The Rabbit Proof Fence: Comparison Of The Book And The Film
Upon discussing the incredible journey of Molly, Gracie and Daisy, often the question is begged as to which retelling of this story is better. An argument can be made for both; the book provides historical context as well as an element of reality portrayed by the fact that the author is a descendent of Molly Garimara, while the film puts action into the story, depicting how tough life as an aboriginal person must have been at the time. The issue that I have with the movie however, is the lack of factual backing – not that there isn’t any, but simply that the book contains more real information due to it being written from the perspective of someone who was semi-directly involved. Other results of this experience include the clear use of tone that the book portrays, as well as the more open access to firsthand information regarding the occurrences of the story of the rabbit proof fence.
The movie seems to exemplify the idea that no amount of research can allow one to fully understand an event. The director, Phillip Noyce, clearly understands the basic storyline of the book but he will never capture experiences felt by the characters in it. Doris Pilkington shows the reader that she achieves this better by stating “I found it necessary to… draw on my own childhood memories of the countryside surrounding the settlement.” Here, Pilkington is alluding to the knowledge that she has for the area in which the story took place, a knowledge that Noyce wouldn’t have to the same degree. While she may not have the full knowledge of the time, Garimara knows the area, and that is fundamental to gaining an insight into the experiences of the event.
Tone is often easier to communicate in a book than it is in a film. This is mostly due to the fact that movies work with multiple people each of whom will likely have their unique views on how the film should look. Books however, are written almost entirely by one person. This person is therefore more able to illustrate their ideas through tone. Doris Pilkington’s tone in her book The Rabbit Proof Fence, is often colloquial but still knowledgeable. It sounds almost like Pilkington is speaking like someone from around the area, who knows and understands the culture and customs surrounding it. Her use of tone is exemplified in this quote “The salt lakes were simmering with heat and the spindly mulga trees gave little shade.” Descriptive language is used not only to give readers an idea of the conditions in the desert, but also to provide them with an insight into Pilkington’s perspective on the situation, or her tone. The closest that the movie can come towards recreating this tone would be through shot composition of a hot desert; a poor substitute as it gives no context as to what the perspective of the creator is. It is this tone that makes the book a retelling of an incredible journey and moment in Australia’s history, and the movie nothing more than a visual aid with a political agenda attached.
Perhaps the main benefit of having a family member who experienced the event of interest is that Pilkington was given a more readily available factual account from a primary source. Small details such as the scenery during the journey or the tone of a person’s voice at a specific point all add up to make a more detailed factual retelling of the story. Whilst Noyce was able to research dates and quotes to give objective information relating to the event, he couldn’t add these details. This is why the scenery in the movie was desert-like when the book described shrubs and small trees dotted all through the journey. By making use of this information, Pilkington was able to create an image in the reader’s head that resembled the event better than the images on the screen ever could.
The Rabbit Proof Fence book displays a fuller, more authentic and more detailed perspective on the historical event in which Molly, Daisy and Gracie walked all the way along the Rabbit Proof Fence in order to find their way home after being taken away during the Stolen Generations. It does through the use of personal context, tone and detail, blending Pilkington’s views with Molly Garimara’s. Due to Phillip Noyce’s film lacking in these areas, it falls short of achieving the sense of reality that the book captures so well.
