Rabbit-Proof Fence (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Rabbit-Proof Fence

Theatrical release poster

Directed by

Phillip Noyce

Produced by

Phillip Noyce
Christine Olsen
John Winter

Screenplay by

Christine Olsen

Based on

Follow the Rabbit-Proof Fence

by Doris Pilkington

Starring

Everlyn Sampi
Kenneth Branagh
David Gulpilil

Music by
Cinematography

Peter Gabriel
Christopher Doyle

Edited by

Veronika Jenet
John Scott

Production
company

HanWay Films

Distributed by

Miramax Films

Release dates
Running time
Country
Language
Budget
Box office

4 February 2002
93 minutes[1]
Australia
Aboriginal
English
USD$6 million
USD$16.2 million

Rabbit-Proof Fence is a 2002 Australian drama film directed by Phillip Noyce based on the
book Follow the Rabbit-Proof Fence by Doris Pilkington Garimara. It is loosely based on a
true story concerning the author's mother Molly, as well as two other mixed-race Aboriginal
girls, who ran away from the Moore River Native Settlement, north of Perth, Western
Australia, to return to their Aboriginal families, after being placed there in 1931. The film
follows the Aboriginal girls as they walk for nine weeks along 1,500 miles (2,400 km) of the
Australian rabbit-proof fence to return to their community at Jigalong, while being pursued
by white law enforcement authorities and an Aboriginal tracker.[2]
The soundtrack to the film, called Long Walk Home: Music from the Rabbit-Proof Fence, is
by Peter Gabriel. British producer Jeremy Thomas, who has a long connection with Australia,
was executive producer of the film, selling it internationally through his sales arm, HanWay
Films.

Contents
[hide]

1 Plot
o 1.1 Epilogue

2 Cast

3 Production

4 Release

5 Controversy

6 Reception
o 6.1 Critical response
o 6.2 Box office
o 6.3 Accolades

6.3.1 Wins

6.3.2 Nominations

7 See also

8 References

9 External links

Plot[edit]
Set in 1931, two sisters, 14-year-old Molly and 8-year-old Daisy, and their 10-year-old cousin
Gracie live in the Western Australian town of Jigalong. The town lies along the northern part
of Australia's rabbit-proof fence, which runs for several thousand miles.
Thousands of miles away, the "protector" of Western Australian Aborigines, A. O. Neville
(called Mr. Devil by them), signs an order to relocate the three girls to his re-education camp.
The children are referred to by Neville as "half-castes", because they have one white and one
Aboriginal parent. Neville's reasoning is portrayed as: the Aboriginal peoples of Australia are
a danger to themselves, and the "half-castes" must be bred out of existence. He plans to place
the girls in a camp where they, along with all half-castes of that age range, will grow up. They
will then presumably become labourers and servants to white families, regarded as a "good"
situation for them in life. Eventually if they marry, it will be to white people and thus the
Aboriginal "blood" will diminish. As such, the three girls are forcibly taken from Jigalong by
a local constable, Riggs, and sent to camp at the Moore River Native Settlement, in the south.

Map of the rabbit-proof fence showing the trip from Moore River to Jigalong.
During their time at the camp, Molly notices a rain cloud in the sky and deduces that if she,
Gracie and Daisy were to escape and go back to Jigalong on foot, the rain will cover their
tracks, so nobody can track them. Gracie and Daisy decide to go along with Molly and the
three girls sneak off, without being noticed and run away. Moments after their escape, an
Aboriginal tracker, Moodoo, is called in to find them. However, the girls are well trained in
disguising their tracks. They evade Moodoo several times, receiving aid from strangers in the
harsh Australian country they travel. They eventually find the rabbit-proof fence, knowing
they can follow it north to Jigalong. Neville soon figures out their strategy and sends Moodoo
and Riggs after them. Although he is an experienced tracker, Moodoo is unable to find them.
Neville spreads word that Gracie's mother is waiting for her in the town of Wiluna. The
information finds its way to an Aboriginal traveller who "helps" the girls. He tells Gracie
about her mother and says they can get to Wiluna by train, causing her to break off from the
group and attempt to catch a train to Wiluna. Molly and Daisy soon walk after her and find
her at a train station. They are not reunited, however, as Riggs appears and Gracie is
recaptured. The betrayal is revealed by Riggs, who tells the man he will receive a shilling for
his help. Knowing they are powerless to aid her, Molly and Daisy continue on. In the end,
after a harsh long journey, the two sisters make it home and go into hiding in the desert with
their mother and grandmother. Meanwhile, Neville realizes he can no longer afford the search
for Molly and Daisy and decides to suspend the pursuit.

Epilogue[edit]
The film's epilogue shows recent footage of Molly and Daisy. Molly explains that Gracie has
died and she never returned to Jigalong. Molly also tells us of her own two daughters; she and
they were taken from Jigalong back to Moore River. She managed to escape with one
daughter, Annabelle, and once again, she walked the length of the fence back home.
However, when Annabelle was 3 years old, she was taken away once more, and Molly never
saw her again. In closing, Molly says that she and Daisy "... are never going back to that
place".

Cast[edit]

Everlyn Sampi as Molly Craig

Tianna Sansbury as Daisy Craig Kadibill

Laura Monaghan as Gracie Fields

David Gulpilil as Moodoo the Tracker

Jason Clarke as Constable Riggs

Kenneth Branagh as A. O. Neville

Ningali Lawford as Maude, Molly's mother

Myarn Lawford as Molly's grandmother

Deborah Mailman as Mavis

Garry McDonald as Mr Neal

Production[edit]
The film is adapted from the book Follow the Rabbit-Proof Fence, by Doris Pilkington
Garimara, which is the second book of her trilogy documenting her family's stories.[3]

Release[edit]
The film stirred debate over the historical accuracy of the claims of the Stolen Generation.[4][5]
[6]
Andrew Bolt,[7][8][9] a conservative journalist who has frequently attempted to downplay the
facts of the "Stolen Generation", criticised Neville's portrayal in the film, arguing that he was
inaccurately represented as paternalistic and racist, and the film's generally rosy portrayal of
the girls' situation prior to their removal from their parents.[7] Bolt questioned the artistic
portrayal in the film of the girls as prisoners in prison garb. He claimed they would have been
dressed in European clothes, as shown in contemporary photos, and says they were tracked
by concerned adults fearful for their welfare.[7] He claimed that when Molly Craig saw the
film, which portrayed her journey, she stated that it was "not my story". However, she
clarified that statement by saying her story continued into her adult life and was not nicely
resolved, as the film's ending made it appear.[10]

Controversy[edit]
The historian Keith Windschuttle states that the events that are portrayed appear to distort the
history of the treatment of aboriginal children generally. He states that the children in the film
were in fact uncared for, and having underage sex with whites. Windschuttle notes that
Neville's speech about extinguishing the aboriginal race is fabricated and has no historical
evidence.[11]
The film is largely based on a book by the protagonist's daughter which says that the girls left
voluntarily.[12][13] The film is widely shown in Australian schools. Conservative commentator

and radio broadcaster Andrew Bolt notes that there is little attempt to analyse the historical
basis for it.[14]
Windschuttle states that the forcible removal of Aboriginal children was quite rare in the
early twentieth century, and was almost always done for the benefit of the children.[15]

Reception[edit]
Critical response[edit]
The film received positive reviews from critics. Rotten Tomatoes gave it a rating of 88%
based on 138 reviews, with an average rating of 7.6 out of 10. The site's consensus states,
"Visually beautiful and well-acted, Rabbit-Proof Fence tells a compelling true-life story."[16]
On Metacritic the film has a score of 80 out of 100, indicating "generally favorable reviews".
[17]

David Stratton of SBS awarded the film four stars out of five, commenting that Rabbit-Proof
Fence is a "bold and timely film about the stolen generations."[18]

Box office[edit]
Rabbit-Proof Fence grossed US$3,756,418 in Australia, and $6,199,600 in the United States.
Worldwide, it grossed $16,217,411.[19][20]

Accolades[edit]
Selected accolades.
Wins[edit]
2001 Queensland Premier's Literary Awards.[21]

Film Scriptthe Pacific Film and Television Commission Award (Christine

Olsen)[22]

2002 Australian Film Institute Awards[23]

Best Film (Phillip Noyce, Christine Olsen, John Winter)

Best Original Music Score (Peter Gabriel)

Best Sound (Bronwyn Murphy, Craig Carter, Ricky Edwards, John Penders)

2002 Film Critics Circle of Australia Awards[24]

Best Director (Phillip Noyce)

Best ScreenplayAdapted (Christine Olsen)

2002 Inside Film Awards[25]

Best Actress (Everlyn Sampi)

Best Production Design (Roger Ford)

2002 New South Wales Premier's History Awards[26]

shortlisted for The Premier's Young People's History Prize (Christine Olsen
and Phillip Noyce)

2002 (USA) Aspen Filmfest[27]

Audience Award, Audience Favourite Feature[28] (Phillip Noyce)

2002 (Switzerland) Castellinaria International Festival of Young Cinema,[29]

ASPI Award (Phillip Noyce)

Golden Castle (Phillip Noyce)

2002 (USA) The 2002 Starz Encore Denver International Film Festival[30]

People's Choice Award: Best Feature-Length Fiction Film (Phillip Noyce)

2002 (South Africa) Durban International Film Festival[31]

Audience Award (Phillip Noyce)

2002 (UK) Edinburgh International Film Festival[32]

Audience Award (Phillip Noyce)

2002 (UK) Leeds International Film Festival[33]

Audience Award (Phillip Noyce)

2002 (USA) National Board of Review Awards 2002[34]

Freedom of Expression Award

Best Director (Phillip Noyce)

2002 (USA) San Francisco Film Critics Circle[35]

Special Citation (Phillip Noyce, also for The Quiet American (2002))

Audience Award: Best Foreign Film (Phillip Noyce)

2002 (Spain) Valladolid International Film Festival[36]

Audience Award: Feature Film (Phillip Noyce)

2003 (UK) London Critics Circle Film Awards (ALFS)[37]

Director of the Year (Phillip Noyce, also for The Quiet American (2002))

2003 (Brazil) So Paulo International Film Festival[38]

Audience Award: Best Foreign Film (Phillip Noyce)

Nominations[edit]
2002 (Australia)
Australian Film Institute Nominations[39]

Best Actor in a Supporting Role (David Gulpilil)

Best Cinematography (Christopher Doyle)

Best Costume Design (Roger Ford)

Best Direction (Phillip Noyce)

Best Editing (Veronika Jenet, John Scott)

Best Production Design (Roger Ford)

Best Screenplay Adapted from Another Source (Christine Olsen)

2002 (Australia)
Film Critics Circle of Australia Nominations[24] Australia

Best ActorFemale (Everlyn Sampi)

Best Cinematography (Christopher Doyle)

Best Film

Best Music Score (Peter Gabriel)

2002 (Poland)
Camerimage2002 International Film Festival of the Art of Cinematography[40]

2002 (USA)

Golden Frog (Christopher Doyle)

Golden Trailer Award Nominations[41]

Golden Trailer: Best Independent

2003 (USA)
Golden Globe Nominations[42]

Golden Globe: Best Original ScoreMotion Picture (Peter Gabriel)

2003 (USA)
Motion Picture Sound Editors Nomination[43]

Golden Reel Award: Best Sound Editing in Foreign Features (Juhn Penders,
Craig Carter, Steve Burgess, Ricky Edwards, Andrew Plain)

2003 (USA)
Political Film Society Awards[44]

Expos

Human Rights

2003 (USA)
Young Artist Awards[45]

Best Performance in a Feature FilmSupporting Young Actress (Everlyn

Sampi)

Best Performance in a Feature FilmYoung Actress Age Ten or Under

(Tianna Sansbury)

