To understand Rabbit-proof Fence (2002), one needs to appreciate that there has always been some significant cultural differences between the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal worlds. One also needs to appreciate that there has always been some conflict between different sections of white society. Both the story of Rabbit-proof Fence, as well as the way it was told, and promoted, revealed how morally confronting some white people have found, and continue to find, Aboriginal cultures. The different reactions to the movie also revealed some continuing divisions in white society.

In 1795, Watkin Tench, an English military officer, first started recording some of the morally confronting aspects of tribal cultures. Tench asked an Aborigine named Bennelong how attained a scar on his hand. In his book, A Complete Account of the Settlement at Port Jackson, Tench recounted the answer:

"He laughed, and owned that it was received in carrying off a lady of another tribe by force. "I was dragging her away. She cried aloud, and stuck her teeth in me." "And what did you do then?" "I knocked her down, and beat her till she was insensible, and covered with blood. Then..."

Just as there were cultural differences in 1795, there are still cultural differences today. In 2005 an Australian court heard that a 55-year-old Aboriginal elder anally raped a 14-year-old girl, imprisoned her for four days and repeatedly beat her with a boomerang. In the man's culture, his actions were perfectly acceptable. The girl had been promised to him at the age of four, and she had dishonoured him by having a boyfriend before their marriage. According to tribal law, the elder was perfectly entitled to educate her in the manner that he did. In fact, a case could be made that if he didn't, he was not fulfilling his duties as an elder. The girl's family had further legitimised the actions of the man. Her grandmother had collected the girl, and taken her to the man so that he could rape and punish her.

The case posed numerous questions that had to be answered. Firstly, should the man be punished in light of the fact he was practicing his culture? Secondly, what protection did the child deserve under the Australian legal system? Thirdly, what should be done with the child in light of the fact that her family had arranged the child’s marriage, and then facilitated her rape to teach her a lesson? Should she be removed from the family, or left in its care?

There are five possible responses to these questions:

Apathy – You don't judge the issue positively or negatively, and perhaps you don't answer these questions at all. As it is someone else's culture, you decide it is someone else's problem.
Tolerance - You make a negative judgement, but because you are not personally affected you decide to let it be.
Open mind – You could see the benefits of the practice and decide to adopt some of them into your own culture. You appreciate how arranged marriages can bring families together. You can also appreciate how rape can spread genes to new regions thus overcoming problems of inbreeding in small tribes, or ensure strong men impregnate women.
Assimilation/activism – You can judge the culture negatively, and then try to change the cultural practices. You want the man to be punished, and the child to be removed from the custody of the family.
Denial – You want change, and you want someone to be punished, but you are confused because you don't want to be a racist. Consequently, you deny the morally offensive aspects of Aboriginal culture, or perhaps blame your own culture for the problems you see in Aboriginal cultures.

Since colonisation, Australian governments, and the Australian people, have been considering these types of questions. Some people have been apathetic (method 1) and let Aborigines be. Some have been tolerant (method 2) and let Aborigines be. Perhaps some of the sexual congresses between Aborigines and colonists could be interpreted as a sign that some of the colonists were also open-minded (method 3). The policy of removing children was contrived by activists striving for assimilation (method 4). Finally, the making and promotion of Rabbit-proof Fence showed denial (method 5).

In order to make a grey issue black and white, Rabbit-proof Fence omitted the morally confronting aspects of Aboriginal cultures. The practice of arranged marriages was only mentioned in one brief sentence. In this sentence, it was implied that it was a concern, not because arranged marriages were morally confronting, but because it involved a half-caste marrying a full-blood Aborigine - therefore preserving Aboriginal genetics. So extreme was the cultural censorship that, in one scene, director Phillip Noyce showed Aborigines catching a Goanna for a feed, but instead of showing it being killed, Noyce only had the sound of the club hitting it. Then at the end of the movie Mr Noyce included a notice that no animals had been harmed in the making of the film. Presumably, Mr Noyce felt the audience would not be able to cope with the truth that Aborigines killed animals to sustain themselves, and at the end of the movie, such concerns would have been prominent in their conciousness. Furthermore, despite the movie being portraying itself as a defence of Aboriginal cultures, the Aborigines were never depicted in their traditional state of undress. Even Gallipoli, a war movie made 20 years earlier, was less puritanical in regards to nudity.

The cultural censorship encouraged viewers to feel indignation towards the policy of removing children. Once in this state of denial, they could demonstrate their "open mindedness" to Aboriginal cultures by taking an indignant attitude towards the Christians that removed the children, and the present-day Australians who refused to apologise on behalf of the Christians. In the process, they ignored Aborigines entirely.

From a cognitive perspective, it is much easier to call someone a racist, than it is to open one's mind to diversity or consider a difficult problem. As a result, many Australians took the easy option. In a nutshell, Rabbit-Proof Fence was created as a simple way for close-minded Australians to see themselves as open-minded.

Along with the way the story was told, the promotion of the movie encouraged the denial and indignation. Audiences were issued with tissues so they could wipe away their tears and blow their noses. The provision of tissues sent a powerful message in regards to the emotions that the audience was expected to feel. Furthermore, after Rabbit-proof Fence won the Australian Film Institute award for best picture, Mr Noyce used his acceptance speech to criticize Australian Prime Minister John Howard for refusing to apologize to the stolen generations. He also used the opportunity to criticize those Australians who voted for a Liberal government. He then said Australia had "lost its humanity."

World-wide, Rabbit-proof Fence was promoted as the face of modern Australian cinema. In Beijing in 2005, an advertisement for Australian movies was accompanied by the spiel:

“Nevertheless, there’s still plenty worth watching from the land of Oz and starting on October 28, Beijing is hosting its annual Aussie film festival…But the highlights are Noyce’s Rabbit Proof (sic) Fence, shot by Chris Doyle, which deals with the plight of aboriginal children forcibly removed from their families under a racist government programme designed to destroy aboriginal culture (sic) and forcibly integrate native Australians”

Although Rabbit-proof Fence became the modern face of the Australian movie industry, its impact was negative, and it didn’t achieve the goals it set out to achieve. John Howard never apologised to the stolen generations - as Mr Noyce demanded he do. Likewise, the Australian public ignored Mr Noyce’s criticism of them, and re-elected the Liberal government. Aboriginal issues, which had been the focus of media inquiry and political debate, fell off the radar and were no longer talked about. As for the Australia movie industry, it found its theatres deserted as Australian audiences reasserted their preference for movies made in America. In every sense of the word, commercial, social, and cultural, Rabbit-proof Fence was an act of suicide.

In defence of Phillip Noyce, he probably lacked the ability to create a true arthouse movie that provoked thought. He built his reputation on the back of right-wing action movies such as Patriot Games, Clear and Present Danger, and the Bone Collector. His talent was to appeal to a sense of belonging, divide the world into good and evil, and rally others behind him. To an extent, Rabbit-proof Fence achieved these aims.

[Top]