The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Writing off fiction for fact

Writing off fiction for fact

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 39
  9. 40
  10. 41
  11. All
There are many films made based on true events, two other Australian movies with a true event indigenous content that I enjoyed were 'Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith' and 'Rabbit Proof Fence', how true those movies were to real life events, no one can say, but they were certainly a good watch.

If such movies had to follow the exact scrip of actual events then Hollywood would be out of business, and John Wayne would never have made a movie.
Posted by Paul1405, Monday, 27 February 2017 7:31:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul,

I agree with you. Films that focus on historical accuracy are called documentaries and have a very limited audience.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 27 February 2017 7:41:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Paul,

You put your finger on the crucial issues: the Rabbit-Proof f3nce film was very effective. But was there a single element of truth in it ? Is there any evidence whatever that the events occurred ?

I'm not suggesting chapter and verse, but at least SOME shred of evidence. One intriguing feature of 'evidence' is that, when something actually happens, some types of evidence should be present. In this case, three little girls travelling up along a fence (or fences, further up the north) would have been encountered by the 150 employees working every day on the Fence (according to Arthur Upfield in one of his first Bony novels), who would have dropped into their local pub each evening, perhaps to chat to the local newspaper editor, who (in addition to wondering why the sudden influx of police in their area) would have passed on such an intriguing story to the West Australian, at the time a fiercely pro-Labor and anti-government paper.

But no, nothing in The West Australian about it, according to Trove.

After Labor won the WA elections in (I think) 1933, it organised a Royal Commission into Aboriginal Issues (the Moseley Commission), evidence before which - close to a thousand pages - is available on my web-site: www.firstsources.info , on the WA Page, and with a 60-page index. There were mentions at the Commission of young Aboriginal women escaping from Moore River, 16- and 17-year-olds, but where did they 'flee' to ? Fremantle, the bright lights, and were usually picked up off the streets and brought back to Moore River.

In other words, contra the Narrative, NOT in the service of separation but in the direction of assimilation. There was not a single mention of any flight from Moore River towards the north, and not even any mention by Mrs. Mary Bennett, a vocal left-winger and constant thorn in the side of Neville (Kenneth Branagh).

So sorry, ....

{TBC]
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 27 February 2017 9:02:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[continued]

So, sorry, Paul, there appears to be not a skerrick of evidence supporting the Story. How many other unsubstantiated stories might there be ? In my earlier days, I probably promoted them all - whites were such bastards, that anything that they were accused of was probably true. But older and slightly wiser, certainly a bit more sceptical, I would now suggest that we suspend belief about anything reported about the past until we have something substantial.

For example, newborn babies born at the Cootamundra Girls' Home (the one with the swimming pool) thrown down a well ? Excavate it and prove it one way or the other. Two hundred people pushed over a cliff in Gippsland ? Two hundred Aboriginal people being together in that country at one time ? Not likely. And, on their own country, not knowing it far better than a few white fellas ? Hardly likely. Plus the absence of any evidence. Yes, absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence, but it makes a pretty good starting point.

Yes, I suspect that a hell of a lot happened for which there is now no evidence, no bones to be excavated. But if we are given the option of believing every story we are ever told, or expecting some substance, just a tiny bit, to back up a story, I'll take Option No. 2.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 27 February 2017 9:05:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm undecided if I agree with Foxy's take on this or not.

http://www.amyspiers.com.au/author/amy/
"In response, artist and researcher Amy Spiers has initiated the “Miranda Must Go” campaign. Inspired by decolonial and anti-racism campaigns, such as Rhodes Must Fall, the campaign seeks to challenge the habitual retelling of the Picnic at Hanging Rock story at Hanging Rock. The goal of removing pervasive associations to Joan Lindsay’s novel, and its main character Miranda, is to prompt questions and public debate about the dominant culture’s obsession with fictional white vanishing and direct attention to the real Aboriginal losses and traumas at Hanging Rock."

The wording does not to me seem to leave room for the "fictional" tale to live along side the narrative which Amy and the organisers want told. Perhaps the campaign name “Miranda Must Go” is chosen for dramatic effect rather than intent but nothing I read gave me any confidence that's there is room for both stories in Amy's view of how things should be.

Joe once again well said.

R0bert.
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 27 February 2017 6:56:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Joe, the modern aboriginal narrative survives partly because some bad things did happen, and partly because it is politically incorrect to challenge it.

My great-great grandfather was a bush policeman in NT and the Kimberleys. When there was conflict and whites died, he "rode the range until the campfires went out" according to one account. Terrible justice, but true.

Why was there conflict? I know that when whitefellas are trying to make a go of life in the bush, such as building homes, stores and cattle herds, they can't expect the locals not to avail themselves of what this has to offer them, causing aggravation. However, there were out and out hostile locals too, who were either allowed to block endeavours, or were opposed.

It was not a time for great politeness, but there are many more accounts of positive interactions between aborigines and newcomers than of verified (by evidence) deadly conflicts.

I've written before about the desire of some aboriginal groups to remain both tied to their land and to welfare. The problems surrounding this will never go away unless aborigines understand that urbanized people are not responsible for their decision to remain remotely separated from services they need. Those urbanized people include aborigines who have decided to join the 21st century and make their contribution alongside decades and decades of migrant newcomers.

I'm not interested in a treaty with compensation, based on a faulty narrative, as its aim.
Posted by Luciferase, Monday, 27 February 2017 11:01:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 39
  9. 40
  10. 41
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy