A Sequence Analysis

“Rabbit Proof Fence”, a film directed by Australian Phillip Noyce in 2002, shines light on the displacement of Indigenous peoples by White settlers working to assimilate the Aboriginal population. Set in Western Australia during the 1930s, the film provides some perspective on the colonialist initiatives that were implemented in Indigenous populations throughout the country.

The sequence I have chosen to analyze is composed of the first two scenes of the film. This sequence, although relatively short, divides the characters into two camps: the colonizers and those being colonized. In my analysis I will explore how certain cinematographic decisions have constructed these power dynamics and how they lay the foundation for the events that will take place throughout the rest of the film.

The very first shot of the film is one that I find very iconic, especially for an Australian production. The camera sweeps over a vast desert landscape establishing a very powerful position for the viewer as if they are themselves taking over that land. There is equality between natural sounds (like those of birds) and the mechanical sound of an airplane. The next shot maintains a high angle position and suggests inferiority as it falls onto a young Aboriginal girl explaining that because her father was White she is designated the status of “half-caste”. The girl blends into the land by way of her dress and her expression establishing a relationship between her and the territory. She speaks a native language which also suggests she is a part of rural landscape. The airplane noise has been completely replaced by the sounds of birds and nature bringing all attention to the ground.

The action switches to a medium shot of Aboriginal mothers very obviously distressed about something. Their screaming signals the beating of drums that instantly raises the excitement of the scene. They make up their environment what they wear and how they are filmed in relation to the earth. The introduction of the White officer and his vehicle presents a stark contrast to the Aboriginal women and their muted landscape. A dark, crisp and clean uniformed man has instilled fear and hysterics in the women and children. While they run barefoot through the dirt, the officer climbs in his car and races after them. There is juxtaposition between the modern and the primitive within the entirety of this scene. The White man’s laws, uniformity, and orders contrast greatly with the wild Aboriginal women and children running and screaming through the rugged landscape.

Throughout the next sequence of shots, the White man is given authority and agency within the frame as the commanding character. Often shot from a low angle, he is showcased as superior to the Aboriginal women and children as he throws them around and rips them away from each other. He portrays dominance both physically and mechanically as he advances across the land in his vehicle that shoots dust up into the faces and path of the women running away. There is a hierarchy that is established by the man, the official documents he holds, and the vulnerability of the women and children. The use of the handheld camera provides opportunity for the viewer to get close to the emotion of the scene in a way that showcases the brutality of the event that is taking place.

The car is an integral element to this scene as it poses as a cage for wild children. Needing “domestication”, the vehicle holds them captive and removed from their “savage” mothers. Unfamiliar with the technology, the children and mothers paw helplessly against the glass in desperation. The scene is very animalistic in the sense that the captive are frightened, helpless, and at the mercy of their captor. The White man leaves the community victorious.

The following scene in the film creates even more distinction between the White settlers and the Aboriginal population. The environment within which the White men and women find themselves within is starkly different from that of the Aboriginal women and children of the last scene. The meeting takes place in a room within what is assumed as a relatively fancy establishment boasting primness and wealth. All of its occupants are dressed in modern and very proper costume and there are elements of technology that emulate contemporary advancements in technology. The noise in the room resonates only from the directors seemingly educated words and from the projector. There are no elements of the natural world within this scene. The director speaks fluidly and comprehensibly while the audience sips tea politely. Lit by the projector light, the director and “chief protector of the Aborigines” is given the same kind of command and agency within the room as the White officer did out in the Aboriginal community. Again, the camera is positioned at a low angle in order to optimize the effect of superiority that is held by the character that is looked up at. The viewer feels almost as though they are in the meeting sitting amongst the other guests. The room is emotionless compared to the previous scene. The White guests at the meeting show no facial expression and are instead meant to symbolize a tame and domesticated culture.

Introducing the contrasting ideologies within the film is done so very carefully and powerfully throughout the first two scenes. Through this film analysis, the audience can understand the injustice of the situation, but also the perspectives that led to the policies and assimilationist practices that were initiated throughout the 1900s. Director Phillip Noyce does impressive work in establishing the characters and the power dynamics between them from the onset of the film. These meticulous details are often overlooked, but when analyzed carefully, they are realized as the elements that bind the emotional connections between the characters of the film and the sympathetic responses of the audience watching it.

“Rabbit Proof Fence” is a film and a story that is important and valued within Australian culture. Representing such a sensitive subject would be a very difficult task especially when dealing with political issues that continue to leave stains on the democratic relationships, policies, and processes of today. While there was controversy as to how the story was told and whom the film vilified, I think that its representations are accurate enough to spark discussion and reflection of some events that are incredibly influential to a people, a nation, and an international community that continues to strive to protect the rights of Aboriginal peoples.

AmericaniZation : Inherently Negative?