Rabbit-Proof Fence (2002)

Plot Summary
Showing all 6 plot summaries

Western Australia, 1931. Government policy includes taking half-caste children from their
Aboriginal mothers and sending them a thousand miles away to what amounts to indentured
servitude, "to save them from themselves." Molly, Daisy, and Grace (two sisters and a cousin who
are 14, 10, and 8) arrive at their Gulag and promptly escape, under Molly's lead. For days they
walk north, following a fence that keeps rabbits from settlements, eluding a native tracker and the
regional constabulary. Their pursuers take orders from the government's "chief protector of
Aborigines," A.O. Neville, blinded by Anglo-Christian certainty, evolutionary world view and
conventional wisdom. Can the girls survive?
- Written by <jhailey@hotmail.com>

It's 1931 in Western Australia. A.O. Neville is the government's official in dealing with
aborigine issues. Under the law, he has the right to seize "half-caste" children - those with both
aborigine and white parentage - to be housed on native settlements, where they are to be "reeducated" to western ways eventually to become servants for whites. The assertion is that this
measure will protect the aborigine population, as if they are left to intermingle within aborigine
communities, half-castes will turn the community white as the weaker aborigine gene will be bred
out within a few generations. It is under this law that Neville seizes, among others, sisters,
fourteen year old Molly Craig and eight year old Daisy Craig Kadibill, and their ten year old cousin
Gracie Fields. Ever since arriving at the Moore River Native Settlement camp, Molly plans to escape
with her sister and cousin, and walk all the way back to Jigalong to their real home, real family and
their traditional way of life. Molly uses the 3,000 kilometer long rabbit-proof fence which runs
adjacent to Jigalong to navigate her way home. But Neville and his trackers will not let a bunch of
half-caste girls circumvent the law and its associated grand plan.
- Written by Huggo

In 1931, with the Aborigine Act in Australia, the Chief Protector of Aborigines in the State
of Western Australia A.O. Neville had the power to relocate half-caste children from their families
to educational centers to give the culture of the white man. When the fourteen year-old aboriginal
girl Molly Craig is taken from her mother in Jigalong with her eight year-old sister Daisy Kadibill
and their ten year-old cousin Gracie Fields to the distant Moore River Native Center, they run away
trying to return to the tribe in the desert. They are chased by the skilled tracker Moodoo and the
police under the command of Neville, and have to survive to their long journey back home.
- Written by Claudio Carvalho, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Three little girls. Snatched from their mothers' arms. Spirited 1,500 miles away. Denied
their very identity. Forced to adapt to a strange new world. They will attempt the impossible. A
daring escape. A run from the authorities. An epic journey across an unforgiving landscape that
will test their very will to survive. Their only resources, tenacity, determination, ingenuity and each
other. Their one hope, find the rabbit-proof fence that might just guide them home. A true story.
- Written by Anonymous

This is the true story of Molly Craig, a young black Australian girl who leads her younger
sister and cousin in an escape from an official government camp, set up as part of an official
government policy to train them as domestic workers and integrate them into white society. With
grit and determination Molly guides the girls on an epic journey, one step ahead of the authorities,
over 1,500 miles of Australia's outback in search of the rabbit-proof fence that bisects the
continent and will lead them home. These three girls are part of what is referred to today as the
'Stolen Generations.'
- Written by Anonymous

In 1931, three aboriginal girls escape after being plucked from their homes to be trained
as domestic staff and set off on a trek across the Outback.

- Written by Anonymous

5 July 2010

Rabbit-Proof Fence (Australia 2002)

Figures in a landscape or how to represent the scale of the childrens task in Rabbit-Proof
Fence
These notes were produced for use with students aged 14-19 in 2004. This is a long entry
(over 6,000 words) and offers ideas about the film covering Key Concepts in Film and Media
Studies. All of the links have been checked to ensure that this is a useful resource for working
on an important Australian film.
The notes assume that you have seen the film, so there are spoilers throughout. If you dont
know the film but are thinking about using it here is a brief outline:
In the 1930s in Western Australia the state government has a policy of removing mixed race
girls from aboriginal communities and educating them separately, hoping to control the extent
of racial mixing in future generations. Three young girls are taken from their mothers and
placed in a camp a thousand miles away. They escape and attempt to make the journey home
on foot.
. . . and here is the opening sequence in the film:
Introduction
Rabbit-Proof Fence is a useful film text to study for the following reasons.

As a narrative, the film appears to be very simple in terms of structure. Three girls are
taken to a settlement over 1,000 miles away. They escape and attempt to walk home
across very difficult terrain. There are relatively few of the dramatic incidents that
might be expected in a mainstream narrative how does the film retain audience
attention?

In terms of representation as a key concept, the film details the attempts to eradicate a
sense of cultural identity in Australian aboriginal communities and offers a
representation of Anglo-Australian identity in the 1930s.

A distinct aesthetic is used in terms of image and sound in order to convey the
importance of environment in the narrative.

In industrial terms, the film represents the return of an Australian auteur filmmaker
after several years away making mainstream Hollywood films.

In terms of audiences, the film has been particularly successful as a specialised film
or art film with audiences in the UK.

The film is part of a wider cultural transformation in Australia in which hidden or

invisible histories of the treatment of Aboriginals have recently emerged.

The screenplay was developed by a documentary filmmaker, Christine Olsen, who based the
work on a book published in 1996 by Doris Pilkington, the daughter of the real Molly Craig.
The process of casting the young actors and preparing them for the shoot is presented on the
DVD copy of the film. Ironically, in working closely with young Aboriginal actors outside
their home environment, director Philip Noyce was perhaps echoing some of the actions of
the authorities in the film.
The narrative structure
The film has a clear structure with events organised in chronological order, but sometimes
moving between locations. The DVD copy of the film is helpful in dividing the story into 16
chapters:
1. Prologue
2. The Chief Prosecutor Nevilles office in Perth.
3. Stolen the girls are captured in Jigalong.
4. Slide show Neville gives a lecture in Perth.
5. Moore River the girls reception and the meeting with Neville.
6. The Escape Molly leads the other girls.
7. Tracker Moodoo is sent after the girls.

