Jul. 24th, 2014 01:16 pm
On the fence
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
muckefuckYesterday's evening film was Rabbit-proof fence, based on the book Follow the Rabbit-Proof Fence by the daughter of Molly Craig, an Aboriginal woman who, as an adolescent, walked 2400 km back home from a government settlement near Perth--twice. It's an incredible achievement given that the route took her (and the girls she led--a sister and a cousin on the first journey, one of her daughters on the second) through some of the most inhospitable parts of the Western Australian desert.
So it's a shame to see director Phillip Noyce turn that amazing story into a morality tale for schoolchildren. (Literally: the film was used in classrooms throughout Australia to educate pupils on the legacy of the Stolen Generations.) Chief Protector of Aborigines in the Western Territory A.O. Neville comes off particularly badly. Although he seems to have had some racist views about assimilation of "half-castes", the worst statements ascribed to him in the film seem to originated with his counterpart for the Northern Territory, Dr Cecil Cook.
It's hard to say for sure, though, because in trying to research the background to the film, I found myself suddenly immersed in Australia's own answer to the Historikerstreit. But in contrast to Craig's own account, Noyce has idealised the girls' life before removal and represented the removal itself as more violent and brutal than it actually was. Contemporaneous documents reveal concern that they were at risk of sexual exploitation in their home settlement, but the only depiction we see of this involves a mature woman who was removed in the same way and ultimately placed as a domestic in a White household.
Whether the film is accurate or not, it's undeniably effective--and terrific to look at thanks to Christopher Doyle's cinematography and the stark beauty of the Western Desert. There's also a sad life-imitates-art irony concerning lead actress Everlyn Sampi. She ran away during filming and again from a boarding school where she was placed--wait for it--by director Noyce, who was concerned about her lack of prospects and vulnerability to sexual exploitation.
So it's a shame to see director Phillip Noyce turn that amazing story into a morality tale for schoolchildren. (Literally: the film was used in classrooms throughout Australia to educate pupils on the legacy of the Stolen Generations.) Chief Protector of Aborigines in the Western Territory A.O. Neville comes off particularly badly. Although he seems to have had some racist views about assimilation of "half-castes", the worst statements ascribed to him in the film seem to originated with his counterpart for the Northern Territory, Dr Cecil Cook.
It's hard to say for sure, though, because in trying to research the background to the film, I found myself suddenly immersed in Australia's own answer to the Historikerstreit. But in contrast to Craig's own account, Noyce has idealised the girls' life before removal and represented the removal itself as more violent and brutal than it actually was. Contemporaneous documents reveal concern that they were at risk of sexual exploitation in their home settlement, but the only depiction we see of this involves a mature woman who was removed in the same way and ultimately placed as a domestic in a White household.
Whether the film is accurate or not, it's undeniably effective--and terrific to look at thanks to Christopher Doyle's cinematography and the stark beauty of the Western Desert. There's also a sad life-imitates-art irony concerning lead actress Everlyn Sampi. She ran away during filming and again from a boarding school where she was placed--wait for it--by director Noyce, who was concerned about her lack of prospects and vulnerability to sexual exploitation.