Rabbit-Proof Fence (2002) Director - Phillip Noyce “Nevertheless, there’s still plenty worth watching from the land of Oz and starting on October 28, Beijing is hosting its annual Aussie film festival…But(sic) the highlights are(sic) Noyce’s Rabbit Proof (sic) Fence, shot by Chris Doyle, which deals with the plight of aboriginal children forcibly removed from their families under a racist government programme designed to destroy aboriginal culture (sic) and forcibly integrate native Australians.” (2005 advertisement for Australian movies in China)
Australia does not have a commercially successful arts sector and the ideologies displayed in the creation and promotion of Phillip Noyce's Rabbit-Proof Fence helps explain why. Rabbit-proof Fence was a typical product of the contemporary Australian artist that feels status in making ignorant statements about their culture, and inevitably undermines any sense of affinity the Australian public has to their arts sector as a result.
In theory, Rabbit-Proof Fence was meant to be a political movie showing support for Aboriginal culture and educating Australians about the untold Aboriginal story. In practice, the movie contained almost no examples of Aboriginal culture. Even the music was foreign. Director Phillip Noyce preferred the music of Englishman Peter Gabriel to the music of the people he claimed he was fighting for. Furthermore, despite claiming that he wanted to give Australians a history lesson, Noyce showed that he wasn't particularly educated in the very basics of Aboriginal history himself. When promoting his movie, Noyce said:
"For me, Rabbit-Proof Fence the movie will be as much about stolen history. History that we Australians needed to reclaim...Until 1967, Australian Aborigines couldn’t vote and were not counted as citizens." (1)
In truth, the 1967 referendum that Noyce was referring to had nothing to do with Aboriginal voting rights or citzenship. When the colonies of Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and NSW framed their constitutions in the 1850s, they gave the vote to all male subjects over the age of 21, Aborigines included. Admittedly, most Aborigines didn’t know about their voting rights and perhaps didn’t care. It wasn’t until the 1890s that any Aborigines actually commenced voting.
When the various colonies federated into one nation in 1901, Aborigines were not given the federal vote. However, they did retain their state voting rights and these state voting rights gave them federal voting rights. Under section 41 of the federal constitution, any person who held a state vote also held a federal vote. Legally, Aborigines in NSW, Tasmania, Victoria, and South Australia have been allowed to vote in all federal elections. Aborigines were formerly given the federal vote in 1962.
The 1967 referendum that Noyce mistakenly believed was about giving Aborigines the vote was really about whether to include Aborigines in the federal census and whether the federal government should be allowed to make laws specifically for Aborigines. When the Australian constitution was written in 1901, the federal government had been denied the power to make laws specifically for Aborigines. Although it could make laws for all Australians, Aborigines included, it could not single Aborigines out. For example, it could not make laws to remove Aboriginal children from Aboriginal parents, even if the removal was deemed to be in Australia's interests or the interests of the children. This power had been reserved for the states.
It is not without irony that it was only in 1967 that the federal government gained the power to make the Aboriginal-specific laws that Noyce believed it had from 1900-1970, and believed it had used to create the stolen generations. Perhaps Noyce was aware of the truth, but simply lied about it because it conflicted with his political aim of making the federal government apologise to the stolen generations. If not, he was an extremely arrogant man for relying upon incorrect oral history for his facts and thinking this oral history was sufficient for him to then go forth and play the teacher to other Australians.
In regards to citizenship, Aborigines became British citizens the moment Captain Cook annexed Australia in 1772, in accordance with British law. However, counting them in censuses was difficult because Aborigines did not have fixed addresses, did not lodge birth certificates, did not lodge death certificates and often changed their name according to which tribe they lived in. Furthermore, they often did not speak the same language as the census officers and might well of speared any census officer that came wandering with census forms.
Even though Aborigines were British citizens in 1772, giving Aborigines the protection of British citizenship was problematic. For most of Australia's early years, being a British citizen meant little more than obeying British laws designed to protect each citizen or a vested interest. These laws could not easily be applied to hunter gatherer tribes. For example, to protect women from men, from 1838 to 1902 it was declared illegal to swim during the day in NSW. The exposure of flesh was deemed to put men into uncontrollable states. Even though the law was deemed to be in the individual's welfare, it simply wasn't pratical to send soldiers out into the hunter gatherer communities to force Aborigines to wear clothes. Furthermore, even if the laws could have been applied to hunter gathering communities, Australia's penal colonies were not the type of societies that any individual could be considered fortunate to be part of. To the contrary, if an individual wasn't bound by the laws, then there was some good fortune in that. Arguably, the bush was so important to the early colonial identity because the bush offered an escape from British citizenship, and the oppressive laws that British citizens were bound by.
After Rabbit-proof Fence won best picture in 2002, Noyce used his acceptance speech to criticise the federal government for not apologising for "its" policy of removing mixed race children from their communities from the 1900 to 1970. He then criticised Australians for losing their humanity.
