1: Write a review of
the movie. Make sure to mention elements that you liked or disliked.
2: The film stirred debate over the historical accuracy
of the claims of the Stolen Generation. Andrew Bolt 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 racist, and
the film's generally rosy portrayal of the girls' situation prior to their
removal from their parents. 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.
Based
on what you know from class, discuss if Bolt has a valid point.
1.
SvarSletThis movie “Rabbit-proof fence” is an extremely simple movie, the plot is not a “wow”-plot, basically it is a journey to a place and back again, from Jigalow to Moore River. The amazing thing about this movie is that this journey is taking on by 3 small girls in age 7-14, who just wants to go home to their mom, whom they have been taking from. All the emotions in this movie are intense, you are getting all emotions in play, and the actors even thought they are children, are great.
It is a long movie, and maybe a little too long for the plot, that is what you thing in the beginning, but at the end, where you are getting the facts, what this movie is based on, the long move with a simple plot, are absolutely remarkable, the true story does is all, and the long movie just highlights the long and difficult journey these girls have been under. It is an amazing movie, and one you think about, and wonder: “How could this happen, and nobody really noticed”.
2.
In some ways I agree with Andrew Bolt, I too think that some things in the movie, like Moore River, Neville and the girls welfare with their parents have been made even worse or better in the movie, but that is also what you need to have in mind, “Rabbit-proof fence” is a movie.
I still believe in the whole scenario, children being taking, for their own sake, if you see it from the “whites” point of view, and taking to a better place to learn English values, in the attempt to out rule the aboriginals and black people. But I am strongly against the way of doing this and doing this at all!
Still I think that the plot is correct according to history, also according to Kevin Rods speech, why would he apologies if nothing terrible really happened? We have also heard about the white policy, no black people came into Australia, and children were taking too, that is also descript in the history about Australia and in the documentary we saw.
I will agree with Andrew Bolt about the movies values are not as an historical movie, but in the same breath I will say, that the “Stolen Generation” is definitely a real and serious thing. But when watching this movie, you also have to remember, it is only based on true story that does not mean that everything in the movie is true, it is a movie not an historical article.
Theis 2.B
SvarSlet1: Write a review of the movie. Make sure to mention elements that you liked or disliked.
I watched the movie, Rabbit proof fence, was made in 2002, and it is about the stolen generation.
I think that the story the movie is based on is very touching and interesting. It had a great impact on me, with the three sisters who were taken away from their mother and grandmother, because you could see and hear how painfull it was for both the children to be taken away from their mother and grandmother. I also think it was very nice, that you could see the relief and happiness they all felt, when they were reunited. I also think, that it made the movie more interesting, that it did not have an extremely happy ending. Gracie was taken away, and they did not get to see her agian. This emphasised that we are dealing with a very serious story.
2:
Andrew Bolt has some valid points. An example could be their clothing. In the movie they are dressed in very ragged clothes, something they probably were not in reality. That is probably a trick the makers of this movie used to get the watcher of the movie to feel even more symphathy with the three girls who were taken away. I think that the portrayal of Neville is realistic. He is not portrayed as a super bad guy, who does these evil things for his own satisfaction. When you look at the laws that were made in Australia around this time, it seems very clear that the men who made, and practised them would have to have oppinions that would be considered racist today. Therefore I think that the portrayal of Neville seems realistic.
1.
SvarSletThe movie “Rabbit-Proof Fence” is fiction based on facts. The movie portrays a story filled with courage, sorrow, and determination. The aboriginal policies were enforced in Australia up until 1970, and until then half-caste children were taken away from their aboriginal mothers only to be put in “training schools”. The three young girls in the movie were a part of the lost generation, and even though they made it back to their home they were still haunted by Mr. Neville. The story be-hind the movie is indeed very powerful and serious. Most people will probably find themselves horrified by what happened to the half-caste children when watching the movie, and the fact that it is based on a true story makes it even more horrifying. I personally liked the movie, and I was amazed that this movie was based on a true story. The fact that the three young actors were non-trained aborigines astonishes me, and they made the movie sincere. I thought the music fitted the scenes and it wasn’t overdone. I would’ve liked more information about Moore River, but other than that I think the length of the movie was decent. It was also nice to see that a lot of the people the three girls met on their way were trying to help them instead of calling the authorities on them. The last sequence of the movie shows us Molly and Daisy as old ladies, and that gives the movie a nice kind of closure. Overall it’s a great movie.
2.
The movie is not 100% factual, it is fiction based on fact. It is not a documentary but instead it is a fictional movie that shows a small part of the racist policies in Australia at the time. Whether Ne-ville was a racist or not, I do not know. He was working for the authorities in Australia, and he simply followed the law and did the terrible job he had been assigned. He could’ve been a racist, and of course the movie director wants to portray Neville as the bad guy, and therefore Neville is portrayed as a racist. I also think that when he worked for 25 years he must’ve have had a little rac-ist hidden in him somewhere, but that’s just my opinion. The movie is based on the story of Molly, who probably thought she had a great life living with her tribe. Once again the movie is fictional, and how would it look if the girls ran home to a shithole? Not too well. The aborigines had been there for many many years before the white people came, and they managed just fine, so their con-ditions can’t have been all bad. Concerned adults did not track the girls; people who wanted to eliminate all other races but the white tracked them. The authorities wanted control and they didn’t care much for the children’s well being. So of course the movie has overdone some of the elements and facts to make it a better movie, but that doesn’t mean that things like the ones portrayed in the movie didn’t happen. We have heard so from Nanna Fejo in Kevin Rudd’s apology speech.
I think that the movie overcomes the racist policies against the aboriginals, just like the Kevin Rudd’s apology did.
-Sandra
Elise
SvarSlet1) The movie ”Rabbit-Proof Fence” is fiction based on facts. The movie came out in 2002 and is directed by Phillip Noyce.
The movie tells a story about three aborigines girls Molly, Daisy and Gracie who were taken away from their family by the government because of the law. The three girls were transported 1500 miles to Moore River, were they had to learn how to be white. They couldn’t speak their own language and whenever they did they were told not to.
The three girls end up running away from Moore River and walk 1500 miles home. They only have is an instinctive map and a fence which protect the farmlands from rabbits. During their journey they have to conceal their tracks from the white authorities and the tracker from Moore River. Along the way they get help from strangers.
The ending scene contents information that from my point of view changes the story. It contents a lot of feelings and I like how the movie is finished.
Bjørn 2.B
SvarSlet1.
This is not the movie for you, if you like action-packed car chases.
”Rabbit-Proof Fence”, directed by Phillip Noyce, is the story of three young girls’ traumatizing childhood. The movie takes place in 1931’s Australia, where the government is struggling to make “the white working man’s paradise” come true. Half-caste kids are being removed ruthless from their parents, in order to secure Australia’s future.
Rabbit-Proof Fence is based on a true story, but although it is a Hollywood production, the movie manages to stay down-to-earth and preserve the girls’ story in a realistic manner. This would be a good thing, if the movie was meant to be a documentary, but when it comes to the entertainment quality, the movie could have used a little more action.
Review of the movie "rabbit proof fence "
SvarSletBy Line P. Jensen
The movie "rabbit proof fence" is about the extinct race Aborigines, and is based on a true incident. It is goes in Australia and it's about tree girls, Daisy, Gracie and Molly, who is half-blood aborigine’s children. They are taken from their mother and sent to the tenant Moore River, which they shortly after fleeing. Most of the movie is about their trip on the run, to get home to their city Jigalong and family again. They must through flap terrains. After many miles of walking legs, which gave them many challenges. At the end Daisy and molly come back to the town Jigalong and their mother and grandmother. But Gracie was caught on their flight and returned to the tenant.
I think the film is good in its entirety. I really like that it is based on a true incident, it makes me think of how terrible it is that this actually happened. I also think it was pretty exciting, even though when you look back on it, there is not really done much in the movie, but I think they've managed to make the tension -filled anyway, when there were places like the desert where you think " die now ? " and earlier in the movie where they start their escape where you think " they are caught now?" and what happens if they get caught ? ", I think it gave me many ideas during of the film, which probably was what made me think it was exciting.
The Rabbit-proof fence
SvarSlet1. Review
I disliked the movie because that half of the movie we see just walking from Moore River to theirs home, which is not exciting to the watcher of the movie. This is not a movie I will see again, see it one time is enough for me. I fact that is a real story and based on a real event, and it shows a lit bit of emotions the girls had. Which make the movie not only bad, but also it not was because I have to see it. Then I have turn off the movie and watch a more exciting movie or doing something more fun to do.
2. Has bolt a point ?
If we hear about someone like Mr.Neville to day we immediately say that he is a racist, but at that time in Australian was all white man like Mr.Neville so we can say that all man are racist at that time in history in Australian. About the way the girls are dress on, when he says, that it we be more European clothes dress if was in real life. I think it is more truth in the movie.
