond Rangoon is on my Best of the Best List, at
http://www.opinionsoup.com/movies.html
which is updated weekly, including presently.

Here's looking at you, kid.

[–] kalamazoo101 17 years ago

>the word 'leftist' is used exclusively by American rightwing extremists

I use leftist a lot and I'm not on the right-wing, you moron. There's more to politics than left and right.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] furvus-1 17 years ago

"With the exceptions of Cuba and North Korea, it's probably the least pleasant place on earth to live."

mikexx, what do you know about Cuba? People there couldn't care less about politics, they sing, dance, *beep* and smoke big cigars. And win most of the boxing medals at Olympic Games.

As for right wing or left wing extremists, I don't care for either. Right wing = Hitler's Third Reich, Left Wing = Stalin's Soviet Union. Neither for me, if you please!

[–] doctorfurby 14 years ago

Hitler is on the left see National Socialist.

[–] yapisu2003 19 years ago

First off, the movie is based on the 1988 crackdown in Burma, not Thailand.

Secondly, the Burmese government is at least nominally Communist, so if this was "leftist fantasy" the movie would have been pro-government.

The uprising was distinctly NOT a leftist revolution; it was a peaceful society wide uprising to protest the usurpation of the 1988 elections by the leftist govenment and to PROTECT the supposed constitutional order. It was heavily influenced by normally apolitical Buddhist monks deciding it was time to take a stand. The scene with the student offering the flower is well within keeping with Southeast Asian Buddhist culture; Buddhism, especially Theravada Buddhism as practiced in Burma, stresses non-confrontational approaches to conflict resolution until all other options are exhausted. And American leftist hippies did exactly the same at the Pentagon when denouncing the Vietnam War.

As for the "escape through the city", how many Hollywood movies show any grasp of military tactics? This applies equally for "rightist fantasies" like Stallone and Schwarzennegger flicks as well. Lord knows "Rambo", "Red Dawn", and "Commando" were all fine examples of realistic combat choreography, not to mention Chuck Norris flicks.

At the check point, the priority would have been to escape the city before the military closed in. Stopping "to crucify that pair of soldiers" would have increased the chances of capture. And again, this was NOT a revolution between two antagonistic sides; it was a massacre of peaceful, unarmed demonstrators by a Communist dictatorship.

As for killing of children, the Burmese goverment has a DOCUMENTED policy of ethnic cleansing, a la the Serbs and Croats in Bosnia who as policy killed boys as young as eight in Srebenica and elsewhere. The Burmese government's counterinsurgency policies include exterminating entire villages, slave labor, and standing orders from the goverment to its soldiers to "spread their seed" among" the ethnic minorities, i.e. murder the men and commit mass rape of Karen, Shan, Kachin, Mon and other women.

Even such enlightened militaries as the US Army have been known to on occasion commit mass murder of non-combatants, including childeren, in instances such as Wounded Knee, My Lai, and others. Whether this was due to local commanders overstepping their authority or standing orders from higher echelons, for the FNG grunt on the ground, such as the deserter-cum-monk in the movie, the distinction is irrelevant.

Patricia Arquette's character exclaiming "How can they murder their own people?" is probably as much the expected reaction from a pampered middle-class Westerner as a conscious political statement by Boorman. Even were the movie to take a sympathetic view of the government actions, from the Arquette character's shallow point of view this would be the most likely, if naive, question.

None of this is to say I particularly liked this movie. Being a Hollywood product, it perforce has an extremely shallow understanding of the situation in Burma in 1988 and does a poor job of explaining what understanding it does have. And an even greater objection is the need to center the story on a blonde, blue-eyed American in lieu of fully developing one or more Burmese characters, preferably from both sides, in effect reducing the death of tens of thousands of Burmese and the suffering of an entire nation to a plot device to help a spoiled little rich girl get over her self-pity. Far from being a "leftist fantasy", it instead is a "middle-classist fantasy".

[–] ZeRXeZ 18 years ago

eh, I don´t know what´s leftist about the Burma mililtary junta. to call it a communist dictatorship is just plain stupid. very similar to the chilean dictatorship the burmese junta has opened up the markets for foreign investors in tourism etc to enrich themselves and foreign companies, while the brutal opression of the burmese people continue

[–] thulars 17 years ago

What??? Burmese Junta has opened up the markets for foreign investors? Wake up, dude. Enrich themselves? Oh my God! I don't know where you're getting your information from, dude, but it isn't happening. Burma is the least investment friendly country as far as foreign investment goes. The banking system is so horrid that you can't even send any money, not to mention a large sum. Banks are terrible. Currency is unstable. Credit cards are unusable. Exchanges are non-existence. How the hell can you call it "opened up the market?" Stop making stupid remarks if you don't know anything about Burma. Brutal opress opression of Burmese people continue, my a-s-s.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] slipcat555 17 years ago

And an even greater objection is the need to center the story on a blonde, blue-eyed American in lieu of fully developing one or more Burmese characters, preferably from both sides, in effect reducing the death of tens of thousands of Burmese and the suffering of an entire nation to a plot device to help a spoiled little rich girl get over her self-pity. Far from being a "leftist fantasy", it instead is a "middle-classist fantasy".