Although some Australians were attracted to the "moral courage" shown by Noyce, other Australians were turned off by a movie that undermined the sense of community that could motivate Australians to think that their arts sector had value. As for people in the arts who supported making the movie, the story itself undermined their sense of pride in being Australian. It certainly didn't make them want to get out onto the streets to wave the Australian flag.
Ironically, some journalists highlighted the fact that Noyce himself shared a number of parrallels with A.O Neveille, the bad guy of the movie. Firstly, Noyce also scoured bush camps to find his Aboriginal actors and believed he was giving them an opportunity for a better life. Secondly, Everlyn Sampi, the star of the movie, was not always grateful for the opportunity given to her by the white man. She was rude to Noyce and kept running away. In response, Noyce abused her and said she showed “signs of the worst behaviour that I’ve observed. ” Noyce then explained to journalists,
“During the rehearsals, she ran away twice. We found her in a telephone booth ringing up inquiries trying to book a ticket back to Broome….I found myself thinking, ‘I have to look after her. She can live with us. I’ll send her to school.'”
When reporter James Thomas asked Noyce if he had noticed a commonality between his own attitudes and those of Neville, Noyce said,
“Well, I suppose in one way you could say that in a different context, in a different time, I’m A.O. Neville promising these young Aboriginal children a better life, asking them to do things that are against their instincts, perhaps because it’s for their own good. But we do live in a slightly different world...”
Noyce failed to elaborate on how the worlds were different. For many Aborigines in bush camps, the lifestyle today isn’t much different to what it was like 70 years ago. Furthermore, whites such as Noyce continue to look upon the camps with the same judgemental attitudes that they did in the days of A.O Neville. The only real difference is that the whites deal with their prejudices in a different way. A.O Neville dealt with them via a policy of assimilation. Although Noyce was assimilationist in his actions, he was also in denial about himself.
Unfortunately, calling Australians racist was not a way for him to open his own mind, provoke discussion on a very difficult topic, or foster respect for the Australian arts sector. All he did was show that if Australia had a history of bigotry, that history is alive and well today amongst people who think they are free of it. It takes more than calling a long-dead figure of history a racist to be open-minded. The only reason to do it would be to show one's own perceived superiority.
Noyce's innability to deal with cultural diversity Many supporters of the stolen generations campaign have argued that the state government policies that resulted in mixed race children being removed from their mother's communities were a form of cultural genocide. Ironically, Rabbit-proof Fence was also a form of cultural genocide because it almost completely omitted any evidence of Aboriginal cultures. Instead, the movie was about whites doing bad things to Aborigines. By victimising Aborigines, Noyce didn't have to learn anything about them or show their culture in any meaningful form. Such was the focus on white culture, the music of Peter Gabriel, an Englishmen known for his progressive humanitarian causes, was used in preference to Aboriginal music.
The cultural censorship was not surprising considering the morality of hunter gatherer communities was, and continues to be, confronting to people living an urban existence. For example, in 2005 an Australian court heard that a 55-year-old Aboriginal elder had anally raped a 14-year-old girl, imprisoned her for four days and repeatedly beat her with a boomerang. In the man's culture, his actions were perfectly acceptable. The girl had been promised to him at the age of four, and she had dishonoured him by having a boyfriend before their marriage. According to traditional law, the elder was perfectly entitled to educate her in the manner that he did. In fact, a case could be made that if he didn't, he was not fulfilling his duties as an elder. The girl's family had further legitimised the actions of the man. Her grandmother had collected the girl, and taken her to the man so that he could rape and punish her.
The case posed numerous questions that had to be answered. Firstly, should the man be punished in light of the fact he was practicing his culture? Secondly, what protection did the child deserve under the Australian legal system? Thirdly, what should be done with the child in light of the fact that her family had arranged the child’s marriage, and then facilitated her rape to teach her a lesson? Should she be removed from the family, or left in its care? (The judge gave the man a one month prison sentence and sympathised with him in regards to his cultural predictament. The feelings of the child were not made public other than the fact she had lodged the initial complaint with police. While the man's culture had been respected, it had come at the expense of recognising the equality of the child as an Australian.)
From the 1900s to 1970s, the same questions were dealt with by social workers wanting to help Aborigines. Should they have respected traditional law and excluded the child from the protection of the Australian legal system, or removed the child in the belief the child would have had a better life by doing so? Either choice would have reflected a form of racism. To deny the child protection of the legal system would have meant the child was not being recognised as an Australian. To provide protection would have been a form of cultural imperialism.
Because such cultural dilemmas were too problematic for Noyce to think about, he simply omitted all aspects of Aboriginal culture that he couldn't deal with. In a nutshell, he put himself in denial to deal with his prejudices. He called others racists in order to see himself as open-minded.
Noyce showing Neville talking about advancing Aborigines to white status. If the depiction were true, then Neville would have been no different to every concerned citizen that defines Aborigines as "disadvantaged" today. By defining Aborigines as disadvantaged, concerned citizens are defining non-Aborigines as the advantaged models that Aborigines should aspire to be like. All government funded programs to lessen "disadvantage" are really programs to "assimilate." While the labels might be different, in substance they are the same.
