Just what the topic reads, why does captain stanley's servant leave behind his boots as he is leaving the property...
I was a professional twice over - an analyst and a therapist. The world's first analrapist
Because he only wore shoes on sufferance. It wasn't something he chose to do. But a requirement as part of the job. They were not his shoes. He didn't want them. This same scene was played at in similar fashion in Quigley Down Under.
share[deleted]
http://nymag.com/health/features/46213/
shareYou realize that whole magazine article about 'how shoes are bad' - and I'm not disagreeing with that in itself - was basically a lengthy advertisement for some 'new type of shoe' that they've come up with, right?
Regarding the aboriginal guy taking off his shoes in the film, I thought that was his way of indicating he thought that the Stanleys were done for because the Burns gang were coming....hence he wouldn't need his shoes for his job any more. Although yes, he obviously only wore them on sufferance and whilst at work but presumably as Cpt. Stanley was surprised to see them left in the front garden, he'd been putting them away somewhere else when he wasn't at their house.
As for the comment: "furthermore, this scene was at the pivotal point where Stanley has realized his absolute failure to tame Australia to his English sensibilities." I wouldn't disagree with that generally, but I'm still uncomfortable about the idea of lumping lawless westernized-society Australia (as portrayed by the gang of rapacious Irish bandits and yet also those hideous, bloodthirsty flyblown townspeople) together with the idea of 'Australia' in terms of the people who lived there before British colonization. I think that's two completely different things you're talking about, the guy who worked for the Stanleys being representative only of the latter.
You realize that whole magazine article about 'how shoes are bad' - and I'm not disagreeing with that in itself - was basically a lengthy advertisement for some 'new type of shoe' that they've come up with, right?Are you kidding, doesn`t the article say that barefoot is better than shoes, eventhough it mentions shoes that are a comprimise beteween barefoot and traditional shoes? share
I just assumed he preferred being bare foot but Stanley insisted he wear shoes for the job. The whole thing about being proper, which, they seemed to want and like.
shareNot sure if this was suggested, but they didn't belong to him and I believe he thought his master was going to be killed. He was assuming he was going back to a tribal life.
Amy: I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
WOW, you guys are missing a major point of the film. As pointed out earlier, the Original people were made to wear shoes as part of indoctrination and to force them into being "civilized."
Then again, if you are not at least slightly familiar with the history of Colonial Australia you would miss a lot.
I find the parallels between the "taming" of Oz to the saga of American West pretty stunning.
Yes, I think that's what I got too.
In Quigley Down Under, the main bad guy is killed and all his aboriginal servants strip off their white man's attire and walk off into the outback.
My guess is that this servant resided at the house - a full time beck-and-call servant; perhaps in a shed out back - or maybe a small room in the back of the house.
So, leaving his shoes at the gate - I think - was symbolic.
His deep aboriginal spiritual atunement gave him insight; he saw that death was coming; this time was over and it was time for him to return to his home in the outback.
This was not his fight; simply nothing else to be done.
Also, it "may" be that he was more slave than servant - at least in the circumstances of life, the way it was back then for aboriginal people.
* * * * * * * *
[deleted]