I was speaking with a friend yesterday morning about "Rabbit-Proof Fence" -- a film about the "stolen generation" -- Australian aboriginal children who were allegedly ripped away from the state as part of a racist program. While we were talking, I idly checked the "Wikipedia" page on the movie, and noticed a pattern (or two) I'd seen before.

The film formed a part of a major debate in contemporary Australia over the stolen generations - where Aboriginal children separated from their parents by the State were taken to residential schools. A.O. Neville, who was portrayed in the film, was the Protector of Aborigines in Western Australia at the time and was responsible for removing the girls from their families.

The film stirred debate over the historical accuracy of the claims of the stolen generation. Some, like Andrew Bolt, criticised the portrayal of Neville in the film, arguing that he was inaccurately represented as paternalistic and racist. Bolt also questioned the artistic portrayal in the film of the girls as prisoners in prison garb, chased by dogs and state troopers. He claimed that, in fact, they had been dressed in civilian clothes and tracked by concerned adults fearful of their welfare. He also claimed that when Molly Craig, whose journey was being told, saw the film, she stated that it was "not my story".

That the story is based on historically true events is not in doubt. The film tells the story from the point of view of the girls and its supporters argue that it is a fair dramatic representation of events as told in the book. It is documented that Molly had a child who was taken away by the authorities.

Shifts in qualifications are telltale signs of bias. Although Andrew Bolt's arguments are the type which should be easily establishable as fact (many being differences between the book and the movie) the Wikipedia article repeatedly states them as mere unsupported contentions. For example, consider this argument from Bolt, and compare to its depiction in Wikipedia, above:

THE FILM shows the girls arriving at Moore River, where they wear prison-style sacks and are woken in the morning by a guard who screams and belts the walls of their room with a club.

THE FACT is photos of children at Moore River show them dressed in European clothes. Pilkington writes that when her mother ran away, she was dressed in ``two dresses, two pairs of calico bloomers and a coat''.

If that is indeed what the book version shows (in its photos) and says -- and that should be quite easy to establish or refute -- there's no reason to say that Bolt is making the claim. If true, then Pilkington, herself the daughter of the protagonist, and author of the book version, is the one making the claim, not Bolt. And it is thus dishonest to imply the depiction came from him.

Conversely, the rebuttal is stated in matter-of-fact language, even dispelling any negative thoughts or doubt: "That the story is based on historically true events is not in doubt." (And of course "based on" is a weasel-phrase, Olive Stone's "JFK" was "based on" a real story too, but that doesn't mean it didn't play fast and loose with the evidence it presented.)

But my real point here involves the difference between story and context. I'm sure the story, as outlined -- girls were taken away from their parents, ran away, and followed a rabbit-proof fence back -- is true. Yet the context -- that they were taken as part of a racist program, they were shipped in a steel box (not a regular passenger train), they were dressed as prisoners (instead of regular clothes), the man who took them was a genocidal racist bigot (rather than a kind and concerned administrator who was taking them, as required by law, out of an abusive situation) -- is utterly false.

Thus we have a true story, set within a false context.

In my experience, this seems to be a very convincing trick.

I remember speaking with people who had read The DaVinci Code. They would say to me: "Oh, I *know* it's just a made-up story." And then they would go on about the Knights Templar, and how Jesus got married, what the gnostic gospels really said (wrong!), and how awful it is that the Catholic Church was covering this all up. They knew the story was fictional, said so, but they still internalized the fabricated context in which it was set as if it were real.

Similarly, I'm sure many people saw "Rabbit-Proof Fence" and suspected, perhaps, there were some exaggerated dialog or scenes -- but wasn't aware that the entire backdrop itself was actually a fraud, meant to imply a history of aboriginal abuse that, quite frankly, Australia has never had to any significant degree. (Australia was not America, friends.)

As a final example, I'd cite the movie, "The Deer Hunter", which was partially responsible for starting the popular depiction of Vietnam vets as crazed sociopaths.

The Deer Hunter features many absurd elements -- US soldiers fighting while wearing full beards; portraying one character making a living as a professional Russian Roulette player. (The Vietnamese have, we learn, whole clubs devoted to this "sport".) (Wouldn't the average number of games in a career be just three?) There are also huge, jagged mountain peaks just a few hours' drive from Pennsylvania! So I'm sure viewers who weren't born yesterday were aware of the fictional nature of the story -- not that such gaffes didn't disqualify it from winning five academy awards.