Rabbit Proof Fence tells a story about how the three girls, Molly and her sisters escaped from Moore River to walk nearly 2000 mile all the way to home. Molly and her sisters are considered as Stolen Generations that is, the Australian Aboriginal children who were removed from their families by the Australian stage government. The use of the word “stolen” implied the immorality and injustice of the robbery performed by the government to take off the identities from the Aboriginal children. The assimilation conducted by A.O. Neville, the head of the government program, is considered by himsel as empathy to the Aboriginal half-caste children. He feels very proud and responsible for the carryout of the job. However, what he does in the film is cruel and cold-blooded that raises empathy among audience. Neville’s intentional empathy turns out to be cruelty and injustice to the Aborigines he wants to “save”. The unjustifiable assimilation makes audience feel empathetic about the Aboriginal children. Not only the story but the advertisement tries to raise the universal empathy to the Aboriginal children. “What if the government kidnapped your daughter” pulls the world into the story even before the story begins. The victims of this story are mostly females, including children and their mothers, so naturally people will be easily moved by this kind of set. Also, the story is pulled to step out of the screen and becomes a more documentary style at the end of the film to evoke more empathy from the audience. This approach, similar to what Spielberg uses in Schindler’s List, manages to affect the audience outside the theatres. It provokes further discussion in people’s real life. The leading roles of Rabbit Proof Fence are children and the camera stays around them for the most of the time. It is a wise idea because such style draws the audience closer to Molly and her sisters. The raw interpretation of the story brings more intensity. The audiences feel so relieved when the protagonists get their way home. Successfully, the director found three aboriginal children without any related experience to acting to carry out the main roles, adding the most important brick to the achievement of the film. In the documentary on the making of the film, the director says that he is looking for children with special quality so that white Australians would like to say “they are my kids”. He needs children who keep intact traditional lifestyle and have recently come into contact with the white world; therefore they do not lose their nature. The point, as indicated by the director, is to get them “not to act” and to conquer the fear of these little actors doing an adult’s job. The director also manages to have a group of three girls who can work together as real sisters, leading the film more convincing. Undoubtedly, the wise choice of actors and the effective training enables the film to trigger the real empathy and awareness of the issue from the bottom of the audience’s heart.
Additional Notes:
1. The Stolen Generations is a term used to describe those Australian Aboriginal children who were removed from their families by the Australian stage government. The use of the word “stolen” implied the immorality and injustice of the robbery performed by the government to take off the identities from the Aboriginal children. 2. This comparison efficiently translates the storyline of the long film into a simple plot: a wicked witch takes away the children and tries to put a spell of forgetfulness on them, and the children escape a long distance all the way to home. However, I do not think this analogy is really reasonable. First, in classic tales, the border between the good and the bad is very clear, so if the story is interpreted in this way, the government then is asserted as a “bad” side, ignoring the fact that the issue of the film is still controversial. “A spell of forgetfulness” is a wrong translation of what Mr. Neville wants to do to the Aboriginal children. His intention is to “save” the half-caste children from discrimination in the tribe, but unfortunately this leads to the destruction of their family and culture. So the fairy tale interpretation of the issue is too biased to be taken into account. 3. Not only the story but the advertisement tries to raise the universal empathy to the Aboriginal children. “What if the government kidnapped your daughter” pulls the world into the story even before the story begins. The victims of this story are mostly females, including children and their mothers, so naturally people will be easily moved by this kind of set. 4. “The Stolen Generation Narrative” refers to a true story on children’s view. It is a wise idea because such style draws the audience closer to Molly and her sisters. The raw interpretation of the story brings more intensity. The audience quickly finds himself so relieved when the protagonists get their way home. On the other side, this setting makes the film very biased that does not provide sufficient information on each side using narrative. 5. The story is pulled to step out of the screen and becomes a more documentary style at the end of the film. This approach, similar to what Spielberg uses in Schindler’s List, manages to affect the audience outside the theatres. It provokes further discussion in people’s real life. 6. The assimilation conducted by A.O. Neville is considered by him as empathy to the Aboriginal half-caste children. He himself feels very proud and responsible for the carryout of the job. However, what he does in the film is cruel and cold-blooded that raises empathy among audience. Neville’s intentional empathy turns out to be cruelty and injustice to the Aborigines he wants to “save”. So the assimilation and empathy are totally different in his case. Additionally, empathy is the feeling that the director wants to raise among the audience, while the unjustifiable assimilation is one of the reasons that audience feel empathetic about the Aboriginal children.
Rabbit-Proof Fence (2002)
Director - Phillip Noyce
“Nevertheless, there’s still plenty worth watching from the land of Oz and starting on October 28, Beijing is hosting its annual Aussie film festival…But(sic) the highlights are(sic) Noyce’s Rabbit Proof (sic) Fence, shot by Chris Doyle, which deals with the plight of aboriginal children forcibly removed from their families under a racist government programme designed to destroy aboriginal culture (sic) and forcibly integrate native Australians.” (2005 advertisement for Australian movies in China)
Australia does not have a commercially successful arts sector and the ideologies displayed in the creation and promotion of Phillip Noyce's Rabbit-Proof Fence helps explain why. Rabbit-proof Fence was a typical product of the contemporary Australian artist that feels status in making ignorant statements about their culture, and inevitably undermines any sense of affinity the Australian public has to their arts sector as a result.
