Cirrus@Austlit

'Ten Canoes (de Heer and Djigirr, 2006) is a collaboration between Rolf de Heer and members of the Ramingining community in eastern Arnhem Land. The film ostensibly has two time frames: a 'mythical past' which could be called 'the Dreaming' and the historical time in which the protagonist, Dayindi, lives, which is given as '1000 years ago' (Vertigo 2006: 3). The development of Ten Canoes drew upon the writings of Donald Thomson and his collection of over 2500 ethnographic photographs, 1500 natural history photographs and 5500 objects from Arnhem Land, now held at Museum Victoria in Melbourne. One fourth of the material culture items consist of objects worn on the body, which I have termed 'bodywear' (Hamby 2006). In tracing community use of, and responses to, the Thomson Collection, I argue that members of the Ramingining community understand one strand of the Ten Canoes plot, Dayindi's story, to take place in the time of those relatives who had met and worked with Thomson: in both their production and reception of Dayindi's story, it takes place not 1000 years ago but in 'Thomson Times'.'

Source: Abstract.

'In 1983, the German film-maker Werner Herzog realized a decade-long ambition to create a film thematizing the struggles of Aboriginal groups against mining companies in Northern Australia. Where the Green Ants Dream (1984) was ultimately reviled by Australian pundits and also disappointed international critics. However, the film and the story behind its making raise important issues, not only about the creative appropriation of Aboriginal mythology, and the filmic representation of Aboriginality and of the struggle for Aboriginal land rights, but also about the intricacies of cross-cultural collaboration. This article reveals how Herzog relied upon the first land rights court case (Milirrpum v Nabalco) in writing his film script. In doing so, he came up with a hybrid ambiguously situated between documentary and feature film, something which proved uncomfortable for the lead Aboriginal actors Wandjuk and Roy Marika, who had both been players in Milirrpum v Nabalco. This article analyses Herzog's mix of documentary and fiction, examines the film's reception-both by white Australian critics and by Aboriginal Australians-and argues that, while the film may be flawed, it is valuable because it threw (and continues to throw) light on the processes and pitfalls of cross-cultural collaboration.'

Source: Abstract.