Yet when reading the reviews at IMDB, a curious pattern emerges: despite the fact it's obviously a fictional story (with many clearly unbelievable elements), many are convinced the greater context is utterly, utterly true -- that they, having seen it, they now "really understand" what Vietnam was all about, and what it was like to really be there, and the impact it had on soldiers.

Real look at Life for some...
The Deer Hunter is a masterpiece of life among a community before and after three friends get drafted to fight in the Vietnam War. The tragic events that take place in the jungles and the adjustment back into the drinking and hunting life of steel workers in Pittsburgh shook my life forever.

Goodness. So Heartbreaking, So Sad, So Accurate, So Brilliant.
The terrors of Vietnam will change all. DeNiro, an avid deer hunter, cannot stand to even shoot a gun after he returns... Walken has lost it mentally and stays in Vietnam and develops the taste for Russian roulette.

Not without flaws but the most real portrayal of Vietnam I've seen
I felt like I was there and everything was shot on location and the Russian roullette scenes were really happening. It seemed to me the most real portrait of the Vietnam War I've seen...

Powerful Examination of the Effects of the Viet Nam War on the American Psyche
Michael Cimino's Oscar-winning drama The Deer Hunter, examines the devastated lives of a few Viet Nam veterans and their friends and families back home.... The story is not very highly embellished...
The Deer Hunter is a psychologically devastating examination of a traumatized nation, where those who participated in the war are completely aware in every waking moment of what was lost and those at home have been sold a huge pack of lies. As relevant to Americans of the Bush era as it was to those of the Nixon era, this film well deserves the awards and acclaim it has retained for the last 20+ years.

And a number of people were aware the movie had been shown false in its depiction of Vietnam, but still deeply believed its depiction of mentally disturbed Vets is "true", despite numerous studies showing otherwise:

"However as many film historians, authors and critics have already pointed out, the film is never meant to be a 100% accurate depiction of the events in Vietnam. It is not really a Vietnam War picture at all. Instead, it is a focus on the aftermath of war, and how damaging it can be, both physically and mentally, to its participants."

"While [Full Metal Jacket] just showed the immediate results, this movie showed the results immediately and in the future, back at home. This helped make everything seem more realistic, which it was. For each of the three main characters, the war has changed them greatly, and none for the better."

"There are a lot of films that depict the dreadful battles fought in Veitnam; 'The Deer Hunter' mercifully showed only one major one, while concentrating on how brutality eventually causes insanity, with the total insanity of the Vietnamese to get out of Saigon. Our government turned its back on thousands of boys-hardly-yet-men, closing its eyes on their torture once they returned home. "The War on Terror" has produced almost as many ruined lives..."

For context, here's what an (apparent) Vietnam veteran had to say:

Comments from a Vietnam veteran
I am a Vietnam combat veteran who served with the 25th Infantry Division in 1970. I have just made a quick look thru the comments on here about this movie. Most are by folks who have not the slightest idea about what the Vietnam War was like, but are quick to call this one of the "best". Cimino 's choice of backdrop for the characters in the movie was very well done...However, he miserably fails in many aspects of the military service of the three characters...

And concerning the "truth" of the war's impact back home?

In addition to debunking individual stories, Burkett also began collecting research data to counter the media's stereotype of Vietnam veterans. "The press portrayed us as victims, marched off to war, maimed, poisoned, drug-ridden from our trauma, then dumped back on society." Referring to the anti-war protests in the early 1970s, Burkett notes that "John Kerry did more than anybody to create that image when he brought those bums to Washington."

Burkett's exhaustive research thoroughly debunked the myth represented by Kerry's ragtag band of angry, disaffected protesters. When compared with their non-veteran peers, Vietnam veterans do not have higher incidences of drug abuse, unemployment, suicide, divorce, or homelessness. "In every category for which I could find statistics," writes Burkett, "Vietnam veterans were as successful or more successful than men their age who did not go to Vietnam." Vietnam veterans on average have higher incomes than non-veterans and are more likely to have a college education and own a home. In contrast to John Kerry's portrayal of disillusioned victims, a Washington Post survey taken in 1985--the tenth anniversary of the fall of Saigon--found that 91 percent of those who served in Vietnam were "glad they served their country."

People are prepared to believe a story is fictional. But place the story in a false yet realistic-seeming context, and you can write a "truth" on their minds which is utterly untrue. The image of the Vietnam veteran fabricated in The Deer Hunter was lauded as honest, truthful, and insightful -- and shaped America's view of Vietnam and Vietnam veterans for years, much to their detriment.