In theory, Rabbit-Proof Fence was meant to be a political movie showing support for Aboriginal culture and educating Australians about the untold Aboriginal story. In practice, the movie contained almost no examples of Aboriginal culture. Even the music was foreign. Director Phillip Noyce preferred the music of Englishman Peter Gabriel to the music of the people he claimed he was fighting for. Furthermore, despite claiming that he wanted to give Australians a history lesson, Noyce showed that he wasn't particularly educated in the very basics of Aboriginal history himself. When promoting his movie, Noyce said:
"For me, Rabbit-Proof Fence the movie will be as much about stolen history. History that we Australians needed to reclaim...Until 1967, Australian Aborigines couldn’t vote and were not counted as citizens." (1)
In truth, the 1967 referendum that Noyce was referring to had nothing to do with Aboriginal voting rights or citzenship. When the colonies of Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and NSW framed their constitutions in the 1850s, they gave the vote to all male subjects over the age of 21, Aborigines included. Admittedly, most Aborigines didn’t know about their voting rights and perhaps didn’t care. It wasn’t until the 1890s that any Aborigines actually commenced voting.
When the various colonies federated into one nation in 1901, Aborigines were not given the federal vote. However, they did retain their state voting rights and these state voting rights gave them federal voting rights. Under section 41 of the federal constitution, any person who held a state vote also held a federal vote. Legally, Aborigines in NSW, Tasmania, Victoria, and South Australia have been allowed to vote in all federal elections. Aborigines were formerly given the federal vote in 1962.
The 1967 referendum that Noyce mistakenly believed was about giving Aborigines the vote was really about whether to include Aborigines in the federal census and whether the federal government should be allowed to make laws specifically for Aborigines. When the Australian constitution was written in 1901, the federal government had been denied the power to make laws specifically for Aborigines. Although it could make laws for all Australians, Aborigines included, it could not single Aborigines out. For example, it could not make laws to remove Aboriginal children from Aboriginal parents, even if the removal was deemed to be in Australia's interests or the interests of the children. This power had been reserved for the states.
It is not without irony that it was only in 1967 that the federal government gained the power to make the Aboriginal-specific laws that Noyce believed it had from 1900-1970, and believed it had used to create the stolen generations. Perhaps Noyce was aware of the truth, but simply lied about it because it conflicted with his political aim of making the federal government apologise to the stolen generations. If not, he was an extremely arrogant man for relying upon incorrect oral history for his facts and thinking this oral history was sufficient for him to then go forth and play the teacher to other Australians.
In regards to citizenship, Aborigines became British citizens the moment Captain Cook annexed Australia in 1772, in accordance with British law. However, counting them in censuses was difficult because Aborigines did not have fixed addresses, did not lodge birth certificates, did not lodge death certificates and often changed their name according to which tribe they lived in. Furthermore, they often did not speak the same language as the census officers and might well of speared any census officer that came wandering with census forms.
Even though Aborigines were British citizens in 1772, giving Aborigines the protection of British citizenship was problematic. For most of Australia's early years, being a British citizen meant little more than obeying British laws designed to protect each citizen or a vested interest. These laws could not easily be applied to hunter gatherer tribes. For example, to protect women from men, from 1838 to 1902 it was declared illegal to swim during the day in NSW. The exposure of flesh was deemed to put men into uncontrollable states. Even though the law was deemed to be in the individual's welfare, it simply wasn't pratical to send soldiers out into the hunter gatherer communities to force Aborigines to wear clothes. Furthermore, even if the laws could have been applied to hunter gathering communities, Australia's penal colonies were not the type of societies that any individual could be considered fortunate to be part of. To the contrary, if an individual wasn't bound by the laws, then there was some good fortune in that. Arguably, the bush was so important to the early colonial identity because the bush offered an escape from British citizenship, and the oppressive laws that British citizens were bound by.
After Rabbit-proof Fence won best picture in 2002, Noyce used his acceptance speech to criticise the federal government for not apologising for "its" policy of removing mixed race children from their communities from the 1900 to 1970. He then criticised Australians for losing their humanity.
Although some Australians were attracted to the "moral courage" shown by Noyce, other Australians were turned off by a movie that undermined the sense of community that could motivate Australians to think that their arts sector had value. As for people in the arts who supported making the movie, the story itself undermined their sense of pride in being Australian. It certainly didn't make them want to get out onto the streets to wave the Australian flag.
