Revisado por mharah

This film is not meant to be a denunciation of capitalism or an embrace of Marxism, only an examination of the intrusion of one upon the other. It does well reflect Vanessa Redgrave's own personal conflict between her own privileged existence and the less fortunate (by her standards) in the Third World. This is the eternal dichotomy facing so many (though not all) First World liberals. They fail to see that capitalism developed as a result of peasants informing themselves, working together and rising up to replace the hegemony which has dominated them. Historically, it has been a slow process, often taking centuries, even millenniums. First World liberals want to see it happen rapidly, but the Third World isn't ready for it. Those countries and their people must go through the process of education that will bring them to the point where they can successfully undertake "the revolution." It may not initially succeed, not because the cause isn't righteous but because the people aren't sufficiently steeled to survive it. The reviewers of this film, for the most part, only see the perceived injustice - capitalism is the oppressor, because of its success. But that is only because they see the Third World peoples aspiring to be the First World's definition of success. There is no indication that this is true. Rather, it would seem that the so-called "poor people" just want life to be a bit better. Over the long run this will work its way to great success. The process cannot be rushed; historically, that has never worked. There are many capitalists who see their mission as helping to make lives a little bit better, in small steps which can assimilated, not upheaval which can't be encompassed in such a large dose. That is why one cannot impose democracy on a country which is still living in a society rooted in the way of life of centuries ago. In my view, the film acknowledges this while still encouraging us to accept the challenge of reaching out. The reviewers, mostly, missed it.