Australian Film Belonging

Film and television has taken over the world we live in, becoming one of the most popular ways for different personalities to express their stories in local and worldwide settings. Film allows auteurs to capture the essence of time, emotional circumstances and cultural differences in order to create stories that linger in the minds of their audiences. In particular, this is demonstrated in Australian film. Historically, Australian film tends to explore the cultural difficulties associated between Indigenous and ‘white’ Australia. The relationship between these two very different cultures is showcased in the early years of film in an incredibly marginalised, stereotypical fashion, often portraying Indigenous Australians as mysterious, mythical
and often dangerous animals – indicating their status of being excluded from society as being fauna and flora. However, as the views of Indigenous Australians began to change in real time, the films produced exploring cultural identity also changed its representations (http://www.australia.gov.au/about-australia/australian-story/indigenous-film 09/02). Many film directors such as Warwick Thornton, Wayne Blair, and Rolf de Heer, just to name a few, have produced films that follow stories of Indigenous Australians from a different view – one that expresses their culture and way of life with an in depth understanding, allowing audiences to view the culture with an open mind, steering away from the skewed vision that was regularly promoted (grieves 09.02).
For the past two decades, Rolf de Heer has successfully produced films that regularly break boundaries and challenge the morals of everyday people. De Heer has continuously exceeded audiences expectations by producing visually aesthetic films that uphold the unspoken issues associated with Indigenous culture through the raw emotions of Indigenous people and their communities (http://www.roninfilms.com.au/person/326/rolf-de-heer.html 02.09). In 2013, de Heer produced a slowly paced film that uses these specific aspects in order to present a thought provoking tale of one man and his country, that being Charlie’s Country. Charlie’s Country exposes the struggles of Indigenous communities suffering from Government intervention through the life of the aging, witty, Indigenous protagonist Charlie who loses himself trying to find a balance between his rich culture and the impressionable ‘white’ way (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3244512/) (http://www.vertigoproductions.com.au/charlies_country_overview.php 09.02). In the beginning of the film the antagonist isn’t revealed in an upfront way as it uncovers itself as not just one person, but white Australians in general, specifically officers that slowly begin to strip Charlie of his identity and livelihood (Charlies Country, 2013). The tale of Charlie and his winding road to downfall and recovery was created with the like minds of David Gulpilil. With de Heer’s directorial and writing experience combined with Gulpilil’s acting and firsthand difficulties, the two explored Gulpilil’s character Charlie by drawing on easily recognisable experiences in attempts to create a sensitive and confronting film (http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/from-jail-to-cannes-film-director-rolf-de-heer-talks-about-the-movie-that-helped-save-david-gulpilil-20140524-zrn0s.html 09.02). Charlie’s Country has become a stand out in Australian film history as it is one story that personally and directly reflects the emotional turmoil that has been created over the past century which sadly still exists in recent years. The internal struggle suffered by Charlie, as well as the other Indigenous people throughout the film, enables an audience, whether that be local or global, to be confronted by radical racial issues. This is achieved as the audience is thrown into the shoes of the victims who are suffocating in the desolate, melancholic atmosphere presented in the film.
Rolf de Heere expands on this depressive atmosphere in order to evoke sympathy and compassion towards the protagonist.
The film’s beginning is slowly paced to present the characters, specifically Charlie, and the monotonic, repetitive life they lead. The film steadily continues at this pace in order to signify Charlie’s tumbling emotional wellbeing as he falls further into the abyss created by the implementation of white Australian culture. It is not until the last third of the film that this pace slowly begins to change after Charlie is arrested and sentenced to prison. De Heere uses this opportunity to establish the stripped nature of Charlie’s sentencing by representing this through the shaving of Charlie’s hair before he is imprisoned. The emotions captured in this scene heavily reflects on the audience in a sorrowful manner. De Heere successfully creates a belittled view of Charlie as the shaving of his hair symbolises how the influence of white Australia has driven him to confusion and self-doubt. The physical action of his head being shaved symbolises how he has been stripped of his identity, his dignity and his culture, becoming another figure and statistic for white Australia to abuse. This physical representation is accompanied by strategic cinematography as the close up camera angle as well as the lighting, plays a major role in aiding the emotional turmoil felt in this scene. By centralising the protagonist and using a close up shot of his face, de Heere forces
the audience to directly witness his grievous expression. The lighting in this scene creates an unconscious pattern for the eye to follow as the stark, black background behind Charlie illuminates his facial features. In addition to this, Gulpilil continuously stares directly into the camera, creating a connection between the audience and his character. These three aspects go hand in hand in order to receive a pitiful emotional response from the audience, emphasising Charlie’s cry for help. In addition to this, de Heer has used music and sound to his advantage. A combination of both diegetic and non-diegetic sound further exaggerates the sorrowful atmosphere of the scene. The non-diegetic sound of the musical score aids in Charlie’s sadness as the piano rings through the audience’s ears, forcing them to focus on the screen. This is accompanied by the diegetic sound of the electronic razer filling the empty space around the character. This encourages the audience to imagine the echoing sounds of the razor mocking the character, aiding in his emotional downfall (Charlie’s County, 2013).
Charlie’s Country is a film that exposes its audience to many emotions that ordinary people may find confronting.
Rolf de Heer cleverly uses this theme to compose a sorrowful undertone to the majority of the film, creating an unsettling atmosphere that cannot be ignored. The slow pace of the film combined with the strategic decision to repeat Graham Tardif’s instrumental score piano symbolises Charlie’s monotonic emotional state as he lives out his repetitive life. As the whole film centralises around this idea, the audience themselves are dragged through the struggle alongside Charlie. It is at the end of the film where this atmosphere dramatically changes as Charlie is asked to teach the young Indigenous children the traditional style of dance. The music transitions from the sorrowful piano score to an uplifting and traditional native musical score. The group of children, Charlie and other Indigenous adults dance around a fire, indulging in their culture. This is the point in the film where both Charlie and the audience realise the importance of continuing Indigenous culture. The dramatic change in the atmosphere symbolises the love that Indigenous people have for their culture, emphasising the negative impact of forcing an entire ethnicity to subliminally abide by white culture (Charlie’s County,
2013).