Ironically, some journalists highlighted the fact that Noyce himself shared a number of parrallels with A.O Neveille, the bad guy of the movie. Firstly, Noyce also scoured bush camps to find his Aboriginal actors and believed he was giving them an opportunity for a better life. Secondly, Everlyn Sampi, the star of the movie, was not always grateful for the opportunity given to her by the white man. She was rude to Noyce and kept running away. In response, Noyce abused her and said she showed “signs of the worst behaviour that I’ve observed. ” Noyce then explained to journalists,
“During the rehearsals, she ran away twice. We found her in a telephone booth ringing up inquiries trying to book a ticket back to Broome….I found myself thinking, ‘I have to look after her. She can live with us. I’ll send her to school.'”
When reporter James Thomas asked Noyce if he had noticed a commonality between his own attitudes and those of Neville, Noyce said,
“Well, I suppose in one way you could say that in a different context, in a different time, I’m A.O. Neville promising these young Aboriginal children a better life, asking them to do things that are against their instincts, perhaps because it’s for their own good. But we do live in a slightly different world...”
Noyce failed to elaborate on how the worlds were different. For many Aborigines in bush camps, the lifestyle today isn’t much different to what it was like 70 years ago. Furthermore, whites such as Noyce continue to look upon the camps with the same judgemental attitudes that they did in the days of A.O Neville. The only real difference is that the whites deal with their prejudices in a different way. A.O Neville dealt with them via a policy of assimilation. Although Noyce was assimilationist in his actions, he was also in denial about himself.
Unfortunately, calling Australians racist was not a way for him to open his own mind, provoke discussion on a very difficult topic, or foster respect for the Australian arts sector. All he did was show that if Australia had a history of bigotry, that history is alive and well today amongst people who think they are free of it. It takes more than calling a long-dead figure of history a racist to be open-minded. The only reason to do it would be to show one's own perceived superiority.
Noyce's innability to deal with cultural diversity
Many supporters of the stolen generations campaign have argued that the state government policies that resulted in mixed race children being removed from their mother's communities were a form of cultural genocide. Ironically, Rabbit-proof Fence was also a form of cultural genocide because it almost completely omitted any evidence of Aboriginal cultures. Instead, the movie was about whites doing bad things to Aborigines. By victimising Aborigines, Noyce didn't have to learn anything about them or show their culture in any meaningful form. Such was the focus on white culture, the music of Peter Gabriel, an Englishmen known for his progressive humanitarian causes, was used in preference to Aboriginal music.
The cultural censorship was not surprising considering the morality of hunter gatherer communities was, and continues to be, confronting to people living an urban existence. For example, in 2005 an Australian court heard that a 55-year-old Aboriginal elder had anally raped a 14-year-old girl, imprisoned her for four days and repeatedly beat her with a boomerang. In the man's culture, his actions were perfectly acceptable. The girl had been promised to him at the age of four, and she had dishonoured him by having a boyfriend before their marriage. According to traditional law, the elder was perfectly entitled to educate her in the manner that he did. In fact, a case could be made that if he didn't, he was not fulfilling his duties as an elder. The girl's family had further legitimised the actions of the man. Her grandmother had collected the girl, and taken her to the man so that he could rape and punish her.
The case posed numerous questions that had to be answered. Firstly, should the man be punished in light of the fact he was practicing his culture? Secondly, what protection did the child deserve under the Australian legal system? Thirdly, what should be done with the child in light of the fact that her family had arranged the child’s marriage, and then facilitated her rape to teach her a lesson? Should she be removed from the family, or left in its care? (The judge gave the man a one month prison sentence and sympathised with him in regards to his cultural predictament. The feelings of the child were not made public other than the fact she had lodged the initial complaint with police. While the man's culture had been respected, it had come at the expense of recognising the equality of the child as an Australian.)
From the 1900s to 1970s, the same questions were dealt with by social workers wanting to help Aborigines. Should they have respected traditional law and excluded the child from the protection of the Australian legal system, or removed the child in the belief the child would have had a better life by doing so? Either choice would have reflected a form of racism. To deny the child protection of the legal system would have meant the child was not being recognised as an Australian. To provide protection would have been a form of cultural imperialism.
Because such cultural dilemmas were too problematic for Noyce to think about, he simply omitted all aspects of Aboriginal culture that he couldn't deal with. In a nutshell, he put himself in denial to deal with his prejudices. He called others racists in order to see himself as open-minded.
Noyce showing Neville talking about advancing Aborigines to white status. If the depiction were true, then Neville would have been no different to every concerned citizen that defines Aborigines as "disadvantaged" today. By defining Aborigines as disadvantaged, concerned citizens are defining non-Aborigines as the advantaged models that Aborigines should aspire to be like. All government funded programs to lessen "disadvantage" are really programs to "assimilate." While the labels might be different, in substance they are the same.
1)Rabbit-Proof Fence: Phillip Noyce's Diary http://www.landmarktheatres.com/Stories/rabbit_frame.html
The assimilation conducted by A.O. Neville, the head of the government program, is considered by himsel as empathy to the Aboriginal half-caste children. He feels very proud and responsible for the carryout of the job. However, what he does in the film is cruel and cold-blooded that raises empathy among audience. Neville’s intentional empathy turns out to be cruelty and injustice to the Aborigines he wants to “save”. The unjustifiable assimilation makes audience feel empathetic about the Aboriginal children.
