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.