8. River chase Molly uses the river to cover her tracks.

9. Farmhouse the girls get food.
10. Ambush Neville plans to catch the girls by the fence.
11. Mavis a maid in a farmhouse helps the girls.
12. Lost tracks again the girls evade the tracker.
13. Gracies recapture Gracie goes to the railway station.
14. Lost the two girls go through the desert
15. Coming Home Constable Riggs is frightened away by Mother and Grandmother and the
girls rejoin their family.
16. Epilogue
Each of these chapters is about 5-6 minutes long about the right length to study in detail.
All the chapters give us information about the characters and the story, but some are
important for specific reasons. The Prologue and the Epilogue are at either end of the story
and they tell us what has happened before the main story begins and then what happens after
the main story ends. The use of this literary or theatrical device perhaps indicates the
historical importance of the story it creates for the audience a sense that it is important to
locate the story in Australian social history and to consider its implications in a contemporary
Australian context.
But how do we judge when the story begins? Many film stories start with a dramatic event
that causes an immediate conflict a threat, a loss perhaps. Does our story really begin with
the capture of the girls or does it start when Neville first hears about the girls? The beginning
of a film helps to set up our expectations of what will happen later on. How a film starts is
very important. Later on, there are moments in the story when a character might make a
decision which will change the pattern of events it will be a turning point in the story.
Some of these moments in Rabbit-Proof Fence are easy to spot:

when Molly decides to escape from Moore River;

when the farmers wife gives them food rather than reporting them;

when Gracie decides to go to the station and Molly decides to keep going.

Sometimes there are moments in the story when it is easy to miss the importance of a small
action. For instance, the tracker Moodoo is very experienced and very skilled, but he seems to
be fooled by a teenage girl. Is he really unable to track the girls or is he consciously trying to
help them escape? We see him several times during the chase what kinds of clues do we get
about his behaviour? Remember, he has a daughter in Moore River and he is being employed
against his will.

A narrative analysis of the film is likely to consider the beginning or the end of the story
(when several questions from the beginning are usually answered) or any one of the turning
points. Such an analysis will need to consider camerawork, mise en scne, music etc. as well
as the sequence of events and the dialogue between characters.
An example of a close reading of a scene
Here is the beginnings of an analysis of the scene (Chapter 4 on the DVD) where Mr Neville
explains his ideas to a group of women in Perth. This scene is important not because it
moves the story forward, but because it gives the audience important information that will
help us to understand Neville and his actions.
The sequence begins in Chapter 4, immediately after the children have been taken and we
have the distressing shot of the Grandmother beating a rock against her head. By cutting to
Nevilles lecture at this point, the director is linking together the Grandmothers despair and
emotional behaviour with Nevilles seemingly educated and rational explanation of his
policy.
In much of the scene, the camera looks up at Neville giving him authority. He literally walks
into the light and speaks very clearly in a measured tone. His ideas, which in 2004 we now
find repellent, are out in the open and official policy they do not lurk behind closed doors.
The impact of the speech is all the greater because the actor, Kenneth Branagh, is a famous
Shakespearian actor of great reputation and status.
The lecture is presented as scientific, using technology and official photographs. The
audience is a group of middle class women. They sit in their hats and best clothes, sipping
tea. It is a decorous and respectful audience for Nevilles ideas. The setting also suggests the
normality of Nevilles approach.
Why is the audience all women? Two possible reasons are (i) the assumption that women will
most clearly understand the issues related to children and family and the threat to society of a
large mixed race community, and (ii) that middle-class women in the 1930s are most likely to
be associated with the charities for education and welfare that Neville needs to support
settlements like Moore River.
The language that Neville uses is important, with its discussion of quadroons and
octoroons etc. During the lecture he puts himself in the picture when he uses the pointer to
trace the family development through the generations on screen. Neville is completely
implicated in this venture of breeding out the Aboriginal blood in the children, but he
presents this as noble work which is designed to help the Aboriginal peoples.
With a scene like this, it is worth considering how else the filmmakers could have given us
the same information perhaps in a straight discussion between Neville and one other
person, perhaps a series of short scenes in which we see the work of his department. The
choice of the lecture format is important. Several commentators have pointed out that in
1931, similar ideas about racial purity were being shouted out by the Nazi Party in Germany
and across the world the idea of breeding better babies was being discussed. This was the
now discredited science of eugenics which some people fear is coming back with genetic
engineering. The filmmakers in Rabbit-Proof Fence are careful not to make links with the
Nazis and their actions towards Jewish people in Germany.

This short scene lasts only two minutes but it has an impact. Notice how when the scene ends
with Neville saying . . . in spite of himself, the native must be helped, the next shot is a
close-up of Molly in the train taking the girls to Moore River.
Representation
The arrival of the girls at Moore River starts a sequence in the film that helps to construct the
conflict over cultural identity that gives the film its narrative drive. At this point, the
filmmakers must show the ways in which Neville and his staff attempt to suppress the sense
of Aboriginal identity and replace it with that of white Australia. What is most interesting
here is the way in which filmic codes (e.g. of camera, editing and music) are utilised.