Emil
1.
SvarSletI think that Rabbit-Proof-Fence is mostly a good movie.
The movie gives a great impression of how the aboriginals felt about being seperated from their families. You can see how both the children and their families suffer when they are taken away from each other. I believe this part of the movie is true. No child wnats to be taken away from their family because some other and more powerful people with other ideas of how to live a good life want it to be so.
I also think the movie gives you a very good feeling of the white people's view upon aboriginals. According to them, the aboriginals are poor little creatures who don't know how to take care of themselves. And by all means, they had to help them, because they didn't think they were able to take care of themselves. I like that this leads you to ask a lot of questions about whether this "help" actually made life better for the aboriginals.
But having said that, I think the ending was a little too happy. The girls just make it home and nothing else happens. If it had not been for the comment at last, that said that the girls were removed once more and that Molly's daughter was removed from her too, I would have said that the ending was really bad. I have a thing for bittersweet movie endings. They make it more exiting, and probably more realistic too. These rosy hollywood endings, that movies tend to have just don't always work. Especially not for a movie like this, that claims to be realistic. It would have made a greater impression on me, if I actually saw what happened afterwards and didn't just sit with this feeling of not getting the whole story.
2.
I don't think Bolt is right. We know how badly aboriginals were often treated, and from my point of view his criticism just seems like an attempt to cover the whole thing up.
I do think that the men casing aboriginals were racist. The aborinals were seen as a race that was inferior to the white people, and I think the movie depicts this very well. Neville seems like a man who just wants to "help" these primitive Stone Age for their own good, and I think that this was how most people that hunted aboriginals in Australia saw it. So though there is no hate towards aboriginals shown in the movie, I still think you can say, that Neville is racist, because he definitely does not find himself equal to the aboriginals.
I do think, that Bolt has a point stating, that aboriginal life is portrayed very positively in the movie. It is clear, who is the good guy and who is the bad guy, which is a very well-known movie trick to involve the audience. So here, the good story is more important than the facts.
This movie has both a good story and facts. And yes, you need to be able to seperate those things and not just believe everything you see, but generally I think the movie gives a good picture of how it was being an aboriginal, when the white people came to Australia.
Part 1:
SvarSletReview
1. Speaking of the 'Stolen Generations' in Australia can make most people agitated and uneasy. However, if one is to watch the movie Rabbit-Proof Fence with an expectation to see Moore River as a Hiter-esque place with hunger, huge barbed fences and armed guards looking over people's shoulders 24/7, you're going to be disappointed -- albeit positively. Unless you love violence and negligence, that is (and if you do, stop reading this review and get yourself a psychiatrist).
The simple storyline makes it easy for the viewer to take in what's happening and not get lost in a confusing mix of too many characters or locations. Nonetheless, this makes for a genuinely non-impactful movie, one the viewer is likely to soon forget. Due to criticism because of exaggeration of the harsh conditions in Australia at the time as well as Mr. Neville's character being portrayed as racist, one would expect a much more grim movie than what it actually showcases.
Had the movie not been based on a true story -- which in itself is open for interpretation -- it would not have gained its current status and most likely would have become just another Australian movie overshadowed by an American Hollywood look-a-like.
Bolt's Views
SvarSlet2. Scratching the surface it can seem unrealistic that Andrew Bolt, a conservative journalist, would attempt to downplay the whole idea of the 'Stolen Generations'. When you look further into the issue, however, he might have a point.
Since the movie was based on a true story, you've got to wonder who told that story. Most likely it would've been the girls that escaped Moore River, but this brings up a new problem: How can you rely on tales told by 80-year-old women who were scared out of their own senses at age 7 and 14? It's scientifically proven that eyewitnesses at crime scenes only remember what they saw if they tell someone straight after the occurrence. If you wait hours, days, weeks or even decades, your memory fades and you begin to think twice. Without even knowing it, your brain makes up connections, trying to connect the dots to create an inner image. That image changes with time and may already be altered and false in case you're young and under tremendous stress.
There's no doubt that the girls faced tough conditions, but having watched the movie, I was personally surprised that their whole journey was portrayed as being much tougher. Perhaps being of a generation where history lessons focus on world wars, atomic bombs and mass-slaughtering of people, you'd expect something worse from this movie. Especially after having heard Paul Rudd's apology speech and seen documentaries that made reality sound worse than portrayed in the movie, it's a strange feeling you're left with.