Using a character who is somewhat outside the action is a device that has been used in literature for centuries, as an intermediary between the reader (or viewer) and the events portrayed. Think of Marlowe in Lord Jim, Shreve in Absalom, Absalom; or, in film, the doctor in Men with Guns or the reporter in The Killing Fields, or the father in John Boorman's other movie, Emerald Forest. Sometimes the artist has to admit that he can only go so far in understanding another culture or event, and the use of a narrator or intermediate character is his way of admitting, and working within, his limits. It is a valid and effective device for portraying something that the artist and intended audience cannot hope to understand as deeply as someone inside the culture or action.

Boorman could have declined to make the movie altogether, leaving it to a Burmese filmmaker, but we are fortunate that he didn't, because this film, weak as it is, at least gives English audiences a partial understanding of a horrific event they might not have heard of otherwise, and besides, Boorman's film in no way prevents a Burmese filmmaker from making his or her own film.

Thus, your claim that the political atrocities are "a plot device to help a spoiled little rich girl get over her self-pity" is inaccurate. The American is a plot device by which we attempt to grasp the atrocities. And in any case, your description of her as a spoiled little self-pitying rich girl, rather than someone whose husband and child were brutally murdered, is despicable. An "even greater objection" to the film is not the device itself, but that neither she nor the other characters were well developed, so that Boorman's intriguing attempt to explore the themes of private tragedy and political atrocities; grief and action; just didn't work. I was initially interested in her attempt to get lost in a foreign country, to bury herself in effect, in order to deal with her grief, and I liked the final scene where she becomes a doctor again, turns from self-annihilating grief to life, to action. I'd have to watch the movie again to explain why the film as a whole fails to be effective, but I doubt that the failure has anything to do with Patricia Arquette's blond hair and blue eyes. You seem like you'd be smart enough to see that. It's a shame that so many educated people can only pick sides, and attack easy targets (Americans, blond hair), taking intellectual short cuts. You are part of the reason why we have this red state-blue state divide. Jump in, take sides, throw insults around. What a waste of education.

[–] spiderman_iceman_andfire 17 years ago

First of all, i highly disagree with the comments regarding this film as a "leftist fantasy". Secind of all, the original poster likely did not even see the film, as he/she noted Patricia Arquette's character is blonde haired and blue eyes. Arquette's character of laura actually has dark/auburn hair and green eyes. Arquette chose to play the role emotionally and physicially, as a woman who was shut down. She dyed her usually platinum hair blonde, chopped it into a simple bob, and gained weight for the role. Arquette researched her role by visiting hospitals, etc.
The intent of the film is simply to bring international attention to the 1988 Rangoon massacre, in the best way possible. Boorman has crafted a film where (of course he had to get financing to make the film!!!) where the outside is our eyes into what is happening, as it actually WOULD be if we were there at the time. Boorman smartly stays away from subtitles, so the audience is as confused and in the dark as much as Laura is, and as WE would be in the same situation.
The film gives us a plot, so we have a narrative to focus on, instead of being thrown headlong into the misery, plight, and sorrow of the Burmese citizens during the massacre.
This is a very, very serious film, and the dangers are clearly portrayed.
I find it rediculous that this film is unavailable on DVD. It is simply non acceptable. This film needs to continue to be seen at universities, colleges,
and Amnesty Internation demonstrations, etc, and the qulaity of the VHS is literally falling apart. =(
Michael W Anderson

[–] htetwtt 17 years ago

I love how this thread is full of intellectuals. (no sacrasm) I've been to other message threads on other movies and man...people quabble there like little girls. Here, it's a whole different story. I love reading all your responses to the movie and your viewpoints of the situation in Burma.

If someone wanted to make movies about Burma, they could come up with THOUSANDS of ideas for a heartbreaking, tear-jerking, academy-award winning scripts after doing some research. The problem there is getting worse by the minute. The government has wrapped its tight death grip around the people even stronger!

When Aung San Su Kyi passes away, that'll be the end of all hope. They're just simply watching the clock tick by.

This is a video I made which simply adds various clips together. Check it out and give me some replies!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qRgzwm_T6w

[–] Hector Marroquin 17 years ago

The original poster obviously knows nothing considering he assumes that Thailand and Burma are the one and same country. But to call the Burmese government "Communist" or "leftist" is just plain stupid and ridiculous. In fact the Burmese Communist Party was one of the main resistance groups to Ne Win's dictatorship. In fact Ne Win was friends with Friedrich Lustig, a stauch anti-Communist Buddhist from Estonia and even asked him to publish anti-Communist propaganda. After the WWII, Ne Win even linked up with the British and took charge of bloody operations against the Burmese Communists in Pyinmana. There was as much socialism in Ne Win's rule as there is buffalo meat on buffalo wings. I guess we can add him as another bloody western stooge like Gen. Augusto Pinochet, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Gen. Manuel Noriega, Idi Amin, Gen. Mohamed Suharto, and Osama Bin Laden amongst others.