The three girls are bewildered by the formality of the Moore River Settlement
The timing of the girls arrival means that it is night in Moore River. In a functional or
realist sense this means that the children will feel more bewildered because they are sleepy
and confused and also because the darkness means that they cannot see much detail of the
place to which they have been brought. This narrative information helps us to understand
how the children feel. But it is the expressionism of the camerawork that gives us a sense of
foreboding about what is to happen. The scene opens in very long shot but then cuts to a
closer shot/reverse shot of the girls being studied by the matron/sister through the gaps in the
sides of the truck. As the girls get off the truck we are offered various subjective shots i.e.
shots in which the camera mimics the viewpoint of the children. The camera tracks with the
children as they move towards the dormitory hut, following the matron shown in a low angle
shot (i.e. as the small child looking up). When the door opens the camera swings/pans as
the children look round in the darkened room, lit only by the bobbing lamp carried by the
matron. The rows of girls sleeping in cots must be highly disturbing for the three newcomers.
The style of this opening is reminiscent of horror films, especially those involving children,
and also of expressionist dramas of the 1940s such as David Leans adaptation of Great
Expectations, which begins with a small boy in a cemetery frightened by the looming figure
of the convict. We might expect in a horror film to have unsettling music as an

accompaniment to such camerawork. Such music is present in Rabbit-Proof Fence, but it is

very carefully mixed and combined with other sounds so that although it does work to
disturb, it is not as noticeable or obvious as in a genre horror film (i.e. a film which is
primarily concerned with shocks/frights). The music in this scene is mainly a sequence of
synthesised sounds, stretched out chords, mostly ascending but not reaching a climax. There
is no tune or melody but there is a resemblance to choral sounds like a choir of ancestral
voices. There are also some thuds and electronic vibrations or washes of sound again
possibly representative of Aboriginal instruments such as a didgeridoo.
These electronic sounds are mixed in such a way that they do not dominate the realist sound
effects of the truck, the childrens footsteps, the key in the lock etc. We also quite clearly hear
the comforting words of the matron. In the sequence, the matron is an ironic figure
dressed in white and with a lamp to light the way, she is in one sense a symbol of purity and
goodness. But the other signs point to her duplicity. This is perhaps the most disturbing
aspect of these scenes. The matron is just one of the characters who are doing their jobs,
believing that what they are doing is right and proper.
It is worth considering just how shocking the dormitory must be to girls who have lived in
small family groups in the bush. Everything about the settlement is alien and in the scenes
that follow the girls will be systematically stripped of their sense of identity. In films that deal
with a sense of identity, especially that fragile sense of identity that we all feel as teenagers,
the focus is often on:

the way we speak;

the way we dress;

what we eat;

music, dance etc. the way we express our emotions.

Notice how each of these is addressed in the other scenes that follow in this sequence. In the
morning, the three girls are reluctant to leave the hut. The settlement is first shown in long
shot, low angle with a slight distortion. We then cut sharply to the girls in bed together,
clutching each other tightly. When they are finally cajoled into breakfast, everything is
wrong. They dont know the rules about standing for grace and the filmmakers exploit this
visually. They are the only ones who sit when all the other girls are standing.
The food is unfamiliar and they dont want to eat. They might take comfort in talking to each
other, but are told to speak only English. The control over language is a classic strategy for
colonisers (i.e. white Australians) who seek to erase the identity of colonised peoples.
Notice that the first person in authority to tell them to speak English is the Aboriginal
overseer by persuading this man to act in this way, the colonisers achieve a double success.
He is humiliated by betraying his own people (although he may belong to a different
Aboriginal cultural group) and the girls are cowed by someone they feel they should respect.
This is followed up by the matron who tells them not to use jabber. This is another way to
denigrate local culture the word jabber is an English word that means garbled speech. It
comes from the sound of very fast speech. To say that someone who speaks another language

is jabbering is insulting because it doesnt recognise the way in which the other language
works and effectively sees the other language as meaningless and worthless.
Along with the new food and new speech comes washing and new clothes symbolically
cleansing the girls of their outward display of difference. Now they will look like all the
other girls stripped of their original identity. It is worth noting at this point that by putting
the girls into the settlement, the Western Australian authorities are acting like many similar
colonising powers before them. In Hollywood films, audiences became used to both the
treatment of Native Americans, herded into reservations and African-Americans shown in
slave quarters in historical narratives.

Mr Neville (Kenneth Branagh) inspects Molly (Everlyn Sampi) to see if she is fair enough
for adoption.
There are two further incidents in this sequence which refer to the process of transforming
identity. The first is the inspection by Mr Neville. His objective is to find the girls who are
fair enough to be assimilated into white society who will marry whites and have children
for white Australia. Nina, the dormitory monitor tells Molly that the fair ones are cleverer
than us. She has already been brainwashed but Molly is still resistant. When her name is
read out, she doesnt move. In a very clever juxtaposition, this scene opens with the children
singing Swanee River, which Nina says is Mr Devils favourite song. What is important
here is that the song is a very well-known example of a minstrel song. Minstrelsy
developed in the American South in the early 19th century. White men dressed as AfricanAmericans, blacking up their faces and performing in caricature of slaves on a plantation
as if entertaining the slave owners. These performers created stereotypes such as the lazy,
childlike slave of low intelligence but great comic potential and the large Mammy character.
Minstrel shows were immensely popular and after the Civil War, black Americans started to
play the roles themselves. Eventually the minstrel stereotypes appeared in Hollywood films
and on radio and later television. They were popular too in Britain and the Black and White
Minstrel Show (white singers blacking up) was the centre of BBCs early evening Saturday
family schedule until the 1970s when the impact of the Civil Rights movement in the United