Don't get me wrong here -- what happened was absolutely terrible and inhumane in every way and is to never be repeated, but due to the hype built up by critics claiming the movie was "historically incorrect", I personally expected to see the girls' conditions as much worse. They all had a bed to sleep in, food every day, no wire or fence around Moore River, and punishment included the terrible activity of... sitting in a shed. Oh, dear.
The worst part of the movie was obviously the families being split up, no doubt about it. But this was anticipated, it was expected (from the movie). So when you watch it and don't really see much more than that, you've got to wonder: what's historically incorrect? They were taken away, yes. That's well-documented and denying this would be like denying the existence of Auschwitz. It makes no sense.
It's true that Neville was portrayed as racist, but only in modern terms and the new meaning of the word. We live in a modern, Western society where racism is highly frowned upon. Remember, in Australia in the 1930s and 1940s it was common that you'd be judged by your skin colour. It was like that pretty much all over the world. Slavery was still legal in some countries back then, so it's important to see the whole thing in a more historical perspective.
So does Bolt have a point? Both yes and no. It really depends how far the discussion is going to go and what sort of attention to detail shall be required. Altogether, I'm still of the belief that large parts of the movie is what actually transpired in real life for these people.
Magnus:
SvarSletReview of ’Rabbit-proof fence’
This movie left me with very mixed feelings. On one hand I really like the story about how these three very young girls find their way back through the backcountry of Australia. On the other hand I found the movie to be what I usually describe as “Americanized” and poorly produced.
Negative first. The movie follows the “fool-proof” model that is, we are happy and everything is good, something bad happens, but in the end we solve it and live happily ever after. The model is yawn-provokingly predictable and overused. Furthermore I thought the movie was a bit sloppy and rushed. Sloppy because I found the persons in the movie, with the exception of the three girls, to be poorly portrayed. Rushed because the director of the movie did not take time to properly paint a picture of how the life in Jigalong was compared to how it was in Moore River. The description of the life in Jigalong was like, “Look! We caught a lizard, oh no white people!” and in Moore River it was, “Work, follow orders and be bored almost all the time”. It left a lot to be desired.
Positive last. The story is based on a real life experience, which only makes it that much more amazing. It is a story about roots, love, family, courage and three (two) amazingly determined girls. There is nothing wrong with the story in my opinion, there is only something wrong with the way the movie is directed and produced, it could have been such a marvellous movie, instead it ends up being mediocre.
Based on what you know from class, discuss if Bolt has a valid point
I think he has a valid point in a couple of the things he claims, for example the point with the rosy portrayal of their life in Jigalong. In actuality it might very well have been a pretty hard life. But I do not think he has a valid point in the rest of the things he says, for example that Mr. Neville was inaccurately represented as a racist even though his job was created on a racist foundation. Lastly I do not believe they were tracked by adults who where concerned for the travel, but more likely just people wanting to hunt them down and punish them.
Rabbit-Proof-Fence (2002)
SvarSlet1: Write a review of the movie. Make sure to mention elements that you liked or disliked.
Rabbit- Proof -Fence is a movie about aborigines. The movie focuses on how kids got taking away from their parents/mothers. We follow 3 girls walking home from Moore River where they had to stay to Jigalong, which was their real home. The girls go through a lot on their way home, which makes the movie more exciting. One of the girls get caught, and two others had to continue home. The movie is based on a real story.
- I liked the whole movie especially because we follow the girls walking home to their mother from Moore River and I liked the fact that it is based on a real story
- I disliked the fact that we didn’t see exactly, how they got treated in Moore River; we got a little “sneak peak” of how they got treated and how they had to behave.
2: The film stirred debate over the historical accuracy of the claims of the Stolen Generation. Andrew Bolt a conservative journalist who has frequently attempted to downplay the facts of the "Stolen Generation", criticized Neville's portrayal in the film, arguing that he was inaccurately represented as racist, and the film's generally rosy portrayal of the girls' situation prior to their removal from their parents. 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.
Based on what you know from class, discuss if Bolt has a valid point.