Not only the story but the advertisement tries to raise the universal empathy to the Aboriginal children. “What if the government kidnapped your daughter” pulls the world into the story even before the story begins. The victims of this story are mostly females, including children and their mothers, so naturally people will be easily moved by this kind of set. Also, the story is pulled to step out of the screen and becomes a more documentary style at the end of the film to evoke more empathy from the audience. This approach, similar to what Spielberg uses in Schindler’s List, manages to affect the audience outside the theatres. It provokes further discussion in people’s real life.
The leading roles of Rabbit Proof Fence are children and the camera stays around them for the most of the time. It is a wise idea because such style draws the audience closer to Molly and her sisters. The raw interpretation of the story brings more intensity. The audiences feel so relieved when the protagonists get their way home. Successfully, the director found three aboriginal children without any related experience to acting to carry out the main roles, adding the most important brick to the achievement of the film.
In the documentary on the making of the film, the director says that he is looking for children with special quality so that white Australians would like to say “they are my kids”. He needs children who keep intact traditional lifestyle and have recently come into contact with the white world; therefore they do not lose their nature. The point, as indicated by the director, is to get them “not to act” and to conquer the fear of these little actors doing an adult’s job. The director also manages to have a group of three girls who can work together as real sisters, leading the film more convincing.
Undoubtedly, the wise choice of actors and the effective training enables the film to trigger the real empathy and awareness of the issue from the bottom of the audience’s heart.
Additional Notes:
1. The Stolen Generations is a term used to describe those Australian Aboriginal children who were removed from their families by the Australian stage government. The use of the word “stolen” implied the immorality and injustice of the robbery performed by the government to take off the identities from the Aboriginal children.
2. This comparison efficiently translates the storyline of the long film into a simple plot: a wicked witch takes away the children and tries to put a spell of forgetfulness on them, and the children escape a long distance all the way to home. However, I do not think this analogy is really reasonable. First, in classic tales, the border between the good and the bad is very clear, so if the story is interpreted in this way, the government then is asserted as a “bad” side, ignoring the fact that the issue of the film is still controversial. “A spell of forgetfulness” is a wrong translation of what Mr. Neville wants to do to the Aboriginal children. His intention is to “save” the half-caste children from discrimination in the tribe, but unfortunately this leads to the destruction of their family and culture. So the fairy tale interpretation of the issue is too biased to be taken into account.
3. Not only the story but the advertisement tries to raise the universal empathy to the Aboriginal children. “What if the government kidnapped your daughter” pulls the world into the story even before the story begins. The victims of this story are mostly females, including children and their mothers, so naturally people will be easily moved by this kind of set.
4. “The Stolen Generation Narrative” refers to a true story on children’s view. It is a wise idea because such style draws the audience closer to Molly and her sisters. The raw interpretation of the story brings more intensity. The audience quickly finds himself so relieved when the protagonists get their way home. On the other side, this setting makes the film very biased that does not provide sufficient information on each side using narrative.
5. The story is pulled to step out of the screen and becomes a more documentary style at the end of the film. This approach, similar to what Spielberg uses in Schindler’s List, manages to affect the audience outside the theatres. It provokes further discussion in people’s real life.
6. The assimilation conducted by A.O. Neville is considered by him as empathy to the Aboriginal half-caste children. He himself feels very proud and responsible for the carryout of the job. However, what he does in the film is cruel and cold-blooded that raises empathy among audience. Neville’s intentional empathy turns out to be cruelty and injustice to the Aborigines he wants to “save”. So the assimilation and empathy are totally different in his case. Additionally, empathy is the feeling that the director wants to raise among the audience, while the unjustifiable assimilation is one of the reasons that audience feel empathetic about the Aboriginal children.