States finally stopped these racist representations. (The issue of minstrelsy is at the centre of
African-American director Spike Lees biting satire Bamboozled (US 2000).) Again we
should emphasise that Neville is represented as a man who believes he is doing good. In
1931, a song which happily celebrates a yearning to return to the old plantation was
accepted without a second thought, but watching these scenes in 2004, the inference is clear.
The final scenes in the Moore River sequence feature Olive, the girl who has run away to be
with her boyfriend. She is found and returned by the tracker, Moodoo, who will later become
crucial to the narrative. Her punishment is to be locked in the shed, beaten and then to have
her long hair cut off. Again this is a cruel and degrading punishment for a young woman.
Solitary confinement in a small enclosed space is a classic method of punishing prisoners.
We have seen it many times in crime films and it currently appears in a Stella Artois beer
advert played for laughs in cinemas. The heat and the loneliness are designed to break the
will of the prisoner. It is combined with the hair cutting to produce further humiliation. The
man in charge suggests that with short hair, Olive will be less attractive to boys. For a young
woman with few possessions, her long hair is a valuable asset. In many societies, for a
woman to lose her hair is to be shamed. For example, in France after the Second World War,
women who had collaborated or fraternised with German soldiers had their heads shaved
so that their shame would visible to everyone in their neighbourhood. In the settlement, Olive
will suffer a similar kind of shame.
All of these events (and the experience of the motherless babies in Moore River) together
convince Molly that she must escape.
Narrative and mise en scne
The Moore River sequence is distinctive in the way in which camera, sound and editing
combine to portray the bewilderment of the girls and the process of transforming their
identity. Once they escape, the narrative moves forward to emphasise the long journey with
the threat of discovery. Inevitably, we are now expecting shots of the desert and the big skies
especially as the escape is pre-figured by Mollys memory of being with her mother when
the bird of prey (a wedge-tailed eagle) is identified as a watching spirit which will take care
of the girls.
The long shots of landscapes are well captured in the widescreen format. The film is shot in a
ratio (width to height) of 2.35:1. This is known in the film industry as Scope, a reference to
CinemaScope, the first universally recognised widescreen format which appeared in 1953 as
part of Hollywoods response to television. Scope is very distinctive because it is so long and
thin one film director in the 1950s thought it suitable only for snakes and funerals. If you
watch films on television, they rarely show the correct format, instead panning and scanning
across the image or simply chopping off the sides to fit it into the television screen shape. If
you are able to go to the cinema or watch the DVD you can see the full frame.
Because they know most people will watch a film on television, many directors dont choose
Scope. But those who do try to make use of the width. A good example is the composition in
which we see Molly signalling to two Aboriginal men who are carrying a carcass. The
framing allows us to see both Molly and the men and also to register how much distance
there is between them. (Molly is wary of any contact.) You might argue that the landscape on
either side of the frame could be lost (i.e. the image fitted in to a narrower conventionally
shaped screen format) without losing any of this meaning. This is certainly the case with this

example and yet the landscape is important. At this point we are less than half way through
the narrative. Much of what follows will be the girls against the natural environment. Apart
from moments of potential crisis when they come across settlements or their pursuers, the
girls are shown against the landscape. The filmmakers must find ways to keep us interested.
The use of Scope is in itself a sign that this is a film about an epic struggle against the
environment and therefore we should see the landscape in all its vastness, and in particular
the rabbit-proof fence snaking through it. (But we should also note that many directors of
quite intimate stories about people in rooms have also chosen Scope because it enables
them to emphasise relationships between people and objects in confined spaces.)
The other factors in these landscape shots are colour, camera movement, effects and music.
The cinematographer Chris Doyle is particularly well-known for his use of colour and visual
effects, but mostly for his presentation of urban environments. Here he is quite restrained
until the final part of the journey, including the sequence in which the girls collapse in the
desert (Chapter 14 on the DVD). Doyle uses effects to bleach out parts of the background to
represent the blinding glare of the sun. Low and high angles and the superimposition of
different shots of the two girls creates a sense of confusion.
The music during these scenes is just as important in creating an atmosphere as it is in the
Moore River scenes. Again, Peter Gabriel uses samples of natural sounds and Aboriginal
musical instruments to create a synthesised score. Gabriels reputation as a promoter of
World Music has meant that the score has been both widely praised and also condemned as
inauthentic. What do you think?
Contextual Background
Australia and its indigenous peoples
Just as in the Americas, European explorers who discovered Australia and the other islands
of the South Pacific in the 17th Century encountered people who had already lived there for
thousands of years. In Australia, the British were the first to build significant settlements in
Eastern Australia following the voyage of James Cook in 1770. British settlement drew upon
the earlier experiences of the Spanish and Portuguese in Central and South America and the
Spanish, British and French in North America.
These experiences were different, especially in the degree of interaction and conflict
between the invading Europeans and what were then called the native peoples (these
peoples were also given more emotionally charged names such as savages etc.). In every
case, the native populations were reduced by slaughter at the hands of settlers with better
weaponry, diseases brought from Europe and malnutrition as Europeans destroyed the local
food culture, often based on hunting.
In North America, the British and French tended to keep a distance from native peoples, but
in Latin America, the Spanish did mix more freely and intermarried more frequently. The
result in many countries is a much more mixed population today. Compare Canada and
Mexico. In Canada, a country of 31 million people, nearly 1 million are classed as
Aboriginal and of these, 290,000 are classed as mtis or of mixed race. In Mexico, a country

of 100 million, the largest group of people (60%) are mestizos or mixed race. A further 30%
are Amerindian or indigenous peoples. Only 9% are European or White.
Australia is much more like Canada in terms of population. In 2001 Australia had 410,000
people who were classified as indigenous peoples, out of a total population of 19 million.
As in Canada, Aboriginal peoples make up a much bigger proportion of the (sparse)
populations of the more remote outback areas. These are in Northern and Western Australia.
Most of the Australian population that developed from immigration lives on the coasts of
Southern and Eastern Australia. The Australian government department dealing with
indigenous peoples was the Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islander Commission (ATSIC) up
to 2005. It was replaced by The National Congress of Australias First Peoples
(http://www.hreoc.gov.au/social_justice/repbody/index.html) in May 2010. The Torres Strait
is the area between Northern Australia and Papua New Guinea.
What does Aboriginal mean?
Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary defines aboriginal as:
The original or native inhabitants of a country.
(From the Latin abo from and origo beginning)
The term itself is thus strictly descriptive. It has, however, been shortened to make a term of
abuse, as in abo and it is misleading in suggesting that there is a single group of Aboriginals.
In Australia (as in Canada and the United States) there are many different aboriginal groups
with different languages and cultures, each of which might describe itself as a nation. This
is why these notes have referred to aboriginal peoples in the plural.
Q. What difference do you think it would make if Australians adopted the American way of
referring to indigenous peoples and called them Native Australians?
Miscegenation racial mixing
Sexual relationships between European explorers/settlers and indigenous peoples were an
inevitable part of contact between the two groups from the first landings of the Europeans. It
was especially likely in Australia, where many European men in the outback were unlikely to
be able to find a European woman as a partner.
European settlement forced indigenous peoples into a colonial relationship. This meant that
they were treated not as citizens, but more as the property or responsibility of the colonial
government (i.e. in Britain or its representatives in Australia). Throughout the British
Empire which developed from the 17th century onwards, the colonial governments treated
indigenous peoples as if they were inferior to Europeans. They were referred to as
heathens or savages and were treated as if they were children. Their education was often
left to Christian missionaries. The colonialists were terrified that interbreeding with