I don’t totally agree with Andrew Bolt, but he is right in some way. We watch the girls as prisoners in prison garb in the movie, I think the fact that they were taken away makes it look like a prison, because they were not free, they didn’t have right to do whatever they liked, they had to behave themselves and behave like Christians. I know they were removed because they wanted to “help” them. The new home is not like the real and old home, the girls were free and they lived with their parents. But he has some valid points, with the clothing. They wore a white “dress” in the movie....... nåede ikke mere
Niels:
SvarSlet1:
The movie “Rabbit-Proof Fence” is based on the book “Follow the Rabbit-Proof Fence”, written by the movie’s protagonist’s daughter. It’s based on a true story and events that actually took place. In 1931, three aboriginal girls, Molly, her little sister Daisy and her cousin Gracie, gets captured and taken away from their aboriginal mother, because they’re half-caste. They get send to Moore River, where some Australians try to discipline them, and all the other half-caste they’ve captured and brought there. After a few days at Moore River, the girls decide to run off, and find their way home.
The plot of the movie sounds pretty interesting, but I actually found it somewhat dull. A huge chunk of the movie is just about the three half-caste girls walking across Australia and their encounters with a few strangers. I thought that it made the movie feel rather lackluster.
I did like one thing though, and that was the clip at the end of the movie, where you get to see Molly and Daisy all grown up, as that’s actually the real Molly and Daisy, and not actors.
I also feel like they did a good job portraying Mr. Neville as a real bastard.
2:
I feel like the movie most likely has been a bit Hollywoodized. Their conditions with their aboriginal mother probably weren’t as good as they were portrayed in the movie, and Mr. Neville probably wasn’t so bad after all, but one fact you have to take into consideration, is that the movie is seen from Molly’s point of view, who’s probably not more than 13 years old. In her eyes, there was nothing better than living with her mother and grandmother, and she probably did see this Mr. Neville as the devil, who only wants to harm her, pretty much as he’s portrayed in the movie.
After all, it is just a movie.
1: Write a review of the movie. Make sure to mention elements that you liked or disliked.
SvarSletI personally really liked, that the movie was based on a true story, from that we can see what the half - cast children really went through. We saw how the kidnapped children lived, ate, slept, and how they tried to escape from the camp, which I thought was really interesting and to see. I also think it was quit a simple movie, how the government policy took away the children from their aboriginal family and send to the camp in Morre River and their long journey back to Jigalow. Either way I really like how the casts acting,I could feel all theirs emotion and pain. It is a movie I always will remember, it really left me a big impact, with a very great cast and movie construction.
2: The film stirred debate over the historical accuracy of the claims of the Stolen Generation. Andrew Bolt 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 racist, and the film's generally rosy portrayal of the girls' situation prior to their removal from their parents. 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.
Based on what you know from class, discuss if Bolt has a valid point.
I disagree how Andrew Bolt criticized how Neville’s portrayal in the film, I think that the way he is portrayed in the movie is realistic, after all we have read and seen in the class.
Michelle Tran, 2b
1) The movie Rabbit-Proof-Fence, directed by Philip Nouye, is based on a true story about the aboriginals in Australia, or as it is also called ‘’the stolen generation’’. In the movie, we follow three young aboriginal girls, who are taken by force from their family. The three girls have to assimilate to the new culture worshipped by the white Australians, who abducted them to a place named Moore River, where all the other kidnapped aboriginal girls and boys are staying in camps. By the strength of the fourteen years old Molly, they achieve to escape from the camps, and finally get home.
SvarSletI personally think that the movie is good in the way that it illustrates how the aborigines were treated and forced from their families. I think the performance in the movie is worth watching, especially if you do not know much about the stolen generation.
“Rabbit-Proof-Fence” is an Australian movie directed by Philip Noyce and based on a true story. The main character of the movie is Molly and the story is based on her childhood. Molly, her sister Daisy and her cousin Gracie are all half-blooded. At the time, the Australian authority captures half-blooded children and places them at a settlement called Moore River. The three girls then run away from the settlement in hopes of returning to their native home, Jigalong. The film follows the three girls’ journey home, as the walk beside a long rabbit-proof-fence chased by the Australian authority. The movie is in my opinion very good and moving too, especially because it is based on a true story. I like how real and how well the characters play their part in the movie. The lack of actions in the movie is the only thing I disliked about it.
SvarSletI disagree with the fact that Bolt says that Neville was inaccurately represented as racist. Neville is in my opinion represented as the general opinion or type of white man at that time. I believe that the portrayal of the girls in the movie is as Bolt says, prisoners in a prison garb. In general you could say that the girls are presented as prisoners escaping a sort of prison, the prison being the settlement Moore River. I still believe that the aborigines are a sort of stolen generation.