MovieChat Forums > Ten Canoes (2006) Discussion > Aborigional representation

Aborigional representation


I am currently studying this film for my A-level Media Studies critical research paper. I have decided to specifically investigate the representation of Aborigional peoples in both Rabbit Proof Fence (2002) and Ten Canoes. I wonder if anyone could please post some opinions on the comparison of the representations and the historic accuracy. This also includes the way in which the aborigional peoples are treated by the white australians. I would really appreciate this.

reply

And also see Walkabout.

reply

Walkabout was lame beyond belief - English actors, English director, English composer, weird direction (an obsession with ladies' bits), badly dubbed dialogue - it's a mess. But interesting, because it highlights just how alien the Australian country and its people were perceived to be. There is absolutely no connection between David Gulpilil and the land with anything else in the film. The music sounds like it is lifted from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. Made one year earlier, A Man Called Horse showed how it should have been done.

I strongly urge you to have a look at The Tracker, released the same year as R-P F (2002). In this film Gulpilil shows the depth and subtlety of his acting abilities. And you will get a real taste for how Aboriginal people were perceived.

good luck

reply

Walkabout, a British film, was not supposed to be about Aboriginals per se, but about two young children in an environment completely foreign to them. Despite Gulpilil's presence, the core issues were elsewhere and thus do little to fulfill the original poster's query.

'The Chant of Jimmy Blacksmith' or 'The fringe dwellers' fits the bill far better, though again it's white perceptions and guilt at work showcasing the negative aspects of Anglo-Australian influence on Aboriginal life, which while true does Aboriginals a disservice by showcasing them as nothing more than a down trodden people whose lives have been irreversibly blighted by the experience. They are much more than that and are making great strides, in difficult circumstances, to re-establish their sense of identity both within the 21st century culture that surrounds them and the 60,000 year culture that underpins who they are. Thankfully attitudes amongst some Australians have also changed, and while racist attitudes will always exist towards them amongst a select few morons, especially in rural areas, the vast majority of Australians have woken up to the rich cultural heritage that the nation's indigenous people provide to a country little more than 200 years old in western European terms.

A last point to the original poster. Trying to get a handle on Aboriginal society through movies is like trying to get an idea of native American culture through wild west films. Far better to research the subject properly through appropriate books on the subject, or via the many Internet sites that can provide useful information.

Ten Canoes is a fine film, one that purports to show life as it used to be. But it's also a white man's interpretation and story, using native people and language. Is it a historically accurate portrayal of Aboriginal life prior to white settlement? Ask them.

reply

If you watch the extras on the DVD they cover the fact that a lot of how the tribe used to live is a distant and almost forgotten memory.

There was a study made quite a few years ago which was used as a basis for the 'facts' behind the movie (I've forgotten which year it was).

For instance, the aborigines were building bark canoes but the director was able to point out that the style of canoes being built were different to the ones that were built in the area. They looked at the photographs and drawings and then made the canoes as the locals had done.

From the extras De Heer was able to explain that he had looked at about 6,000 photographs but there were many more that he was not allowed to see as they were about some Aboriginal (secret) ceremonies.

reply