February 26, 2008
“血统改造”的关键在于白人男性接受混血土著女性并与之结合。为此,一方面,内维尔不断宣扬混血土著女性“举止文雅、声音柔和”,“1/2混血土著女孩文静而自信,而1/4混血土著女孩更具魅力,她们拥有赤褐色或金色的头发、蓝色的眼睛和傲人的身材。”另一方面,内维尔主张,从小把混血土著从土著中隔离出来,隔断他们与土著家庭和社区的联系,以白人标准对他们进行教育和培训。1933年,在内维尔的支持下,一个专门收养1/4混血土著儿童的机构在珀斯建立,即凯特修女(Sister Kate)混血土著养育院。内维尔希望,通过确保1/4混血土著女孩的健康成长,促进她们与白人男性结合。为了强化隔离教育,内维尔成功说服莫斯里王家委员会,推动议会于1936年修改《1905年土著法》,授予他更大的权力全面控制混血土著。内维尔相信,纯血统土著终将灭绝,对现有混血土著儿童实施隔离,严格控制混血土著的婚姻,鼓励混血土著女性与白人男性婚配,这样坚持下去,整个土著种族将最终从澳大利亚社会彻底消失。
1927-1939年,塞西尔·库克(Cecil Cook)长期担任北方领地“首席保护官”。他上任之时,北方领地白人人口以每年1%的速度减少,而混血土著人口却以每年2%的速度增长。如果不采取措施,他预计,在15年或20年内,混血土著人口将超过白人。1931年4月,库克认为,这种情况将对北方领地的种族纯洁构成巨大的威胁。他主张,采取措施鼓励白人男性和混血土著妇女的通婚,通过这种婚配,混血土著就会逐步被吸收到白人社会之中,到第五代,至多到第六代,澳大利亚土著将会完全消失。混血土著问题也将以土著种族的完全消失和他们的后代吸收进白人血统之中而得到彻底解决。
为实现“血统改造”计划,库克采取的首要措施是对混血土著实施隔离教育。在库克担任北方领地“首席保护官”期间,被隔离的混血土著儿童增加了70%。⑤混血土著儿童被从土著聚居区缺乏教育与培训、经常受传染疾病威胁的恶劣环境中隔离出来,安置在艾利斯斯普林斯、达尔文和派恩克里克(Pine Creek)等地的教养院。库克把混血土著适龄女孩送往达尔文女修道院,在没有女修道院的艾利斯斯普林斯,则把她们安置在邦吉洛( Bungalow)的混血土著养育院。库克希望,教养院以白人儿童的标准对他们进行抚养、教育和培训,以便把他们“提升到白人的水平”。接受基本教育与培训之后,库克安排混血土著男孩到养牛场劳动,混血土著女性则作为“血统改造”的试验对象。他坚信,接受过教育和培训的混血土著女孩能够得到白人男性的认可和接受。1933年,库克宣称,许多白人男性准备迎娶混血土著女性,并把后代留在家里抚养。
作为负责北方领地土著事务的联邦政府代表,库克试图把混血土著的“血统改造”推广到其他各州。1937年4月21-23日,联邦政府组织召开第一次全国土著会议。除塔斯马尼亚外,大陆五个州和北方领地负责土著事务的主要官员十余人参加会议。在坚信“纯血统土著即将灭绝”的同时,与会代表普遍视混血土著为严重的种族问题,主张应把混血土著吸收进白人人口之中。南澳大利亚政府代表J.B.克莱兰教授建议,鼓励混血土著女性与白人男性的婚姻,以最终把他们吸收进白人之中,并要求联邦政府提供经费对“血统改造”进行研究。内维尔则系统地介绍了西澳大利亚“血统改造”的进展。“血统改造”得到除布莱克利外的其他与会代表的赞同。最终,会议通过题为《种族命运》的决议,宣称“土著居民的命运,而不是纯血统士著的命运,在于最终被澳大利亚人口所吸收。因此,建议所有努力都应该指向这一目标”。这一原则性的决议,确认了土著问题就是混血土著问题以及处理混血土著问题的基本思路在于把他们吸收进白人之中,但并未明确地规定如何吸收混血土著,则为各州留下足够的空间自主设计,只是“建议所有努力都应该指向”吸收混血土著的目标。尽管没有明确地把“血统改造”写进决议,但决议实际上接受了混血土著“血统改造”。
因为贪婪，人类总是无法分享宁静与美好，破坏宁静与美好，然后重建宁静与美好，在反复的蠢恶中定义着弱肉强食的条目。于是我们看到人性中存在的极其愚蠢极其卑劣的细胞因子，就像我们的影子，在背光处，显得愈发强大。总之，人绝对不是宇宙中最美丽的物种。
末路小狂花，改编自著名的小说《防兔篱笆》，记录了一段真实的历史。就电影的格局与传播度而言，虽然，这朵“”名不见经传“”的小花，比不上那些血染的玫瑰惊艳，但片子余香萦绕久不散去的感动，为它写点什么却是我发自内心的。
三个孩子寻家，寻母亲的历程，在逃亡与行走中留存了一个民族的尊严与生存权利，看这样一部让人咀嚼不出幸福味道的影片，最终能令自己寻到一条回味、回想、回望的路，这就是不错的收获。
人们喜欢用美丽的文字来雕琢内心的胆怯与虚伪，喜欢用充满爱与正确的文字来粉饰一切的恶与错误。二十世纪初，澳大利亚的统治者开始进行一种灭绝当地土著的计划，他们举着保护与拯救的旗帜，说着一切与善有关的话题，背地里却在向灭绝当地原住民的罪恶行道开进。
