Gender Stereotypes In The Film Rabbit-Proof Fence

1401 Words3 Pages

Directed by Phillip Noyce in 2002 Rabbit-Proof Fence depicts the story of three young girls who escape from a settlement and set out to make the 1,200-mile journey back home on foot. The events are based on a true story sounding the experiences of Ms. Garimara's mother Molly (Everlyn Sampi) who was 14 at the time of the movie, her 8-year-old sister Daisy (Tianna Sansbury), and their 10-year-old cousin Gracie (Laura Monaghan). All three are mixed-race children fathered by itinerant white fence workers commonly referred to as “Half Casts” throughout the film.

The film discusses themes surrounding the stolen generation highlighting the anguish experienced by mothers whose children were taken in an attempt to breed out the indigenous culture, …show more content…

O. Neville is commonly referred to as “Devil” by the aboriginal children as a way of insinuating the negative feelings they have towards him for being taken away from their families. At times the movie depicts he feels he is truly doing a good thing for the children, “If only they would understand what we are trying to do for them“ (A. O. Neville). These caring feelings are conflicted with the reality that he is removing children from there families forcing them to adapt to the European ways trying to breed out an entire race. While talking about the “half cast” girls he quotes “the youngest is of particular concern, she is promised to a full blood” which related to breeding out the race through not allowing aboriginals to marry and have children. Neville’s statement in Rabbit-Proof Fence that ¨In spite of himself, the native must be helped” His contention that the native must be helped regardless of his/her opinion on the matter voices a moral responsibility to save the native from his/her barbarism. It implies both racism and, more explicitly, paternalism. Neville’s words sound like those one might use in discussing a misbehaving child rather than a ancient society that has survived off the land for over 40,00 years. Ironically Kidnapping and rape are decidedly “uncivilized” in Neville’s world, and yet those are the tools he uses to “civilize” the native. Neville acknowledges the contradiction of his racial policy when he admits that, …show more content…

Other people have challenged this, and say it is not fully accurate, and not fully honest. They say it actually distorts and misrepresents the truth, and causes us to see ourselves in an inaccurate way. The film was criticized over accounts that it did not accurately depict the policies on removal of Aboriginal children nor did it reflect Molly's situation and circumstance as retold in the book Follow the Rabbit—Proof Fence (Byrnes, P. n.d.). According to Andrew Bolt (Herald Sun 14 Feb), the girls were taken after Neville received a letter informing him of their situation and that they were in danger (Bolt, A n.d). Speaking before the Moseley Royal Commission in 1934, A.O. Neville himself claimed that the children had not been removed indiscriminately. Molly’s story has indeed been extremely well documented by Mr Neville, The Chief Protector of Aborigines in Western Australia at the time. Andrew Bolt’s main argument is that Molly, Daisy and Gracie were not removed from Jigalong because of Mr Neville’s plan to ‘breed out the Aborigine’ but to remove them from squalid aboriginal camps for their own

Open Document