In an article titled “ ‘Americanization’: Political and Cultural Examples from the Perspective of ‘Americanized’ Australia” by Phillip and Roger Bell, “American-ization” is understood as a process that is responsible for what is seen as “the growing homogeneity and interdependence of cultures”. In addition, “American-ization” is also understood to be the perpetrator in the “erosion of cultural diversity, ideological difference, and at times, political sovereignty”. These definitions shape “American-ization” into a very menacing form. While I find the “melting-pot” theories and movements to be increasingly unattractive in a globalizing world, I recognize that some homogeneity may be inevitable. The international world is so interconnected. Our ideas, our systems, our politics, economies, and our relationships all rely heavily on shared information and the collaboration and cooperation of actors that move and communicate freely across any and all borders.

Australia is commonly caught up in the theory of “American-ization” and the consequences and repercussions it holds for national cinema and cultural preservation. I can sympathize with those who feel cast under the shadow of the American dream and all its prosperities; I am from the country that humbly sits on its shoulder after all. This said, I think the situation is far more complex.

The United States of America, much like Australia and Canada, is a country that has grown because of large influxes of migration. While each nation has its indigenous histories and differences, these three countries, are made up of decedents of the same countries (predominantly in Europe). There will be natural similarities across states when ancestral backgrounds are shared.In lecture we spoke about the foundation of stories that are shared and passed on through generations. Mythology links lessons and messages that are embedded in films, literature, and art in every single country in the world. Why can’t we embrace these connections?

I will not argue against the obvious global spread of American taste. On an international scale, we have adopted many ideas, mentalities, and aspirations that have derived from what is considered to be American culture. Maybe in an idealist sense, we could consider all of these traits as international and not solely American. Perhaps these tastes have derived from a people that have evolved and transcended from global communities and are able to project and international conglomeration of concepts. It is hard to reject cultural cues that you agree with or enjoy. This should not be looked down upon or considered to be contributing to the “beige-ing” cultural diversity. I think that we need to embrace differences while promoting what we have in common as well. “American-ization”, whether it means McDonalds on the streets of Pakistan or messages that can be understood and appreciated across nations, should be understood as a reality that is not inherently all that bad.

Dissecting the Convoluted: National Cinema

What is national cinema? Before engaging in an academic discussion about this topic, I probably would have been able to come up with a relatively simple and objective answer. Not being native to Australia, the conceptions (or maybe misconceptions) I hold about the country, the people, and the nationalism, are skewed through common stereotypes. The understanding I hold has been constructed through various forms of media I have consumed throughout my lifetime, providing me with an idea of what Australia is. Ironically enough, most of the knowledge I hold has been provided to me through mediums that are not authentically Australian themselves. This brings me to my next question: What is Australian?

Australia, from my Canadian perspective, was associated with: unique wildlife (koalas, kangaroos, deadly spiders etc…), vast landscapes, friendly people from both the outback and the surfing shores, and Vegemite. I have encountered all of these over the course of the last two months. This said, the more I experience and the more I engage myself in the Australian way of life, the less I am inclined to associate characteristics like these with THE Australian identity.

I am not naïve. I understand there is not one Australian identity. The identity I am trying to vaguely understand is the one that is projected to the international audience. Why do these characteristics stand out amongst all of the other potential traits that Australia could hold claim to? There is a significant depth to the people, the land, and the history of Australia as a continent, a country, and a nation. The depth of experience and vitality cannot be accounted for through iconic images of the Crocodile Hunter or kangaroos bounding across a deserted beach… right?

While I could not give you simple explanation of Canadian national identity, I understand it to be a lot more than beavers, bears, and maple syrup. I am sure these sentiments run across all borders when it comes to external assumptions and understandings of what makes individual nations unique.

There is a serious struggle, both internally as well as externally, to understand and project appropriate identities. Australia as a country, and the people that reside within it are diverse and constantly evolving. This makes it almost impossible to construct an identity that will encompass everyone and everything. So what is Australian anyways? And on that note, what would make Australian national cinema? This idea has me stuck and has left me with more questions than answers. I don’t feel as though I can expand on one question without some clarity on the other. Hopefully Australia will shine some light on this topic.

An Introduction

I am a foreigner in Australia. I am slowly becoming accustomed to the characteristics (or maybe stereotypes) that make up a part of the Australian national identity. Through this process I am also learning about the assumptions others hold about me as a Canadian. I think it is "sweet as" that a medium like film can be studied and explored internationally. Further, I find it incredibly interesting that parallels can be drawn between ideas, frustrations, policies, and industries despite drastic cultural, political, economic, and social differences across the map. Australian and Canadian film are very similar both in monetary resources and regulations that strive to construct essences of nationhood and patriotism while trying to break into the international market. I hope that in studying film through an Australian lens I will gain insight into some of the issues and motivations that are pertinent to the film and television industries in my native country. Exploring the concepts behind what makes certain cinema inherently national provides a strong foundation for the understanding of why certain industries are booming while others are struggling to stay alive and remain both profitable and culturally worthwhile.