人若有高低贵贱之分，那也只能存在于灵魂抑或教养上，与权力、金钱、肤色、习俗、种族毫无关系。白人与土著通婚，以此来改良血统，这只是为所欲为的借口。当时，自以为高贵的澳大利亚政府完全是在玩一种罪恶的权力游戏。从母亲身边把孩子夺走，让孩子失去母亲，让母亲带着愧疚含恨而死，高举改良土著血统的牌，正是灭族的人性泯灭之为。自以为聪明的掠夺者，在历史的书页上肆无忌惮地编造谎言，但只要站在公正的战场上，一个孩子的眼神就可以彻底地打败他们。
在这部影片中姐姐Molly 和妹妹Daisy就像太阳和月亮，她们在狂风暴雨中，顽强地寻找着属于她们的天空。那条通往母亲方向的篱笆墙，那只翱翔在家乡天空的大鸟，一道道需要穿越的沙漠与河流，一个个必须面对的敌人与猎枪，在大自然的怀抱里，两个女孩子成为了真正的勇士。我想那个可怜的小女孩，Molly的表妹Gracie，作为牺牲品，她是最不幸的，因为她曾经离自由与幸福那么近。
自由的鸟鸣声，无助的哭泣声，还有那带着远古世界里神秘的音乐声，当这些不和谐的声音混杂在一起谱成一曲哀歌刺穿你耳膜的时候，你也许会在无意中发现自己早已被影片催眠了。
仅仅是一段历史，一段胶片的生命价值，活着的依然活着，都该释然淡化了。但成人们借口修整这个地球的时候，有多少人能够真正聆听孩子的哭泣声呢？
PS：关于现在Molly和Daisy的情况。（摘选影片资料）Molly现已结婚，并生有2个孩子。当孩子们长到4岁和2岁时，Molly和她的孩子们又被抓回到穆尔河。Molly再次回到吉加朗时，她带回了她的小女儿安纳贝尔(Annabelle)，而大女儿多丽丝则离开了她。当安纳贝尔3岁时，她也离开了Molly，莫利从此再未见到她。多丽丝与她母亲再次见面则是30年以后的事了。她把母亲的故事写成了小说，并改编成了这部电影剧本。如今，85岁的Molly利和79岁的Daisy仍生活在吉加朗。直到1971年，在澳大利亚政府的政策下，澳大利亚土著孩子们仍然被隔离于他们的家庭。这些被隔离的孩子们现在被称作“被偷走的一代”。
在1910年到1970年间，澳大利亚的法律允许政府将土著居民的子女从他们的家庭中带走，送入白人家庭或教会中抚养。澳大利亚土著领袖曼塞尔估计，遭此命运的土著儿童约有1.3万左右。产生这项政策的背景其实相当复杂。在修建贯穿澳大利亚南北部的GHAN铁路时，铁路沿线诞生了许多白人和土著的混血儿。由于文化原因，这些混血儿并不受当地土著部落欢迎，他们经常遭到遗弃及虐待。当时有一份报告建议政府，应该出面保护、抚养这些儿童，从而刺激了澳大利亚实行将土著儿童带离家庭的政策。另外一个主要原因是，当时的澳大利亚政府认为土著居民没有文化、没有前途，将他们的子女带走、漂白，有助于他们融入现代社会。
对于成千上万个土著家庭来说，有的甚至几代都有孩子被强制带走，上演了一代又一代的家庭悲剧。曾是“被偷走一代”的詹妮弗为我们讲述了她的家庭故事。她的外祖母瑞贝卡是家中最小的孩子，长得十分漂亮，5岁时就被教会带走，14岁时她生下了詹妮弗的母亲格蕾丝，之后又生了3个女儿。23岁时，外祖母患结核死去。詹妮弗的外祖父拼命工作，辛苦抚养4个女儿。1915年的一天，外祖父回来跟母亲说，他被强迫签署一份文件，将4个女儿交给政府带走，否则他将被送进监狱。就这样，4个女儿哭着离开了父亲，被送上前往悉尼的船。母亲很多年后依然记得当时的感觉，就像当年失去外祖母一样悲恸。到了悉尼之后，她们被分开寄养，还是婴儿的维尔丽特2年后死于结核。格蕾丝所在的保育所条件十分恶劣，拥挤不堪，条规严苛。她记得一个女孩只是由于动作慢了一点，就被绑起来用皮带抽打，当天晚上就死去了，甚至没有人知道她最后埋到了哪里……然而悲剧没有到此结束。1952年11月的一天早晨，警察又来到詹妮弗的家里，“他们不顾父母亲的阻拦，硬是把我们姐妹两个带走。此后我再也没能见到父亲”。
政府的举措并没有带来预想的结果，1994年澳大利亚国家统计局的调查显示，政府的同化政策彻底失败了，那些被从土著家庭带走的孩子无论是受教育的比例还是就业率，非但没有高于那些同期还留在自己家中的孩子，还略低于这些一直生活在土著家中的同龄人。“被偷走的一代”大多数不能完成中学学业，却常常使用违禁药物、并有犯罪记录。
1997年4月，澳大利亚人权委员会一份题为《带他们回家》的报告显示，被带走的儿童和他们的家庭遭受了巨大的心理创伤。有人这样述说被带离家庭、长大成人后的感受，“我们也许可以回家，但我们无法重新回到我们的童年。我们也许可以与父母、亲人再次团聚，但是光阴已经流逝，我们无法体味亲人的爱与关心，这种遗憾终身无法抹平。我们可以再次回家，但是身心所受到的伤害无法消除，因为‘监护人’们认为他们的任务就是消除我们的土著身份。”
（摘自2月18日《环球时报》作者刘婕）