indigenous peoples would lead to a degeneration of white society. A whole literature and
language relating to racial mixing developed which has had consequences for the status of
mixed race people ever since. Mr Nevilles lecture to the women in Rabbit-Proof Fence is
typical of the widespread beliefs in Britain and Australia in the 1930s.
Britain and Australian government
Australia became an independent country the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901. (See
the timeline on http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/timeline.asp) Up until then, the country was
a collection of separate colonies, such as New South Wales or Western Australia. Modern
Australia is a federal state in which the individual states have control over many aspects of
their affairs. Although ATSIC was a federal body, the treatment of aboriginal peoples has
historically been different in each state. Rabbit-Proof Fence takes place in the state of
Western Australia. You can find out about WA policy towards indigenous peoples on
http://www.slwa.wa.gov.au/federation/sec/117_race.htm
The rabbit-proof fence history and metaphor
The rabbit-proof fence was a historical fact extraordinary as it may seem. A British settler,
Thomas Austin, brought 24 wild rabbits over from the UK in 1859, hoping to develop a
breeding stock for food (the domestic UK rabbit was not hardy enough to survive). Some of
them escaped and with few natural predators, a rabbit population explosion started. By the
end of the century their numbers were in the hundreds of millions. The mad idea of fencing
off part of a continent to protect the grazing land was suggested in a Royal Commission of
1901 and by 1907 the fence was in place. Whether it had any effect in keeping out the rabbits
from Western Australia is debatable.
The fence itself is an interesting metaphor for events in Australian history. A concrete
reminder of how the British invaded Australia, bringing with them an alien culture, the fence
also ironically acts as a means of keeping the girls connected to their family home in
Jigalong. What was created by the white settlers becomes an integral part of the Aboriginal
culture. (What isnt so clear is what the Aboriginal peoples thought about the influx of rabbits
were they a useful food source or did they drive out native species?)
Rabbit-Proof Fence and the Australian media
Given the context outlined above, it isnt surprising perhaps that Rabbit-Proof Fence proved a
controversial film release in Australia. The film presents itself as a true story, based on the
book by Dorothy Pilkington, which in turn is based upon detailed research and interviews
with two of the girls who are seen as they are today in the Epilogue section. The history of
what happened to mixed race Aboriginal children was finally brought out into the open in
1997 with the publication of an Australian Government report entitled Bringing Them
Home (detailed education materials on the report and the Rabbit-Proof Fence book are

available from the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission see
Refs).
The report introduced the concept of the Stolen Generations and uncovered the
maltreatment of thousands of mixed race children. It wasnt accepted by everyone, however
and some academics and journalists argued that the historical evidence was flawed and that
the claims were exaggerated. These same columnists attacked the Rabbit-Proof Fence film
when it was released. (See Windschuttle, 2003 and Howson and Moore, 2002 in Refs.)
One of the problems for any filmmaker approaching a subject like that of the historical
journey made by the three girls in 1931 is that the screen representation can never be an exact
reconstruction of the event. Film and media studies have developed precisely to allow us to
develop the critical skills with which to deconstruct any text and expose the ways in which
it has been constructed. However, this is just the first problem. When the filmmaker has
decided on an appropriate means of constructing representations of the girls in the
environment of Jigalong and Moore River, the next stage is to consider the shaping of the
story. In order to create an entertaining feature film, some events will be left out and others
perhaps manipulated to make a more dramatic story. Most audiences are aware of the need to
do this, but they will trust a filmmaker that the based on a true story tag will mean that the
basis for the story and the main themes and ideas are represented as faithfully as possible.
History, especially when it has been recently uncovered or re-written will always be
controversial. Opponents of the new history (and therefore defenders of the old history) will
seize upon on any minor changes to the facts of the story and turn this into a refutation of the
whole set of events. Tony Hughes-Daeth (2002) in a detailed discussion of the various
elements of the Rabbit-Proof Fence story, suggests that what Australia has been experiencing
is something similar to the debate about the Holocaust in Nazi Germany and to the Truth and
Reconciliation Process in South Africa Australia has been debating how to create a formal
process which will allow the history of the Stolen Generations to be recorded. HughesDaeth argues that the film of Rabbit-Proof Fence attempts to universalise the story, to make
it available to an international audience. This he argues is achieved by concentrating on just
the story of the three girls (i.e. little is said about what happens to the other inmates of Moore
River) and presenting their story less through dialogue and more through the strong visuals
and music. In this respect, he argues that the film model for the approach in Rabbit-Proof
Fence is Spielbergs Schindlers List (US 1993), another based on real events story. The
novel Schindlers Ark was written by another Australian, Thomas Keneally and told the story
of the businessman who saved Jews from the gas chambers of Auschwitz.
Rabbit-Proof Fence was successful outside Australia, suggesting that the universalising of
the story worked. It is interesting to note that the controversy within Australia also emerged
internationally. Soon after the films release bulletin boards around the world carried
comments on the film from doubters and from Australians (including Aboriginal Australians)
defending its arguments. The nature of internet postings means that many of these have since

been deleted, but the flavour of some of the posts can be seen in these User Comments from
the Internet Movie Database (uk.imdb.com):
Bernie-56, Melbourne
Date: 5 July 2003
Summary: A work of fiction nothing more
Enjoy the film for its cinematic qualities, but always remember that this is pure fiction. The
events depicted never happened. The clever little historical note at the end is nice touch to
make audiences think the events depicted actually happened. The heroine of the film was
*not* stolen, but as official files reveal removed only after fears were raised for her safety
and after a nod of approval from her stepfather. The so-called Stolen Generations is an
enduring myth of the Australian scene. The facts are that despite enormous efforts not one
single stolen Aborigine has been found, let alone a dozen or generations. However, its a
heart-rending tale that makes for good press and a good screenplay.
CalebCT, Canada
Date: 25 May 2003
Summary: 8/10
Good film about governmental adopting of half-caste children in the hopes of civilizing
them is worth checking out to remind oneself that you dont have to look far to see painful
truths about any country, even one as seemingly sublime as Australia.
Box Office
IMDB lists Rabbit-Proof Fence as having a production budget of US$6 million. Produced
wholly in Australia with a significant investment of public funds, the box office gross in
Australia was over US$3.75 million after a long run of some 18 weeks. This compares
favourably with grosses for Hollywood films in Australia and it was the second best
performance by an Australian film in its domestic market in 2002.
Abroad, the film was treated much more like an art film, but in some of the largest markets
the film did well; US$6.1 million in North America, 1.4 million in the UK and Euro1.3
million in Germany. www.boxofficemojo.com suggests a total worldwide box office of
US$16 million.
Filmmakers

Although Rabbit-Proof Fence is wholly Australian in terms of production finance, the

creative input into the film reveals the extent to which Australian talent is an integral part of
the international film industry.
The producer-director of the film has an interesting background, especially in terms of the
political commitment which several commentators have detected in his approach to the
events of 1931. Philip Noyce (born 1950) began as a documentary filmmaker, producing his
first feature Backroads in 1977 an existential road movie with references to racism in the
Australian outback. (It was this film that alerted writer Christine Olsen to the possibility that
Noyce might be the director to approach with the Rabbit-Proof Fence script.) In 1978 he
made one of the most celebrated films of the Australian New Wave of the 1970s. Newsfront
told the story of two newsreel photographers in the Australia of the 1950s, a crucial period in
the postwar development of the young country, experiencing immigration and welcoming
the world to the Melbourne Olympics of 1956.
After two less well-received features in the 1980s, Noyce moved to Hollywood by means of
an Australian/US co-production, directing another Australian emigre, Nicole Kidman, in the
thriller Dead Calm (1989). This was followed by a series of big budget thrillers, including the
Tom Clancy films with Harrison Ford as Jack Ryan in Patriot Games (1992) and Clear and
Present Danger (1994), which seemed to imply that Noyce had lost any political/social edge
in favour of Hollywood technical proficiency.
But in 2002 Noyce re-emerged with two controversial films, Rabbit-Proof Fence and an
adaptation of Graham Greenes The Quiet American with Michael Caine. This latter film was
very critical of American interference in South East Asia and Miramax found it difficult to
release in the post 9/11 climate.
Cinematographer Christopher Doyle (born 1952) has a very interesting background. Although
Australian by birth, he went to university in the United States and travelled extensively in
Asia. His film career began in Hong Kong and Taiwan and he is probably best known for his
work with the Hong Kong director Wong Kar-Wai, for whom he produced very striking
images of urban locations. He has also worked with the Chinese director Zhang Yimou,
someone else with an international reputation for strong visual styles and on productions and
with Hollywood independent, Gus Van Sant on his (visually unusual) remake of
Hitchcocks Psycho.
The music for the film was composed by Peter Gabriel, the British rock musician who over
the last twenty years has been associated with showcasing world music on the international
stage, through both recording artists on his own label and organising tours and festivals
featuring musicians and performers from Africa and Asia in particular.
The actors in the film are mostly unknown outside Australia and much focus has been on
Noyces work with the girls selected to play the central characters. (The UK DVD release
includes a documentary showing how the girls were selected through auditions across

Australia.) The exceptions in the cast are Kenneth Branagh, the British actormanager/director who has recently turned to smaller, character, roles after a period in the
early 1990s of high profile actor-director roles and David Gulpilil, who in the 1970s and
1980s played aboriginal characters in several important films, including Walkabout (UK
1971) and The Last Wave (Australia 1977), as well as the international comedy hit Crocodile
Dundee (Australia 1986).
These details about the creative input into the film are useful in demonstrating that although
Rabbit-Proof Fence is essentially a small, Australian film, it is also the product of
experienced filmmakers, well aware of how to interest international audiences.
References and web resources
Doris Pilkington (Nugi Garimara) (2002) Rabbit-Proof Fence, New York: Hyperion/Miramax
Books
Study Guides:
http://www.theeducationshop.com.au/shop/product.asp?pID=838 (electronic download costs
Aus$4.95)
http://www.humanrights.gov.au/education/bringing_them_home/index.html
http://www.eniar.org/rabbit.html fascinating European site studying Indigenous
Australians
Articles
Peter Howson and Des Moore (2002) A rabbit-proof fence full of holes? at
http://www.ipe.net.au/RPFence.html
Tony Hughes Daeth (2002) Which Rabbit-Proof Fence? Empathy, Assimilation, Hollywood
at http://www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/AHR/archive/Issue-September-2002/hughesdaeth.html
Keith Windschuttle (2003) Rabbit-proof fence: a true story? at
http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/21/mar03/keithw.htm
http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/feature/11
http://www.thingsmagazine.net/text/t14/rabbits.htm
http://www.iofilm.co.uk/feats/interviews/r/rabbit_proof_fence_2002.shtml
Reviews

http://archive.sensesofcinema.com/contents/01/19/rabbit.html (this site is being reconstructed, so this may move)

Associated films
There are several other films featuring the Indigenous communities of Australia discussed on
this website, including several films made by Indigenous filmmakers. In addition, our sister
site The Global Film Book Blog refers to films which are discussed in the Global Film Book
in a section dealing with Indigenous films. Here are some titles to explore: