In the movie “Rabbit Proof Fence,” Mr. A. O. Neville is portrayed as both a liberator and a jailer. The film tells the story of three half-caste girls who bravely escape from Moore River settlement, where they were forcibly taken away. It sheds light on the racial discrimination between white Australians and Aboriginal people. The movie clearly depicts Mr. A O Neville as a champion for racial equality, someone who stood by his beliefs and diligently upheld the law to the best of his abilities.
Despite Neville’s attempts to enhance living conditions, there is undeniable proof of his lack of substantial progress. He placed himself, white culture, and the government above the welfare of those under his responsibility. Mr. A O Neville entered the civil service in 1897 and rapidly advanced in position, ultimately attaining the role of Chief Protector of Aborigines in 1915. During his tenure, he supervised the contentious practice of forcibly separating Aboriginal children from their families.
The Aborigines Protection Amending Act 1915 enabled the Protection Board to remove Aboriginal children from their parents for various reasons, which included safeguarding the children in cases of abuse or neglect. Another motive was to preserve racial purity and prevent the creation of a mixed-race population. Neville, portrayed as a prison warden in the film, believed that taking half-caste children would ultimately result in a completely white race instead of a mixed one. He conveyed this idea by stating “They cannot remain as they are” (Neville). However, there is an argument suggesting that he was acting as a liberator. It is essential to acknowledge that Neville should not bear sole responsibility for his actions since they were influenced by the Aboriginal Act passed by Parliament. This act was primarily responsible for separating children from their families and encouraging them to adopt white values such as speaking English and practicing Christianity. Neville’s actions during that time period were based on these principles, and he believed his approach was justified.
The Aboriginal Act granted significant power to white authorities over the Aboriginal community. This is evident in the initial scenes, depicting the abduction of three girls by a white policeman. It is important to note that Neville alone cannot be held responsible for these confrontations, as he is merely implementing the law. However, the film portrays Neville as a malevolent character, attributing the girls’ suffering and the permanent separation of children from their families to him. Neville is depicted as a non-violent counterpart to Hitler, exerting control over the Aboriginal people.
The main concern of Neville was to assimilate the Aboriginal people into the white community, aiming to erase the memory of their existence altogether in Australia. In the movie, Neville’s racism is evident as he asks, “Are we going to let a third unwanted race be created?” The selection process solely depended on race and age, with Neville showing a preference for girls who were of mixed heritage in order to remove them from their families. While the government justified this action by claiming it was due to parental neglect, this was not true.
Neville was fully aware that his policy was causing immense suffering for the families and individuals affected by the removal of children. He expressed a desire for them to understand the intentions behind it, stating, “If only they could comprehend what we are striving to achieve for their benefit.” As children were taken away, families felt powerless in shielding their loved ones from government and police intervention. Mothers lived in constant dread of the day when they would be permanently separated from their children. The film effectively presents Neville as a malicious figure or captor, eliciting intense emotions as vulnerable young children were left defenseless.
Neville determined the destiny of the children, trapping them. The film encourages the audience to empathize with the three little girls by stepping into their shoes. Its authenticity is heightened by the fact that these traumatic events are not fictional, but based on a true story. Consequently, viewers can truly grasp the pain, agony, and rage endured not only by the girls but also their families. Empathy is felt towards all involved families as compassion grows for the horrific scenes that unfolded. With this profound understanding, there is no mistaking who should be held accountable – Neville.
Mr. A O Neville, the Chief Protector of the Aborigines, is to blame for the act of disgrace on people, just like Hitler is blamed for the Holocaust. The movie “The Rabbit Proof Fence” shares similarities with the Holocaust as both depict a very bad person in charge – Hitler in the case of the Holocaust and Mr. A O Neville in the case of “The Rabbit Proof Fence.”
Incorporating barbed wire in the movie title portrays concentration camp or being forced into an unknown location. The girls’ train ride also represents the Holocaust, symbolizing displacement and compulsory travel to an unfamiliar place. Further depictions include the appalling living conditions at Moore River settlement camp, the shaving of hair, and the crucial selection scene where Neville divides the children and determines who will be taken to Sister Kate’s.
The film “Rabbit Proof Fence” aims to raise awareness about the traumatic events in Australia and the individuals involved. Through selective scenes, viewers cannot perceive Mr. A O Neville as a good person or a liberator, likening him to Hitler. The significant societal relevance of this movie exists globally, as it addresses the issue of racism, which persistently affects communities worldwide.
This film provides various viewpoints and presents an authentic narrative. The filmmakers have skillfully depicted the experiences of three young girls who were deprived of their liberty and compelled to make choices influenced by their race. This emotionally gripping journey exposes Mr. A O Neville’s overt prejudice towards Aboriginal culture and individuals of mixed heritage.
The argument persists that Neville cannot be held accountable and was simply upholding the law. Ultimately, Neville’s failure to safeguard these individuals, if indeed it was his duty, is evident. He consistently prioritized the well-being of white society and the government above the welfare of the individuals he was mandated to protect. “The Rabbit Proof Fence” not only highlights the racial discrimination instigated by Neville at that time, but also sheds light on the ongoing struggle with contemporary racism in today’s society.
