'"Quigley Down Under" stars Tom Selleck [...] as an American sharpshooter who sails to Australia in search of work. A man named Marston (Alan Rickman) has advertised for a long-distance marksman, and Selleck is the best, able to hit targets so far away the camera can barely see them. Selleck is appalled, however, when he discovers that Marston wants to pay him to kill Aborigines. He throws the villain through the window, and starts a vendetta that only ends, of course, with an obligatory showdown in the corral.'
Source:
Roger Ebert review, originally published in the Chicago Sun-Times (via http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/quigley-down-under-1990). (Sighted: 24/9/2014)
‘Aboriginality was filtered through a white consciousness that arguably distorted it. Then, beginning in roughly 1980, there were many films that reflected a white social consciousness insofar as they dealt with the injustices that Aboriginal people had experienced. In this essay the author attempts to account for the appearance of Aboriginals behind the camera beginning in the late 1980s. The crucial difference, however, once Aboriginals became artists, not just subjects, was the removal of the filtering white consciousness. Removing that filter had a counterintuitive effect, though: rather than prompting more overt depiction of the story of Aboriginals in white Australia, removing the filter resulted in strategic indirection in the telling of that story. This essay explores that strategic indirection.’ (Introduction)
‘Aboriginality was filtered through a white consciousness that arguably distorted it. Then, beginning in roughly 1980, there were many films that reflected a white social consciousness insofar as they dealt with the injustices that Aboriginal people had experienced. In this essay the author attempts to account for the appearance of Aboriginals behind the camera beginning in the late 1980s. The crucial difference, however, once Aboriginals became artists, not just subjects, was the removal of the filtering white consciousness. Removing that filter had a counterintuitive effect, though: rather than prompting more overt depiction of the story of Aboriginals in white Australia, removing the filter resulted in strategic indirection in the telling of that story. This essay explores that strategic indirection.’ (Introduction)
