The Tracker – Screened on July 12, 2008
I have been for film screenings before, I have been in rooms where viewers laugh, gasp and shudder in the dark. But nothing prepared me for the screening of the Tracker. The torpid air that sleepy Saturday afternoon was suddenly filled with a range of emotions, horror, disgust, relief, anger and satisfaction. People sat on the edge of wooden benches conflicted as they tried to decide whether they should continue watching or look away.
The film presents two groups of individuals, the first is highly evolved in their knowledge of the land, and they are governed by the laws of fairness and justice. The second group is barbaric in their mannerisms, savagely killing with a brutality that serves no purpose or passively standing by in fear of their own lives.
It is perhaps almost automatic for many of us to assume the first group to be white and the second to be the natives. Yet it is here that the film questions the stereotypical image of the ‘white man’ and the ‘aborigine’. Through history we have on several occasions been presented with the picture of the rational white man, cultured and refine. The natives on the other hand (whether native American, Indian, African or aboriginal Australian) have always been depicted savage, amoral and primitive.
A discussion that therefore arose after screening the film was about “who is more cultured?” Does riding a horse and owning a gun alone make you cultured?
Edward Said in his ground breaking book ‘Orientalism’ speaks of how the ‘West’ has since time immemorial constructed a picture of the ‘other’ as barbaric and very antithesis to western civilization. He however also explores the political reasons behind the construction of such an image. Did the ‘othering process’ actually justify western imperialism?
This brings us to a discussion on the political nature of all knowledge; Darwin in his book ‘The evolution of species’ places the white man at the top of the evolutionary scale while aborigines and Africans occupy a position only slightly higher than apes. Did the creation of such knowledge help to soothe the white conscience when the most degrading forms of torture were met out to the natives in any colonised land?
Another cinematic devise that the film uses is that none of the characters are named. They are referred to by generic names like ‘the Tracker’, ‘the Fanatic’, ‘the Follower’ and the ‘the Veteran’. This seems to point out to the fact that the story although specific to the lives of a handful of individuals speaks of broader issues and concerns.
The cinematography is breathtaking, the entire film is shot completely outdoors is a landscape that is as magnificent as it is unforgiving. An important device that the film uses is that at times of extreme violence the visual narrative is replaced by paintings depicting the same scenes. This in my opinion serves two purposes; firstly it is to shield audiences from scenes that are extremely violent in nature, secondly the paintings reflect the indigenous. Australian, aborigine art n its style, this once again grounds us in the cultural and historical context of the film.
I believe the strength of a film is based on the number of levels it can impact you on. For me watching ‘the Tracker’ was as much an emotional experience as it was a cognitive one. I left the screening with a number of thoughts swirling in my head and a gamut of emotions in my gut.
Shudarshana Guptha
Msc psychological counseling
christ college,Bangalore
