Charlie’s Country is an Australian drama film directed by Rolf de Heer, starring David Gulpilil. The linear film, co-written by de Heer and Gulpilil, tells the story of Charlie, a middle-aged Aboriginal man living in the town of Ramingining. The audience follows Charlie as he sets off to reconnect with his Indigenous origins; choosing to abandon urbanised society, Charlie flees into the bush to live by his “Mother country”. Much to his demise, Charlie subsequently becomes ill and is admitted to hospital in Darwin. After discharging himself from the hospital, Charlie is quickly arrested for assaulting a policeman. Charlie serves time in prison for his crime and the film’s final scenes show Charlie, free and mentoring young Aboriginal boys in their native cultural traditions. As the audience follows Charlie’s everyday encounters, they gain insight into the harsh realities faced by Aboriginals in modern-day Australia. Through his individual plight for survival amidst illness and poverty, de Heer presents profound political commentaries on this very pertinent social issue, spanning decades in Australian history.

The film's critical acclaim upon its release in 2013 was the impetus in prompting conversations and debates about the politics of Indigenous Australians. De Heer’s depiction of this remote community grappling with issues as a result of government-imposed law serves to capture the oppression and deeply ingrained racism that continues to persist.

Tracks is one Australian woman’s survival narrative. The 1980 autobiographical memoir by Robyn Davidson, recounts her courageous 1700 miles trek across Australia, beginning from Central Australia towards the Indian ocean. In the effort to escape the monotony of her daily life, Davidson travels to her first destination -- Alice Springs -- in 1973 to start preparations. In the 2 years she spends there, she learns how to train camels and live minimally, the former proving to be a challenge. Despite her vehement will to refuse any kind of donation or financial help, Davidson eventually accepts a writing deal in partnership with National Geographic, providing the much-needed funds to confirm her departure. It's through this deal that she meets Rick Smolan, whom under the conditions of her deal has been recruited to photograph this journey - an unsettling compromise for Davidson which she ruminates on frequently in the novel. With her beloved dog Diggity and her camels, Davidson traverses the Australian landscape, discovering more about herself, her country and the people. 

Fundamentally, this book is as much about Davidson’s internal transformation and personal frontiers as it is about exposing the colonial and masculine ethos that permeates Australian history.

Themes (Similarities and Differences)

At LSG, we use the CONVERGENT and DIVERGENT strategy to help us easily find points of similarity and difference. This is particularly important when it comes to essay writing, because you want to know that you're coming up with unique comparative points (compared to the rest of the Victorian cohort!). I don't discuss this strategy in detail here, but if you're interested, check out my How To Write A Killer Comparative. I use this strategy throughout my discussion of themes here and in a later section, Sample Essay Plan.

Isolation and Alienation

Charlie, drawing on Gulpilil's own experiences, becomes profoundly alienated from his Ramingining community to the extent where he serves no major function in the community life. Charlie is alienated both physically and figuratively, not only does he live in a makeshift hut on the outskirts of town, but he is separated from the Aboriginal community in this town and resents the fact that white Australians have assumed power over his land. He is evidently neglected from the wider society, which causes much of the internal and external conflict he experiences in the film, an ordeal which many within the Indigenous minorities can empathise with. 

In his efforts to escape his life within the confines of the intervention, Charlie sees isolation and social rebellion as a mechanism to rediscover his Indigenous roots, spending time in nature to fulfil his journey for self-discovery and to gain the freedom he’s lost. Removing himself from a town permeated by imperial powers provides him with an opportunity to restore his lost sense of self-autonomy. De Heer is intending to reveal the difficulty of assimilation for Aboriginal Australians. He also highlights the importance of human connection and relational harmony for individuals.

“Do you mind if I call you Charlie? I have difficulty pronouncing foreign names.” “Now I’m a foreigner?” (Charlie and the Darwin doctor) 

“It's isolated, it's remote.” (Policeman Luke on Ramingining)

“I work for them catching criminals, they don’t pay me.” (Charlie)

“I don’t know what’s wrong with him… shaming us.” (Pete on Charlie)

Robyn Davidson views complete isolation as a way to detach herself from the commercialism and expectations of modern-day Australia, to connect with nature and to challenge her own beliefs of herself. For her, complete solitude in this journey is a private and personal gesture designed to intentionally preserve the sanctity of the trip. While Rick Smolan’s company appears benign, Davidson’s abrasive attitude towards him as well as her reluctance in ‘selling’ her story is particularly revealing of her attempt to maintain the subjectivity of the trip. The act of breaching this solitude is what Davidson sees as an egregious debasement of the sacredness of the journey, allowing it to be objectified by the eyes of the public. In addition to this, isolation signifies liberation and freedom from a society laden with rigid expectations, Smolan acts as a constant reminder of these external responsibilities. Davidson experiences alienation from the wider society, being a confident, decisive woman trekking independently and defying the limitations imposed on her sex. She also repeatedly expresses her sense of alienation when entering Aboriginal communities and although she is sensitive to the impression she gives, she acknowledges her persistent feeling as an outsider. Davidson is aware of the divide between these two cultures that have resulted from a history of inequality and oppression. In Tracks, Davidson also demonstrates the need for meaningful connections, however she sources this from her animal companions and nature.

“My aloneness was a treasure which I guarded like a jewel... but like everything [it] had to follow the laws of change.” (p. 40)

“No more loved ones to care about, no more ties, no more duties, no more people needing you to be one thing or another, no more conundrums, no more politics, just you and the desert baby.” (p. 94)

“I could never enter their reality, [I] would always be a whitefella tourist on the outside looking in.” (p. 146)

“I could not be with the Aboriginal people without being a clumsy intruder.” (p. 146)

Conformity

Charlie’s displacement from his community is the driving force behind his decision to return to the Aboriginal way of life. De Heer uses this depiction of Charlie, to serve as a wider embodiment of the difficulty for the Indigenous people to assimilate and conform to the western lifestyle. After witnessing the limitations he faces under the ‘whitefella’ laws in Ramingining, it is Charlie who first attempts to escape his community. He repeatedly rejects the life of subordination and compliance under the government laws, which as shown in the film has forced many of the Indigenous people to neglect their own traditions and way of life (for example, they must now eat unhealthy fast foods to survive and go through school). Charlie’s individualistic expressions seen through crafting a spear and going hunting are actively suppressed by the white authority, leaving him to conclude that the only way to fully exercise his personal agency is to live in the Australian wilderness, alone. His act of abandoning the car with his belongings and parting with almost nothing in his possession is significant in demonstrating his defiance of the imposition of western culture and his journey for self-reliance. De Heer depicts how conforming to an oppressive society is detrimental and praises the self-transformative effects of embracing individualism rather than blindly conforming.

"Live the old way… …going to my Mother Country.’"(Charlie)

“F--- those thieving…white bastards.” (Charlie)

“The kids go to school now. They don’t care.” (Charlie)

“Why did you come here? From far away… stealing people’s stuff! Is this your land?... F---ing bastards.” (Charlie)

“I’m free now. I have my own supermarket! And this is my country! I can dance with it!” (Charlie)

Robyn Davidson’s decision to leave her normal life in Queensland to cross the Australian desertland is one that becomes the subject of much scrutiny and doubt. Her bold, dauntless approach towards pursuing this journey, specifically as a single, young woman was radically counter-cultural to the perception of women in the 1970s as delicate and docile individuals. Davidson’s indifference and somewhat dismissive attitude towards the derogatory remarks and reductive characterisations are indicative of her acknowledgement of the unjustified prejudice that permeates Australian culture. Additionally, Davidson’s assertive personality and commitment to travelling in the wilderness alone is ultimately an establishment to herself as an autonomous woman, rebelling against the traditional conventions of marriage, motherhood and domesticity that was previously expected of her. Ultimately, Davidson strongly asserts the need for resistance, particularly where there is the expectation for conformity, as well as her experience, is revealing of the cleansing and liberating feelings of embracing individualism rather than conforming.

“(Dropping eyes to chest level). "Where’s yer old man?" "I don't have an old man." (p. 5)

“I was self-protective, suspicious and defensive and I was also aggressively ready to pounce on anyone who looked like they might be going to give a hard time.” (p. 34)

“It was essential for me to develop beyond the archetypal female creature who from birth had been trained to be sweet, pliable, forgiving, compassionate and door-mattish.” (p. 34)

“I wanted to… unclog my brain of all extraneous debris, not be protected, to be stripped of all social crutches, not to be hampered by any outside interference.” (p. 91)

Belonging and Identity

The laconic and monotonous pace of the film is suggestive of a more deeply rooted issue surrounding the identity distortions experienced by Aboriginals, even to the present day. This depiction acts as a personification of the widespread troubles of Indigenous Australians -- the deep struggle between submitting to the institutions of the ‘whitefella’ intervention and clinging to what is left of their traditional heritage, often rendering them feeling separated from both cultures. The mundane nature of his daily activities conveys the social incongruence between Charlie’s struggle to live sufficiently as a ‘traditional’ elder or as a ‘modern’ Australian, finding himself disconnected from both. This internal battle is psychologically taxing for Charlie, as he encounters many contradictions: receiving welfare payments, only to have to give them away to his family, and so he goes without food and later becomes hungry, only to be denied the opportunity to hunt for his own food. Fulfilling one culture means rejecting the other, and freedom in one means rebellion in the other. Thus, Charlie sees social transgression as his only choice of refashioning his own identity. De Heer reveals how freely establishing a secure sense of identity and belonging in their culture is critical in the lives of these individuals, however, the long-term damage that western society has inflicted has made this almost impossible.

“You’ve got a job, and you’ve got a house…on my land. Where’s my house? Where’s my job?” (Charlie)

“We need to teach them… the traditional ways.” (Charlie’s friend) 

“I’ve been away fishing, now I’m home. I’m eating well. It’s my own supermarket.” (Charlie)

“I’m free now. I have my own supermarket! And this is my country! I can dance with it!” (Charlie)

In Tracks, Davidson’s attempt to escape the responsibilities and social pressures to immerse herself in nature is ultimately a journey of self-discovery; to define her own identity irrespective of the expectations imposed on her by the 1970s society. As a solitary female, challenging the restrictions of her sex and exposing herself to unpredictable surroundings, she can curate her own identity as a progressive, post-colonial feminist, seizing and capitalising on the autonomy she has. This endeavour allows Davidson to undergo a form of self-transformation, a search for meaning for herself and others, what she describes as a “desocializing process -- the sloughing of, like a snakeskin”. Furthermore, Davidson is determined to rediscover her place in respect to the desertland, educating herself about the native biodiversity and most importantly, the native people. Although Davidson recognises that she will always be considered a ‘whitefella’, she finds a sense of fulfilment and belonging in engaging with and observing the rural Aboriginal communities. She demonstrates a deep understanding of the distorted identity and loss of belonging for the Aborigines at the hands of imperial white forces and is sensitive to the damage that has been inflicted. Above all, Davidson gains a renewed, stable sense of identity and belonging through her resistance to the imperial Australian racist mentality, challenging the male-orientated culture. However, she is also confronted by the reality of this breakdown of identity within the Aboriginal communities.

“This was my first home, where I felt such a sense of relief and belonging that I needed nothing and no one.” (p. 40)

“From the day the thought came into my head ‘I’m going to enter a desert with camels’, to the day I felt the preparations to be completed, I had built some intangible but magical for myself…” (p. 95)

“I wanted to understand so much… I melted into a feeling of belonging. They were letting me into their world. They asked me if I wanted to dance.” (p. 145)

“Once dispossessed of this land, ceremonial life deteriorates, people lose their strength, meaning and identity.” (p. 167)‍‍

Connection to Nature

The significance of nature to the Aboriginal people is at the core of this film. Charlie embodies this connection through his escape to the Australian wilderness. This first acts as a fresh alternative to the restrictive, repressive lifestyle within his government-intervened community, given. It's an opportunity to rebel against the western lifestyle and restore his traditional way of life, which leaves him feeling free, happy and powerful. However, his struggle to adjust to this change is indicative of the corruption of the intrinsic link between the people and the land. The harmonious, symbiotic relationship that the Indigenous people once had with the land has deteriorated; having been essentially poisoned through the introduction of a progressive white society. As much as Charlie tries to balance elements of both cultures by hunting and quitting smoking, it becomes apparent to him returning to where ‘[he] was born’, is the only way to rediscover his sense of self and truly experience freedom. Ultimately, like much of the wider Indigenous people, Charlie’s unable to fully abandon the constraints of white society and has become dependent. De Heer confronts the audience with the consequences of this irreversible separation through the illness and poverty that the Aboriginal people must endure.

“There’s lots of food in the bush… It's like a supermarket out there.” (Charlie’s companion)

“Then you’ll die in the wrong place… a long way from your country… They’ll be no one with you, no one to look after you.” (Charlie to a friend)

“I was born in the bush. They didn’t find me in the bush.” (Charlie)

“I want to go home now......back to my own country......where my place is...” (Charlie)

The connection to nature seen in Tracks serves several functions for Davidson. Contrary to the majority of attitudes of the time, Davidson can recognise the sanctity of the Australian land and is determined to learn about and experience this connection between the Aboriginal people and their environment. Like in Charlie’s Country, Davidson’s encounter with the rural, minimalist Aboriginal communities is a distinct contrast to the urban society which she leaves behind. It’s a sobering reminder to Davidson of the persisting racism and colonialist mentality which pervades Australian history and confirms the serious consequences that have occurred from the loss of connection between land and people. Even further, her battle to survive and adapt to the unpredictability of the desert is the ultimate test of endurance, which Davidson acknowledges enables lasting self-transformation and consolidates to her the true majesty and reverence of nature. Therefore, this escapism into the desertland is Davidson’s own challenge for personal change and a chance to experience true liberation like Charlie, as well as finding peace with the natives by means of acknowledging the usurpation of their traditional land and rights.

“All around me was magnificence. Light, power, space and sun. And I was walking into it. I was going to let it make me or break me.” (p. 101)

“It is difficult to describe Australian desert ranges as their beauty is not just visual. They have an awesome grandeur that can fill you with exaltation or dread, and usually a combination of both.” (p. 122)

“Besides, no amount of anthropological detail can begin to convey Aboriginal feeling for their land. It is everything -- their law, their ethics, their reason for existence.” (p. 167)

“And just as Aborigines seem to be in perfect rapport with themselves and their country, so the embryonic beginnings of that rapport were happening to me.” (p. 193)

Author Views and Values

Aboriginal Rights and the Intervention

Like in any comparison, it is important to understand some of the key events that were occurring at the time of both the text and the film. While Tracks and Charlie Country are set more than 3 decades apart, the issue of Aboriginal rights is still equally as important in both settings.

In Tracks, the 1970-80s saw many progressive milestones in Aboriginal history. Just years prior to Davidson’s departure, Australians voted for change in the constitution officially recognising Aboriginal people in the national census. Later, 1976 saw the Aboriginal Land Rights Act, which allowed the Indigenous people to assume ownership of land that was acknowledged to be rightly theirs. Many of these legislative changes were indicative of a larger-scale shift in attitudes towards the fairer treatment of Aborigines. While the oppression and racism continued, it was individuals like Robyn Davidson who pioneered the way for greater change and equality. Davidson ultimately intends to highlight the devastation that has occurred to the Aboriginal people following colonisation and aims to shine the light on the persisting issues these individuals face in an ostensibly ‘post-colonial’ Australia.

Examples:

• Despite some advancements of Indigenous rights in the 1970s, Davidson is firmly opposed to the ongoing racist attitudes held by white Australians.
• Davidson sympathises with the deep hardship endured by the Aboriginal people, which was characteristic of the evolving attitudes towards racial equality in 1970s Australia.

In addition to this, was the 2007 ‘intervention’. Charlie’s Country is set some years following the introduction of the Northern Territory National Emergency Response. Following reports of child sexual abuse and neglect, the Howard Government unleashed national forces to remote Indigenous communities in the effort to act as law enforcement and impose alcohol and drug restrictions. De Heer examines the consequences of what was described as a ‘last-ditch’ attempt to maintain power; an act that was widely criticised and showed to further exacerbate the suffering of the Indigenous people. Hence, de Heer’s film provides a personal insight into the difficulty of navigating life for Indigenous citizens as a result of the Intervention, and how Charlie’s struggles are representative of the anguish of the wider Aboriginal community.

Examples:

• Drawing parallels with the time of 2007 Northern Territory Intervention, de Heer intends to reveal the identity distortions that Indigenous individuals suffered due to the enforcement of westernised laws.
• De Heer’s depiction of Charlie’s alienation from Ramingining was indicative of the wider Aboriginal population in the time following the 2007 Intervention, which saw the introduction of new restrictions into rural communities in the Northern Territory.
  

Women's rights in Australia

The 1970s was a critical time for women's rights in Australia. At this point in time, after the first wave enabled women to vote, the second wave of feminism was moving through the nation. Women all across Australia were now fervently advocating for their own autonomy and freedom in the workplace and at home; their efforts directed more to dismantle the rigid social structures and expectations that were demanded from them. Davidson is an avid proponent for this cause and demonstrates a tactful and astute understanding of her image as a white, middle-class woman. She openly reiterates her distaste for the sexist remarks and misogynistic caricatures she faces and is determined to confound the restrictions placed on her sex of being a domesticated and weak female. Overall, Davidson is promoting the principles of breaking through societal expectations, however, also reveals the many challenges she encounters in doing so.

Examples:

• Davidson’s defiance of the traditional female image is indicative of the progressive attitudes regarding women's rights in 1970s Australia.
• Davidson’s embodiment of feminist ideas was synonymous to the 1970s second wave of feminism, where women in Australia were fighting for more freedoms at work and at home.
  

Comparing metalanguage and film techniques

It can be a bit daunting trying to compare techniques in a novel to those in a film. In this instance, it is crucial to first look at the idea you are comparing. For example, we can observe that both Tracks and Charlie’s Country show the liberating and cathartic feeling that comes from escaping social pressures. Now, let's look at how Robyn Davidson and Rolf de Heer achieve this, albeit in different manners. In Tracks, Davidson uses imagery to describe the desertland she meets, when she says, “It is like a vast unattended communal garden, the closest thing to earthly paradise I can imagine”. De Heer communicates this premise of freedom, however, does this by featuring a variety of diegetic sounds of the biodiversity in which Charlie finds himself.

Another example is how intimacy with protagonists is edified. De Heer uses sustained, intimate close up shots and at many times breaks the fourth wall by having Gulpilil look directly at the camera. On the other hand, Davidson employs colloquial language and is liberal with her use of expletives in order to convey a casual, conversational mood between herself and the reader.

Other aspects to consider:

Anthropomorphism in Tracks is the act of attributing human traits or behaviours to a god, animal or object. Davidson’s use of anthropomorphism to describe the animals around her (specifically the camels and her dog Diggety) is suggestive of the necessity for companionship for humans; the need to establish meaningful connections with others. For Davidson, companionship with animals comes easier than with humans (presuming this stems from her perception of society as problematic and grossly flawed).

Examples:

• Davidson on camels: “They are haughty, ethnocentric, clearly believing they are god’s chosen race. But they are also cowards and their aristocratic demeanour hides delicate hearts. I was hooked.” (p. 14)
• “[The camels] hung around me like flies, shuffling their feet, looking embarrassedly at the ground or coyly through their elegant lashes, acting apologetic and loving and remorseful…” (p. 80)
• “Diggity had become a cherished friend rather than simply a pet.” (p. 227)
• “[Diggity] combined all the best qualities of god and human and was a great listener." (p. 207)

Cinematography, specifically types of cinematic shots in Charlie’s Country. Those commonly seen in the film include wide shots (camera captures a wide view of the context or setting), close up shots (camera captures events from a short distance away; involves a character’s facial features and expressions), as well as panoramic shots (camera pans around horizontally, showing surroundings). Directors are intentional in the type of cinematography they employ; therefore it is crucial to observe the context in which these shots take place in order to enrich the analysis. 

Examples:

• Several wide angle, landscape shots of nature, both at the beginning of the film and when Charlie first enters the Australian wilderness.
• Close up shots of Charlie sitting by the fire, and when he is in prison.
• Panoramic shots of Aboriginal art that Charlie discovers in the wild.
• Panoramic shot also in the courtroom where Charlie is on trial.

Remember! When analysing, you must consider where these occur in the context of the film’s narrative, and the effect they have on enhancing the events/themes/broader ideas being presented in the scene. (i.e. How are the characters portrayed compared to their surroundings? Compared to others? How are they interacting with these elements? Why has the director chosen this angle/shot?)

Sample Essay Plan

Compare how Tracks and Charlie’s Country present the importance of Individualism.

Sample Introduction:

Set amidst an era of significant social and political change, Robyn Davidson’s autobiographical memoir ‘Tracks’ and Rolf de Heer’s film ‘Charlie’s Country’ explores the plight of individuals who embrace individualism. Both Davidson and de Heer assert that individualism is necessary for the protagonists, who find themselves marginalised from the wider population. Through their respective journeys to independence, Robyn and Charlie achieve a sense of empowerment through identity self-refashioning, as well as they express their disapproval of the toxic institutions of society. However, the text and the film also demonstrate how at times, embracing individualism can present challenges to those who pursue it. Ultimately, Davidson and de Heer commend those who do not fully conform to society.

Paragraph 1: Charlie and Robyn gain empowerment through independently establishing their own identity.

Robyn sees the trip as a demonstration to herself of the shedding of the traditional image of white, middle class woman: 

• “Am I an individualist because I believe I can take control of my own life? If so, then yes, I was definitely that.” 
• “I had… been sick of carrying around the self-indulgent negativity which was so much the malaise of my generation, my sex and my class.”
• Describes the experience as a “gentle catharsis” and that “[She] was happy”.

Charlie’s abandonment of the Ramingining community is an attempt to resolve the identity ambiguity he feels as a result of the Government intervention.

• Charlie appears to receive government benefits only to have to give it away to family, later divulging that “I have no money left… or food. I’m hungry”. When he tries to source food by traditional means, he is punished. All this demonstrates his struggles in balancing two cultures.
• Going back into his “Motherland” he is joyful, dancing and eating again. Recognises a sense of security in going back -- “That’s what I want”, “now I’m home”.

Paragraph 2: Embracing individualism for the protagonists means resisting toxic societal constructs.

Robyn adamantly condemns the deeply entrenched racism of Australian culture and sympathises with the Aborigines and their hardship. Her determination to learn about the Aboriginal people is an attempt to overcome the wedge that has been driven between the two communities: 

• “Racism is a daily experience for blacks in Alice Springs. It reinforces their own feelings of worthlessness and self-hate.”
• “Large mining corporations… lusting after Aboriginal Reserve land.”
• The dependency of the Aboriginal people termed as a “handy PR stunt” for government and policies equated to “apartheid in South Africa”.

Charlie becomes increasingly resistant against the traditions and policies of the government institutions.

• Many times he is seen throwing cigarettes into the fire -- his resentment towards the introduction of white customs. "You come from far away and bring us alcohol, ganja, tobacco... all bad!"
• Charlie rejects the white lifestyle by refusing to eat the food in the community, recognising its detrimental properties. Charlie on illness: “It’s all that… white man junk food we eat."

Paragraph 3: Resisting conformity is challenging for Robyn and Charlie, particularly in an oppressive society.

Robyn is met with harsh opposition and derogatory depictions in the media: 

• Labelled “the next town rape case.” 
• Discovers feces on her pillow one night in Alice Springs -- “let my presence be known as if I were a trespasser.”
• “‘Camel lady’ had that nice patronising belittling ring to it.”

Charlie is constantly shut down when embracing the ways of his culture; ultimately submitting to individualism also unveils his dependency on white society.

• He is charged with ‘recreational shooting’, and his hunting spear is considered "a dangerous weapon."
• Charlie’s confession earlier about his false teeth: “I can’t eat with them… I can eat without them” alluding to this dependency on society.
• The irreversible damage of white intervention is evident in Charlie’s poor health as a consequence of going back to “the old way” -- must go to the hospital.

Additional essay topic and prompts:

‘Resistance to conformity is at the forefront of Tracks and Charlie’s Country’. To what extent do you agree?

Discuss the ways in which the environment assists the protagonists in their journey for self-discovery.

‘The connection to the land is significant for the characters of both Charlie’s Country and Tracks’. Discuss.

‘The stories of Charlie and Robyn represent the plight of many others’. To what extent do you agree?

Compare the ways in which characters in Tracks and Charlie’s Country seek to discover what really matters to them.

‘Despite their deep hardship, Charlie and Robyn find transformation in their journeys’. Discuss.

Useful Resources

How to Write a Killer Comparative

Reading and Comparing Tracks into the Wild

Compare the Pair- A guide to structuring a reading and comparing essay

The link between your contention and topic sentences in relation to the prompt

Master Reading and Creating

We all love hacks. Life hacks, game hacks, Netflix hacks (wait, what)? They're all fabulous. Even better is when we can use English study hacks - because who doesn't want to make English just that much simpler?

Watched the video above already? Awesome! Keep reading for extra life hacks:

Extra hack #11 - Don’t just write essays.

There is a massive difference between writing an essay for the sake of writing an essay, as opposed to actively learning when applying your skills. If you feel yourself slipping into the dreaded ‘reusing the same evidence for every essay’, or you’ve somehow ended up doing 5 essay prompts based on the same character – STOP RIGHT THERE. Be proactive. You have to keep switching things up. This means constantly trying new prompts that are more challenging than the last and always trying to find new evidence you can use. Yes, there will always be our go-to pieces of evidence we like to use, like our favourite quote or symbol, but change it up often so that you don’t become complacent.

‍Extra hack #12 – Unique interpretations

The purpose of develop a unique interpretation of a text or film is so that you can demonstrate originality in your thinking and bring something new to the table that teachers have never come across before. After all, if you’re marking 30 essays in a row, you’d get pretty bored reading the same arguments again and again, wouldn’t you? Try to view the text from different lenses – feminist, Marxist, post-colonial perspective – and these will offer you new ways of interpreting the story.

Extra hack #13 – FOCUS

Some books can be very long (and no, we’re not talking about don’t need to go into detail with every single passage. Instead, have a selection of passages throughout the book that you know really well. It’s much better having an in-depth understanding of fewer passages, but produce a sound essay than to have a superficial overview of the book and struggle to write much at all!

English is not easy, but it doesn’t need to be hard either. Adopt only a few of these hacks and see your improvement in English – they really do work! Keep it up!

This blog was updated on 21/10/2020.

Contents

1. Summary

2. Background

3. Setting

4. Chapter 1 Plot and Analysis

5. Themes

6. Quotes

7. Sample Essay Topics

8. Essay Topic Breakdown

The Secret River is usually studied in the Australian curriculum under Area of Study 1 - Text Response. For a detailed guide on Text Response, check out our Ultimate Guide to VCE Text Response.

Summary

The Secret River is a historical novel telling the story of William Thornhill, a poor Englishman from the early 19th century who was deported and transported to New South Wales, Australia in 1806 for theft. This novel tells the story of Australia's founding and the moral choices made when  Europeans colonised land that was already inhabited by Aboriginal people.

Background

During 18th century to mid 19th century, 162,000 men and women were transported to Australia, with majority from England. These people, known as ‘convicts’, had committed crimes such as larceny and robbery – acts which were considered severe offenses and demanded heavy sentences. In order to deal with the overwhelming masses of criminals, the government exported crowds of convicts to Australia to serve their term as labourers. The reason driving the deportation included an attempt to decrease poverty and crime in England while concurrently developing the British colony in Australia.

Many of the fleets from England were destined for New South Wales, Australia. Those on the fleets included the criminals, marines, and their families. Living in a penal colony, the criminals were employed depending on their various skills: farmer, boatman, servant etc. The settlers were award a ‘ticket of leave’ if they presented good behaviour during labour. This meant that settlers would become emancipists, where they were set free from the government’s sentence and could begin a life for themselves by making their own living. This suited the government’s goal for a successful and thriving colony since it would only be possible if people were to work for themselves, and not under the terrain of the government.

Although Australia was chiefly populated with Indigenous Australians, the first century of colonisation saw a drastic decline in their population. This was due to a clash of desire for the land; the native’s innate protection of their land and the white settlers struggle to declare their right to an area already inhibited by natives – possibly for 40,000 years. The two cultures failed to ever create a peace agreement or compensation and as a result, the frontier was often marked with blood. Overtime, a successful of the British colony meant that white settlement overpowered any possibility of the natives retaining their land. The Secret River’s exploration of this powerful change in Australia’s history is a poignant reflection of the past, and demands attention to the sensitive issue of Australian and native relationship that is still present today.

Setting

Set during the early 19th century. Located in London, Sydney and on the Hawkesbury.

Chapter 1: Strangers

Plot

The Alexander, a transport ship for convicts has reached New South Wales, Australia after a travelling across the world for majority of the year. William Thornhill, an Englishman convicted to sentence his ‘natural life in the Year of Our Lord eighteen hundred and six’ [pg 3] will serve as a labourer.

During his first night in New South Wales, where their homes are ‘only a flap of bark, a screen of sticks and mud,’ Thornhill digested the new land with its ‘rich dank smells…restless water…no Pole star’; an environment vastly differentiated from England. The unfamiliar situation is overwhelming as ‘he had not cried, not for thirty years….but now his throat was thickening.’ In his despair, Thornhill describes how being sentenced to New South Wales could potentially be worse than dying itself.

Initially, Thornhill believed his tears are clouding his vision since the ‘darkness moved in front of him’ [pg 5]. However, he then realised that a human, ‘as black as the air itself’ stood before him. The unusual appearance of this human struck Thornhill since ‘his skin swallowed the light…[and] eyes were set so deeply into the skull.’ Although clothed, Thornhill ironically felt ‘skinless’ against the other who was completely naked and holding a spear. Thornhill repeatedly demanded that the man ‘be off’, for fear of his family and himself being attacked. Despite his shouting, this only impelled the man to move closer to the point where they almost touched. The ‘black man’ [pg 6] reproduced ‘be off’ in Thornhill’s exact tone. While Thornhill’s fear of this strange human is prominent, he grappled the strength to exert a bold, intrepid veneer, as ‘he was not about to surrender to any naked black man’. When he glanced back to his wife and children however, the man promptly disappeared, leaving only the darkness behind. Thornhill returned to his hut where he laid back down to rest yet ‘every muscle was tensed…the cold moment of finding that unforgiving thing in his flesh.’

Analysis

Environmental / Landscape conflict

For Thornhill, who has spent a lifetime in England, the confrontation of a new environment evokes a powerful sense of unfamiliarity. The unknown land presents him with various intrapersonal conflicts, one of which is the difference between England and Australian stars. While the physical distance of this new land from Thornhill’s home is demonstrated by the lack of a ‘Pole Star, a friend to guide him on the Thames, [and] no Bear that he had known all his life,’ [pg 4] the unrecognisable stars above Australia only depict a ‘blaze, unreadable, [and] indifferent.’ His conflict demonstrates his physical and emotional distance from Thames, a place he grown up surrounded by compared to Australia, where learning begins from the very basics, as shown when he absorbs the natural landscape around him. The night described as ‘huge and damp, flowing in and bringing with it the sounds of its own life’ [pg 3] highlights how the Australian land is unique, possessing qualities of existence.

Thornhill’s sense of negligence in the vast forest that continues ‘mile after mile’ is illustrated through the imagery of the ‘trees [which] stood tall over him,’ depicting that nature is a powerful and dominant force over the Europeans. While the trees render him insignificant, it also demonstrates his alienation from the environment. The ‘Alexander,’ a common traditional English name, represents an intrusion of the Europeans onto the Australian land, further highlighting the idea that they do not belong on this island.

The Australian land is depicted to be harsh and unforgiving, as highlighted through the imagery of ‘dirt chill...sharp stab...alien stars' [pg 4] This conflict with the brutal landscape, along with the unknown leaves Thornhill apprehensive of what is to come. His feeling that he was ‘nothing more than a flea on the side of some enormous quiet creature’ [pg 4] depicts the Australian land almost like a monster. Additionally, the words ‘restless’ draw to the idea that the land is at discomfort or uneasy to have new inhabitants.

Racial/Cultural conflict

The conflict between two cultures is shown through the initial encounter between Thornhill and an Indigenous Australian. Without any conversation, the tension between the two is clear, merely through their actions in each other’s prescence. Thornhill notes the Aboriginal male’s tattoos, yet regards them as ‘scars’ since he is unaware to their culture. Even before this man, Thornhill is still infused with a sense of nakedness because of his unfamiliarity.  His feeling that ‘every muscle was tensed…the cold moment of finding that unforgiving thing in his flesh’ highlights the tension of his first encounter of an Australian Aboriginal while it also foreshadows a suffering and anguish for his time ahead.

If you'd like to see the all Chapter plots, their analysis, along with important quotes, then have a look at our The Secret River Study Guide.

Quotes

Conflict with land quotes

“Now it had fetched up at the end of the earth.” [pg 3]

“…this prison whose bars were ten thousand miles of water.” [pg 3]

“foreign darkness” [pg 3]

“…soughing of the forest, mile after mile.” [pg 3]

“He was nothing more than a flea on the side of some enormous quiet creature.” [pg 4]

Thornhill’s inner conflict quotes

“He had not cried, not for thirty years, not since he was a hungry child to young to know that crying did not fill your belly.” [pg 4]

“But every muscle was tensed, anticipating the shock in his neck or his belly, his hand going to the place, the cold moment of finding that unforgiving thing in his flesh.” [pg 6]

Racism quotes

“It took a moment to understand that the stirring was a human, as black as the air itself.” [pg 5]

“Clothed as he was, Thornhill felt skinless as a maggot.” [pg 5]

“This was a kind of madness, as if a dog were to bark in English.” [pg 6]

“He was not about to surrender them to any naked black man.” [pg 6]

Sample Essay Topics

1. William Thornhill is more worthy of our respect than our reprehension. Do you agree?

2. How does Kate Grenville explore hierarchy?

3. How does The Secret River’s symbolism enhance its exploration of alienation?

4. “Fear could slip unnoticed into anger, as if they were one and the same.” The Thornhills’ anger is valid. To what extent do you agree?

Now it's your turn! Give these essay topics a go. For more sample essay topics, head over to our The Secret River Study Guide to practice writing essays using the analysis you've learnt in this blog!

Essay Topic Breakdown

Whenever you get a new essay topic, you can use LSG’s THINK and EXECUTE strategy, a technique to help you write better VCE essays. This essay topic breakdown will focus on the THINK part of the strategy. If you’re unfamiliar with this strategy, then check it out in How To Write A Killer Text Response.

Within the THINK strategy, we have 3 steps, or ABC. These ABC components are:

Step 1: Analyse

Step 2: Brainstorm

Step 3: Create a Plan

Theme-Based essay prompt: The Secret River depicts many layers of conflict, within but also between its key characters. Discuss

Step 1: Analyse

The key term of this prompt is conflict, but I think it’s also important to analyse how it’s discussed—as something that exists in layers, and something that can happen both within and between characters. This seems to hint at the idea that conflict can be internal—that is a single character can feel conflicted about something—as well as external—that is two or more characters can have some kind of dispute. This prompt will require us to think about all these different types of conflict. 

Step 2: Brainstorm

Let’s start with the most internal layer—conflicts with the self. In terms of key characters, consider William but also Sal: what debates do they have with themselves, or what do they say or do that shows they feel conflicted or unsure about something?  

Then, let’s broaden that out to interpersonal conflicts between characters. How do William and Sal, for example, come into conflict with their neighbours—both their white neighbours and their Aboriginal neighbours? How do they come into conflict with each other, even?

Maybe it’s worth separating the racial conflict into another category—conflicts between groups of characters, rather than individual characters. If we make this distinction, we need to be prepared to back it up—in what ways is this conflict of a different nature?

Step 3: Create a plan

I think we can pretty justifiably separate out our layers of conflict into those categories: interpersonal, interpersonal and interracial. This gives us three neat(-ish) paragraphs and a clear, affirmative contention: yes, there are many layers of conflict, and those are the three layers. 

P1: At its most intimate layer, conflict is internal—the moral dilemmas of William and Sal are particularly strong examples.

P2: Conflict can also be interpersonal—we can see this between William and Dan, or William and his neighbours, or between William and Sal even. It’s up to you which way you cut this paragraph.

P3: However, perhaps the central conflict that the novel is built around is interracial conflict between white colonisers and the Aboriginal people whose land they occupied. To extend the prompt a little, we can talk about conflict not just between characters or people, but also between value systems. For example, the way colonisers saw land and property were fundamentally incompatible with how Aboriginal people saw it—this is another type of conflict.

In this sense, we’re largely agreeing with the prompt, backing up the distinction between interpersonal and interracial conflict, and finding a way to extend on it a little towards the end. We can build this into the contention as well: there are many layers of conflict, but they occur not just between characters. They can also exist between the broad cultural values of entire groups of people as well. 

If you find this essay breakdown helpful, then you might want to check out our The Secret River Study Guide where we cover 5 A+ sample essays (written by a 50 study scorer!) with EVERY essay annotated and broken down on HOW and WHY these essays achieved A+ so you reach your English goals! Let's get started.

Resources

The Ultimate Guide to VCE Text Response

How To Write A Killer Text Response Study Guide

How to embed quotes in your essay like a boss

How to turn your Text Response essays from average to A+

5 Tips for a mic drop worthy essay conclusion

Background

Montana 1948 is narrated by David Hayden, now a middle-aged history teacher, reflecting on the summer of 1948 that changed his entire life.

It begins with David noticing that his Native American babysitter, Marie Little Soldier is unwell. Gail and Wesley, David’s parents, attempt to enlist the help of Wesley’s brother Frank, a well-respected doctor in the community. However, Marie reacts to this idea with fear, anxiety and resistance. Gail concludes that something sinister must be happening for her to have such a reaction and she presses Marie for why she is so afraid. Marie then reveals to Gail that she has heard that Dr Frank has been sexually abusing many of his female Native American patients. Gail immediately confides in Wesley who is both the Sheriff of their town and Frank’s brother. This becomes the central source of tension, as Wes must decide between his duty as the Sheriff and his loyalty to his family.

This is all told from the perspective of David, our protagonist, who has to watch his father confront his Uncle Frank about these taboo accusations. Eventually, it seems they reach an agreement with Frank to stop the abuse.

Marie is discovered dead the next day in her bed when Gail goes to check up on her. Later that night, David admits to his parents that he saw Frank go into their home in the afternoon and immediately, Wesley concludes that Frank “is guilty as sin” for murdering Marie. As the Sheriff of the town, Wesley is obligated to arrest Frank, but in order to spare Frank the embarrassment, he keeps Frank in their basement instead of sending him to jail.  

Upon hearing this news, David’s grandfather, Julian, orders Wesley to release Frank. Julian accuses Wesley of arresting him out of jealousy and he threatens to use his power within the community to set Frank free. At this point, Wesley realises that the power of his father would only be matched by the law, and he decides that he must officially prosecute his brother.

That next day, David, Wes and Gail wake up to find Frank dead, having used broken glass to slit his wrists and commit suicide. Young David believes that this was the right action and hopes that everything would go back to normal. But as the story goes, this is not the case.

Themes

Prejudice, discrimination and the abuse of power

Another key theme is prejudice, discrimination and the abuse of power. Frank’s abuse of the Native American women is both an abuse of his power and responsibilities as a Doctor and a way to take advantage of his personal belief in White “racial superiority.” Julian and Frank embody the toxic, violent and bigoted mentality prevalent during that time period, which Watson deplores as reprimandable and unacceptable. Even at the novel’s close, Frank’s death is symbolic in two ways. Firstly, it means that Frank managed to escape persecution, public denouncement and jail time. But more importantly, he is still revered in the community as a “respected man” and a “war hero. '' Therefore, while he physically passes away, his ‘legacy’ and façade of heroism remains alive.

Law vs Justice

One of the central themes of ‘Montana 1948’ is the conflict between abiding by the law and doing what is just. Due to the institutionalised racism that existed in the 1940’s, Frank’s actions were not considered technically illegal, however, by intuitive standards of morality, his rape of Natives in his practice and his subsequent murder of Marie clearly warrant punishment. Thus, Watson touches on the failures of the judicial system to consistently hand out judgements that are morally fair and instead reveals the flaws within the legal system of the time that reflect widespread and corrupt social attitudes.

Loyalty vs Morality

Watson also touches on the conflict between loyalty and morality. This, as we know, forms the crux of narrative’s tension. Should Wes arrest and prosecute his brother Frank or not? Should he stay loyal to his family or uphold the moral values that he must stand by as the towns Sheriff? Gail, David’s mother, embodies all the virtues of morality that we all stand by and she is appalled by Frank’s behaviour and demands that he be persecuted regardless of his relationship with Wes. In sharp contrast, Julian believes that Frank can be excused for his actions because the victims were merely “red meat” Native American women who he views as subhuman.

‍

Characters 

Gail:

Gail is David’s mother and Wesley’s wife. She is a compassionate, idealistic and courageous woman. This can also be seen as she stands up for Marie, despite the prejudices in the society at the time. She also spends a ‘good deal of energy’ protecting herself and her family.  She also doesn’t take part in Wesley’s racist jokes. For example, when Wesley makes a joke about Marie, ‘never been to anyone but the tribal medicine man’, David responds with ‘my mother didn’t laugh.’

David:

David is Wesley and Gail’s son and is the narrator of the text. He doesn’t share Wesley’s beliefs surrounding race and forms his own moral perspective. This is demonstrated when he makes a fuss about wanting to wear moccasins (which Gail sides with him on) while his father says will make him ‘as flat-footed and lazy as an Indian.’ 

Unlike his father, we don’t see David conflicted with his loyalties and he is particularly critical of his father. This is best demonstrated when he ‘was beginning to already think of Uncle Frank as a criminal’ upon hearing sexual assault accusations against Frank. When Wesley spares Gail the details of his investigation into Frank, David believes it could be because he is ‘trying to protect his brother and keeping the number of witnesses to the accounts of his crime to a minimum’. After Wesley arrests Frank and takes him to the basement for imprisonment, David assumes his father killed Frank despite Wesley not being depicted as a particularly violent person in the novel.  All it takes is an indistinct noise from the basement for David to conjure up ways his father could have killed his Uncle Frank.

Frank:

Frank is Wesley’s brother and is described as a ‘witty and charming’ doctor, and war hero who is widely loved by the community -particularly by his dad, Julian. In reality, Frank is a criminal who abuses his power - both a white man and a doctor to sexually assault Indian women - which he believes he can get away with.  This is compounded when he states, “I am not concerned about social progress.” Through Frank, Watson demonstrates how some individuals can abuse their positions of power and privilege, and to not lose any sleep over it (‘at smiling ease with his life and everything it’).

Wesley:

Wesley is Julian’s son, Gail’s husband, and David’s father and the sheriff of Mercer county. He dislikes Native Americans and frequently makes jokes about them and stereotypes them. He even uses the fact that Marie Little Soldiers is a Native American to belittle and doubt the credibility of her experience. 

Wesley’s conflicting loyalties become more complex and difficult once you consider the prejudices at the time, his job as an officer of the law, Frank’s station in the family and community, Gail’s strong opinions and his constant need to seek validation from his father. An instance that mirrors Wesley’s conflicting loyalties is when he tells Gail, “I wish you wouldn’t have told the sheriff.” When she told informed him of Marie’s sexual assault allegations against Frank. However, in Wesley’s eyes, Frank’s murder of Marie Little Soldier, is where the latter crosses the line. The magnitude of his brother’s crime is too large for him to let his previous conflicting loyalties as a sheriff and a brother hold him back from arresting Frank. After convicting Frank and having to argue about it with his father, we learned ‘for the first time how this experience with his brother was ruining him physically.’ 

Julian:

Julian is a bigoted racist man who has an unconditional love for his son Frank and unfairly favours him over his son Wesley. When he learns of Franks charges he exclaims, “What kind of bullshit is this?” He belittles the sexual assaults as Frank just ‘feeling them up’ and ‘assaulting an Indian’. At this point, Julian taking Frank’s side exposes how irrationally loyal he is to his son and suggests that even if the women were not Indian, he may still stand by Frank's actions. He protests that the only reason Wesley convicted Frank was that ‘ever since the war, ever since Frank came home in uniform and he [Wesley] stayed here [home],’ he’s ‘been jealous’. However, this comment seems to say more about Julian’s feelings than Wesley’s - perhaps, this is why Julain felt this inclination towards Frank. After this argument, we see Wesley’s feeling of defeat and heartbreak - that despite Frank being a murderer and a rapist, his father still seemed to pick his side over Wesley’s. 

Quotes 

Quotes on Prejudices, Discrimination and the Abuse of Power

• “He wears those and soon he'll be as flat-footed and lazy as an Indian" - Discrimination is evident in Montana 1948 where Wesley uses stereotypes of Indians to imply they are inferior to them, and that David shouldn’t be like them.
• "She's an Indian- Why would she tell the truth?”  
• “Your mother and I thought we’d have more to show than just one grandchild … and white- we want them we want them white”
• “Screwing an Indian. Or feeling her up or whatever. You don’t lock up a man for that.”
• “You know Frank’s always been partial to red meat.”  
• “Well if Sheriff Hayden says it's so, it must be so.”
• “Wesley, your brother is raping these women. These girls. These Indian girls.”

Quotes on Law vs Justice

• “Why did my grandfather first run for sheriff? … He wanted, he needed power. He was a dominating man who drew sustenance and strength from controlling others.” This quote shows that many people in society at the time held positions of power such as lawyers or sheriff but didn’t enforce the law or worry about the morality of their actions. Thus creating an unjust legal system that would allow these people to shape how the law is enforced with their own prejudices.
• “You know what your Grandad said it means to be a peace officer in Montana? He said it means knowing when to look and when to look away.”  

• “I think the problem has been taken care of. Frank said he’s going to cut it out”
• “Well if Sheriff Hayden says it's so, it must be so.”
  

Quotes on Loyalty vs Morality

• "David, I believe that in this world people must pay for their crimes. It doesn't matter who you are or who your relations are; if you do wrong, you pay. I believe that. I have to."
• “I wish you wouldn’t have told the sheriff.” 
• “I think the problem has been taken care of. Frank said he’s going to cut it out”
• “Well if Sheriff Hayden says it's so, it must be so.”
• “You don’t lock up your brother. A respected man. A war hero.” “This is a legal matter.” “Bullsh*t.” “Then why have you got him locked up here and not over at the jail? This is your brother here. My son!”
  

Quotes on Destruction of Innocence

• 'I had gone back into the house -to the kitchen, to my room, out the backdoor, I had left the porch and followed frank's steps down the front walk - I never would have heard the conversation between my father and mother, and perhaps I would have lived my life with an illusion about my family and perhaps the human community’ - page 33

• “The shock of hearing this about Uncle Frank was doubled because my mother was saying these words. Rape. Breasts. Penis. These were words I never heard my mother use-ever- and I’m sure her stammer was not only from emotion but also from the strain on her vocabulary.”
• “But I was on a trail that would lead me out of my childhood.”

‍

With contributions from Fae Saberi.

Stories We Tell is a different beast to anything many of you will have encountered previously in your English studies. This blog is a continuation of the above Stories We Tell YouTube video so make sure you watch it first!

With interviews, archival footage, extradiegetic film and sound elements alongside recreated scenes, the documentary can seem very overbearing and convoluted upon first viewing. However, once you have a holistic understanding of the text a plethora of opportunity for high-level analysis and discussion presents itself. Stories We Tell is usually studied in the Australian curriculum under Text Response. For a detailed guide on Text Response, check out our Ultimate Guide to VCE Text Response.

To begin, watch our introduction covering background and themes below:

Video Transcription

Background

Stories We Tell centres around director Sarah Polley attempting to piece together her family history. While she endeavours to understand who her mother Diane was and finally learn the identity of her biological father, Director Polley also poses a number of questions to viewers surrounding the nature of the truth and the importance of stories in our lives. The film is comprised of interviews with Diane’s loved ones, home movies from the Polley family, extra-diegetic newspaper clippings, recreated Super 8 footage and excerpts from other productions - all of which contribute to Sarah’s inquisition into the notion of truth, and demonstration that how a story is told can shape how it is received.

NB: I have used ‘Sarah’ when discussing Sarah Polley as a character, and ‘Polley’ when describing her as the director.

Themes

Truth

The idea of the truth, and what comprises it is a constant question being answered through the documentary. Before exploring Polley’s depiction of the truth, it’s important that we fully understand what the truth is. One definition characterises it as the burden of confirming with fact or reality, and with this in mind it becomes easier to appreciate and analyse the intricacies of Stories We Tell. Polley creates a distinction between universal truths - which are accepted by all as fact, and subjective truths which can vary on individual interpretations. For example, Michael conflicts with the rest of the family while discussing his relationship with Sarah after Diane’s passing. Mark details Michael’s obsession with “playing solitaire”, Susy depicts the house as one of “complete and utter disuse”, while Joanna observed him “smoking all day” and perceived Sarah as “just a little kid who nobody was looking after.” Michael, however, has fond memories of his time spent with Sarah - he believed he was “lucky to have her to look after as well as himself”, called their time together a “great period” - eventuating in him feeling “closer to [Sarah] than any of the other children.”‍

Individual recollections of Michael’s actions and demeanor during this period belong to each storyteller, and form the basis for what they consider to be the ‘truth’ regarding Michael and Sarah’s relationship. By presenting contrasting accounts of the same event, Polley reveals her stance on the idea of truth - being that it is entirely subjective and open to interpretation, centred around the perceptions of each individual at any moment in time. It is entirely possible that Michael did “smoke all day” and feel a sense of increased “close[ness]” with Sarah, but due to the variability of the human memory, this is impossible to state with any certainty - illustrating the fallible nature of universal truths.
‍

Storytelling

Stories and how they are told are a constant factor during the documentary - beginning with the title, ‘Stories We Tell’ and concluding with Geoff’s admission that he and Diane did sleep together during their days acting in Montreal. For example, Polley’s use of the inclusive ‘we’ signifies her interest in storytelling on a grand scale; not merely the stories she unravels onscreen. As a result, one can argue that her purpose for the documentary extends far beyond the action captured onscreen and in fact involves Polley encouraging others to share their own stories - enabling them to “create shape out of mess” as she has done through the presentation of her own family story.

By placing Geoff’s confession at the conclusion of the documentary (and casting doubt on all of the discoveries she has made throughout Stories We Tell) Polley emphasises how storytelling allows a “clearer picture” of the past to develop - as he had previously denied any sexual history with Diane, labelling them just friends. As such his admission of a relationship with her symbolises the manner in which the truth can be “refracted” over time, leading to many “shifts and fictions” while clouding “what really happened.” Therefore, Polley reveals how storytelling can provide some semblance of closure to us, in a world where the truth is “ephemeral” and “difficult to pin down.”

‍

Family

While Polley undoubtedly utilises Stories We Tell to express her views on truth and storytelling, fundamentally it remains a story of the Polley family, and what holds it together. The narrative begins with the ‘storytellers’ providing loving, yet somewhat conflicting recollections of Diane as Polley seeks to understand who she was. Family members buoyantly describe her as “infectious” and “enthusiastic”, while friends paint a more mysterious picture of Diane as a “woman of secrets”, alluding to her alleged infidelity. The closeness of the Polley family is evident throughout their discussion of Diane’s first marriage, universally criticising the outcome of the court case in which she was labeled “unrepentant” for “allow[ing] her desire for a career to overtop her “domestic duties” - resulting in Diane losing custody of John and Susy, which proved to be a major strain on Diane and the family.

Despite this closeness, Mark expresses his disappointment in Diane following the confirmation of Harry being Sarah’s father - detailing the she “broke the rules” and “broke a kind of taboo” when she had the affair. This is the only real example of any member of the family disapproving of Diane’s past - indicating Polley’s desire to demonstrate that families are not perfect, and bring their own faults and shortcomings. In spite of this, however, their care the family shows for one another is clearly demonstrated through their interviews with Polley, highlighting to the audience that by staying close, families can better cope with the trauma of losing a loved one and in time, be able to honour their memory by sharing their stories.

‍

Putting it all together

While analysing the themes in isolation can provide a good foundation for success studying Stories We Tell, looking at how they interact and interrelate enables students to demonstrate their higher-order skills. Truth, storytelling and family are intrinsically linked - for example: Polley’s presentation of conflicting accounts and recollections of Diane demonstrates the complexity of her family, while showcasing her stance on the inability of individuals to find universal truths. As a result of this, the importance of storytelling is highlighted as a means to provide some understanding of our past - and how it affects us in the present and shapes who we are. Including different interpretations of the text and the context in which Polley grew up and created the text can also help to improve your writing to A+ standard - and this will be covered in the blog post that acts as a continuation of this video! *end video*

Following on from the video, the content below is an expansion upon Stories We Tell.

Author views and values

One of the golden rules of A+ essay writing is to understand that everything contained within the text is seen to be a deliberate choice by the author. With this in mind, we can start considering how Polley’s choice to include certain snippets or position footage in a particular way highlights her views.

Views

The truth is ephemeral - can it ever be known?

Throughout Stories We Tell, Polley continually emphasises the impossibility of knowing a truth with absolute certainty. Her stance is shaped by the clouded nature of her paternity and family history, exemplified within the text by the varying accounts of Diane’s personality. Portraying her as “infectious” and “enthusiastic”, Polley captures Diane dancing - cleverly lighting up her face, thus symbolising her warm nature. However, juxtaposing this is Deidre’s assertion that Diane was a “woman of secrets” - bolstered by Polley’s recreation of a covert phone call in which Diane ponders the identity of Sarah’s biological father. Through her presentation of contrasting recollections of her mother, Director Polley showcases the relativity of truth within her own family, inviting the audience to question the meaning of truth in their own lives, highlighting that “you can never get to an answer.” As a result, Stories We Tell predominantly displays the impossibility of one knowing a singular truth.

‍

Subjective truths can be found

Continuing the theme of ambiguity within her synthetic documentary, Sarah Polley demonstrates that individuals can develop their own interpretations of the truth, in spite of her stance on the validity of singular truths. Within Stories We Tell, Polley illustrates this by depicting the contrasting recollections of Michael’s relationship with Sarah as a child. Supporting Joanna’s assertion that Sarah was “just a little kid that nobody was looking after”, Polley ironically captures a full shot of Michael in the middle of the couch, portraying him as a distinctive presence in the scene in spite of Joanna’s belief that Michael isn’t present in Sarah’s life. Conversely, Michael recalls his time with Sarah as “a great period in [his] life” - a claim reinforced by Polley, via recreated Super 8 footage of the pair assembling a snowman, symbolising their construction of a new beginning following Diane’s death. Through this interaction, Polley portrays Michael as a compassionate and loving father - juxtaposing this with Joanna’s description, revealing to her audience the ability of individuals to find subjective truths - encouraging them to do so in their own lives in spite of searching for universal truths.

‍

The importance of stories

Building on her depiction of the truth as fallible, Polley thus emphasises our need to tell stories, illustrating how they allow one to better understand themselves, their families and the world around them. Within Stories We Tell, unearthing the ‘story’ of Diane takes centre stage for a majority of the production, and Polley hints towards this goal via her inclusion of Bon Iver’s folk ballad Skinny Love. The line “pour a little salt, we were never here” plays on the use of salt to heal wounds - implying that the storytellers aim to ‘heal’ their pain felt from Diane’s death via telling “the whole story” they have developed from their memories of her. Moreover, the phrase “who the hell was I” addresses Polley’s attempt to “form [Diane]” by piecing together the various second hand accounts and layers of connected stories from her loved ones - allowing her to ascertain a clearer understanding of her family history. Polley utilises stories to “[clear] up...the smoke” in her past,” praising the idea that such tales shed a light on areas of confusion and uncertainty - while also allowing one to “[cope]” and make sense of their heritage. Through her demonstration that stories enable individuals to move past the “small and large details that vary”, Polley prompts the audience to seek more information about their own families, and relay their own family stories.

Values

Throughout the documentary, Polley demonstrates, both explicitly and implicitly, a number of her inherent values. Drawing upon these, referring to them in your essays and (most importantly!) connecting them to your analysis of the text is a great way to get ahead of the pack and maximise your marks both in your sac and the exam.

NB: Much of the excerpts contained here are analysing specific scenes/motifs, and then linking such thinking to the theories listed below. I found this to be a coherent and structured way of including this deeper level of thinking in the publication of my own essays!

‍

Feminist lens on the social values of 1960’s Canada

By depicting extradiegetic footage of Diane singing Ain’t Misbehavin, Director Polley provides a feminist commentary on the dominant social values of 1960’s Canada; the lyrics “I walk the streets to balance the sheets” and “what is an honest girl to do” metaphorically representing the perception of Diane by the court and wider society - denied “custody” of her children due to her “adultery.”

By inserting a newspaper clipping criticising Diane’s choice to let her “desire for a career” to supercede her “domestic duties”, Polley illustrates the difficulties faced by aspirational women in such a restrictive society - condemning the treatment of her mother while calling on female viewers to continually campaign for equality of opportunity in their societies.

Outlining the fact that Diane was not considered “ladylike”, Polley sardonically ridicules the “controlling” nature of such rigid gender stereotypes and their effect on Diane losing her children - exhibiting her desire to empower her female audience to “save [themselves]” from similar situations and “ma[ke] a choice to live.”

‍

Postmodernist interpretation of the truth

As I’ve discussed at length in this blog post, Polley continually reminds us as an audience that the truth is not set in stone and is in fact a flexible, relative concept. Such a line of thinking directly correlates to the postmodernism literary theory - notable for being hostile to absolutes such as truth, and not creating a text in isolation.‍

‍

Truth

Polley continually blurs the line between fact and fiction within Stories We Tell - an ode to the postmodernist school of thought she is following. Depicting recreated Super-8 footage capturing herself directing the actress Rebecca Jenkins who ‘plays’ the ‘role’ of the younger Diane, Polley seeks to somewhat deceive her audience as to what is real and what is derivative - prompting the audience to “consider what was real and what wasn’t… in their own minds.” As a result, she seeks to promote the validity of the postmodernist critical theory, prompting philosophical discussions between individuals about the variability of memory and whether any absolute truths can ever be truly known.

‍

Intertextuality

Another feature of postmodernism in literature is the relationship between one text to another. In her creation of Stories We Tell, Sarah Polley exacerbates this relationship, including a number of extradiegetic elements such as newspaper clippings, emails, songs and segments from other productions in order to add greater meaning to the documentary. For example, Polley presents her email exchange with Harry, illustrating her desire for the story to include “everyone’s point of view”, as it is only then that the “whole picture” can be established. While reciting the email aloud, Polley delicately pauses when articulating that the story must include “[her] experience, [Harry’s] experience” and her “family’s [experience]”, emphasising her desire to give “equal weight” to all versions of the story.

‍

Different Interpretations

‍

In my experience studying the text, this documentary can be interpreted two ways:

1. as a self-reflective memoir following the journey of Sarah finding her father and gaining a more mature understanding of her mother, or;

2. A philosophical and, at-times political commentary on the way stories are told and the nature of truth. Both interpretations (and others you find or develop through your own viewing) are great to use in your writing, just ensure that they are relevant to the specific prompt/idea you are discussing!

Let's dive into each a little further:

‍

1. Stories We Tell is a commentary on how stories are told - specifically, how the way a story is told can shape how it is received and the meaning one can draw from it

Upon first glance this point may seem rather convoluted, and several viewings of the text are necessary to fully engage with this line of thinking. Essentially, this centres around the idea that the different forms, mediums and extradiegetic elements present in the documentary can significantly influence how we as an audience react to the story that is being told.

The best way to explain this is to acknowledge the level of credibility and the associations attached to each individual medium used to tell the story.

For example, what impact does the newspaper clipping (detailing her custody battle and fight for equality in a restrictive society) have on our sympathy for Diane? Does the sense of credibility and validity drawn from an upstanding publication such as a newspaper elicit a greater sense of trust and acceptance of fact from viewers - therefore making us as an audience more inclined to view her in a positive light? Conversely, are viewers more accepting of Diane’s affair with Harry following testimony from those who witnessed her unhappiness with Michael first hand - her friends and family?

Moreover, in spite of her declaration that “equal weight” will be given to all experiences, does Polley’s use of Michael as narrator and his constant presence in the formal setting of a recording studio provide his version greater significance than Harry’s - who notwithstanding his involvement in the story as Sarah’s biological father, is resigned to providing his interview somewhat informally in a home setting, in the same vein as the rest of the storytellers?

Feel free to apply this line of thinking to other aspects of the text - such a deeper engagement with the philosophical ideas of the text are far more likely to score highly, as opposed to shallow pieces that merely discuss the storytellers in isolation - and not what they represent.

2. Stories We Tell is a commentary on the ephemeral nature of truth

The notion of truth seems to be just as much of a theme through this blog as it is in the documentary!

This is for good reason, however, as I found this to be the primary theme running through Stories We Tell, through the journey to discover Sarah’s paternity, the affair and conflict over whose story it is to tell. Truth affects a number of other ideas within the texts, such as storytelling, intertextuality, the variability of memory, production and identity - thus, using the ephemeral nature of the truth to explain why certain ambiguities exist in Harry’s “faulty” recollections, for example is an excellent way to show a greater depth of understanding of the interrelationships in the documentary.

‍

Essay Topic Breakdown

‍

Essay Topic from the 2018 VCAA Exam:

“To save all hurt, why not leave things as they are?”

Why does Sarah not “leave things as they are?”

‍

Initial thoughts:

This prompt does not ask you to discuss a specific theme or character - instead it guides you toward providing an analysis on Sarah Polley’s purpose for creating Stories We Tell. While authorial intent should always be included in any text response essay, it is essential that the purpose is central in response to this type of prompt - essentially, providing points of discussion as to why Sarah is unable to “leave things as they are.”

‍

Essay Plan:

1. Unable to leave things as they are - wanted to question the concept of traditional family structures, by contrasting the influence of biological connections and emotional relationships on her development.

‍

I discussed the effect of both Harry and Michael on Sarah’s development - concluding that while both of them had a significant role to play in her becoming the woman she is today, Michael’s influence was significantly stronger. Polley implies this by giving him a greater voice in the documentary through his role as the narrator.

‍

2. Unable to leave things as they are - wanted to comment on the ephemeral nature of the truth in our lives.

‍

Central to this paragraph is Polley’s use of recreated Super-8 footage. Using three prime examples (the opening scene with Diane and Michael crossing the bridge, Polley directing the actress that ‘plays the role’ of Diane in recreated footage, and the staging of Diane’s funeral) I aim to display Polley’s postmodern perspective on the truth and how this is conveyed through her deliberate creation of Stories We Tell.

‍

3. Unable to leave things as they are - Emphasise the importance of storytelling in our lives to gain some understanding of the past.

‍

Due to her depiction of the truth as a “mystery of nothingness”, Polley highlights the role that stories play in our lives. Within Stories We Tell, Polley attempts to understand herself by recreating Diane’s story on screen - allowing her to create “shape out of mess” and form a clearer picture of how she became who she is. Moreover, Polley also reveals how stories enable individuals to maneuver through the “wreckage” of the truth and “recreate the past.”

As you all know, English subjects are integral to VCE studies, since it is compulsory that at least all four units of an English subject be done in order for you to reach that ATAR goal at the end of the VCE tunnel. Given the richness in cultural backgrounds of VCE students cohort, EAL is designed to mend the linguistic gaps between local students and those from non-English speaking backgrounds. Students eligible to complete EAL are those who have no more than 7 years residency in a predominately English-speaking country AND no more than 7 years having English as their main language of instructions. Therefore, it is generally considered ‘easier’ than mainstream English. So how exactly is this subject easier, or is this just some unproven prejudice? Let’s find out through my quick comparison between the two!

‍

Purposes

According to the study design published by VCAA, both these English subjects ‘[contribute] to the development of literate individuals capable of critical and creative thinking, aesthetic appreciation and creativity…’ It might sound complex, but this basically just means that these subjects enable us to enhance our understanding and usage of the English language, which, in my opinion, serves to support our daily English communication. This purpose holds even greater significance to students from non-English speaking backgrounds, as those skills offered by English subjects are essential to their life in Australia. That’s said, EAL can be different from mainstream English in the sense that it also assists students whose mother tongue is not English in adapting to the predominately English-speaking community, via developing their language skills.

‍

Structure

Both EAL and English assess students on multiple areas, including: Text response, Creative writing, Argument Analysis, Compare and Contrast, Presenting Argument. The only difference is in Unit 3, where EAL students are required to do a Listening task, whereas mainstream students study an additional text. Shown below is Unit 3 coursework for these two subjects (from the VCAA English/EAL study design):

ENGLISH

EAL

‍

We can see that there is an extra outcome for Unit 3 EAL, which is ‘Comprehension of a spoken text’. This is where you will listen to two texts (twice each), take quick notes and fill in short-answers. Listening, therefore, is viewed by many as the least difficult compared to other tasks, because all you need to do is hear people speak English – something students do everyday. Yet it is absolutely not easy at all to attain a perfect score on this component! You have to pick up the right information from bunches of words, structure your response well so that the examiner understands what you try to convey, pay attention to paralinguistic elements (tone, volume, pitch…), etc. All of these skills can never be acquired without persistent practice.

In place of Listening component, mainstream English students get to do creative response to a different text. This is why Year 12 English students study a total of 4 texts (selected from VCAA text list), whereas it’s only 3 for EAL students.

VCAA has also noted down differences in the two subjects’ tasks conditions, as shown below:

End-of-year exam

Let’s have a look at another table:

‍

Overall, they have similar components, except for the orange-shaded cells. Though EAL students do have a SAC on comparative analysis, this area is not assessed in their exam but replaced by the Listening task. Section C often has similar texts in both exams, with some modifications in language expression.

Both exams are to be done in 3 hours, non-stop! You’ll get quite weary I’m sure, but trust me, it will be followed by a sense of accomplishment to see all your hard work paid off on the exam papers!

‍

Is EAL really easier?

So yep, EAL students get to write fewer essays and have lower word limit than mainstream students. But should we say that it’s easier? My personal opinion is: NO. The reason being learning a language that is not your mother-tongue is really never easy. Australian students doing VCE French will definitely agree with me! Given a large number of EAL students is international students, this subject can be a challenge to them. Yes, Listening might be easier than comparing texts, but taking super quick notes, picking the correct piece of info, paying attention to the way the speech is delivered, watching out for traps… are not that simple! I believe that no matter what subject you do, whether it be EAL or English or Maths… it only gets ‘easier’ after a period of constant effort and hard work.

For those eligible for both English and EAL, you might be tempted to go for EAL, but my advice is to consult available resources (the study design, this blog, teachers, peers…) before making a decision so as to figure out which style of learning best suits you. After all, you’ll learn most where you enjoy the most.

Good luck to you all!