[–] atheismyes 17 years ago

Idi Amin was armed by the Soviets. Pol Pot was trained and armed first by the Vietnamese then the Chinese. The Soviet disinformation network used to deny the Cambodian Holocaust. Noriega supported the Communist FMLN rebels in El Salvador, he came in on an anti-American coup in 1968. He was introduced by Castro the drug trade. Saddam Hussein was the head of the Ba'ath Socialist Party.
Ne Win was a socialist who nationalized everything in sight, including barber shops.

[–] Larry-115 19 years ago

Namely, the person making the harangue doesn't even know what country he's talking about.

[–] vze48c98 19 years ago

phew, thank god someone made it clear. i was about to say something too, that this movie is a true story of events that happened there. its one of my favorite movies and the best i think patricia arquete has done so far. just my 2 cents.

kris

[–] spiderman_iceman_andfire 18 years ago

I would like to say that this film just scrapes the surface of what actually happened in Rangoon/Myanmar. The point of the film is to educate and entertain.
Patricia Arquette's character is meant to be our eyes and ears, and to help us experience the chaos of the world she has been thrown head-long into.
Her initial despondance also serves as a way for us all to be naive, and represents how we also close our eyes to what is going ona round us.
I feel this movie is beautiful on many levels: Laura's emotional growth throught the film, the message of the Burmese people, the wonderful cinamatography, and the education the film provides.
It is a real shame that this film is not on DVD for an even wider audience to see the film and discuss its relevance and importance.

[–] chocholay2003 18 years ago

yes.. this movie is based on a very true story. The actual events outside were even worse. I'm originally from Burma. I was 4 when those things happened. A lot of civilians did support the students who were fighting for democracy at that time. The soldiers often shot whoever was on the street. I once went up to the street with my cousins and saw one soldier shot people. We all ran back to our houses and hid. There were a lot of poisonings at the general hospital at that time too. For this, a lot of people were accused of poisoning people and their heads were cut off with the big knife by a group of people ( I believe they were from the government side). Those people who were accused were not even able to speak well and they just got killed( They could have been some lunatics who just got grabbed from the street). Their heads were hung at the corners of the street. Those cutting-head acts were even shown LIVE on TV.

[–] thulars 17 years ago

You totally missed the point. The whole thing is taking place in Burma, NOT in Thailand. What portrayed in the movie was what actually happened in 1988 in Burma, the demonstration and the killings. I grew up with it. I walked through it. Who are you to make speculations on what you are totally unaware of. The schools, including mine (I was just a boy), were closed for a year. Students were killed, some of the opposition groups, mostly university students who got arrested are still in Burma's most horrible prisons. Yes, children are raped, and killed, people are totured by the soldiers, everday. WE have no law against it. The film wasn't severely biased, it wasn't biased at all. It was simply telling you the truth. All my cousins who were old enough to be in college at that time had to flee the country. And you think it was some left wing fantasy move? You hurt my feelings. Films like this couldn't even be made nowadays. Journalists aren't allowed into the country anymore. No foreign filmmakers can go there. All the films they make there are stupid government propagenda and severely censored. You think that the government was overly portrayed as evil, and the people were just portrayed as sympathetic struggling civilians? You say you live in Chile as though therefore we should value your opinion in which you said it was just rubbish propaganda? Do you know that all the scences with soldiers were actual footages from the 88 political movements? Wet dream? What are you on about? Those footages where soldiers wander about and kill anybody who looked suspicious were actually happening. Anyway, do your research before you write any political reviews. Ragoon is the capital of Burma, not Thailand. For your information, this political movie in the 88 happened because the democratic party won the election, but the military government kept the power by armed forces, they house arrested the democratic party leader who was to become the PM. She still is under house arrest (18 years later). What is portrayed in the movie is Burma's fallen hope. Machine gunned were 2,000 students who were expressing their dislikes of the dictator government and were wanting the political change. You obviously know about Chilé and Spain etc but that doesn't mean you can just call something that the Burmese people have been fighting for their whole life a leftish wet dream. Sounded like you kinda want to become a friend with our wonderful generals. What's the idea?

[–] thulars 17 years ago

Oh God. I'm glad you're also helping me out in pointing out that our wonderful educated person who lives in wonderful Chilé didn't even know the movie was about Burma not Thailand. I don't have to say anymore. You said it! My reply to our Chilean person is listed under my "thulars" if you are interested. Ciao.

[–] Flashing_Daggers 17 years ago

Thank you to everyone who replied to this post for not buying into everything that donpawa said about the movie. The idea that this is a leftist or communist movie is completely ridiculous. Much like "The Killing Fields" (about the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia) this film did a great job of conveying the basic story of what happened, in a way that American audiences can easily catch onto. I think films like these are mainly meant to capture peoples emotions, with the hope that they'll go and learn more.
It's just really depressing that most people don't learn about incidents like these until they see it in a movie.
Aung San Suu Kyi is still under house arrest and was recently in the news about her failing health.

[–] spiderman_iceman_andfire 17 years ago

I agree. This film is meant as entertainment, and to open the world's eyes to some important events in our recent history.
This a beautiful, exciting, and emotional film.

Michael W Anderson