An Ethics of Following and the No Road Film: Trackers, Followers and Fanatics

1. What they did

Aboriginal Trackers have long appeared in Australian films, and they returned to the screen in the early 2000s in films such as The Tracker (Rolf de Heer, 2002), Rabbit Proof Fence and One Night the Moon. Critics have read the Tracker in many contradictory ways: as a “race traitor” helping colonisation, as a triumphant holder of cultural knowledge, as a symbol of reconciliation, or as someone caught between two worlds.

The author points out a problem with all these readings. The Tracker stands for knowledge of the land that white settlers do not have, so how can settler critics claim to know what he represents? To explore this, she gives a close reading of The Tracker, which de Heer called “a road movie without roads”. She draws on:

• de Heer’s own diary of finding the filming location in the Flinders Ranges;
• Stephen Muecke’s book No Road: Bitumen all the way;
• Aileen Moreton-Robinson’s argument that the Aboriginal connection to land cannot be shared with non-Indigenous people;
• historical accounts of explorers led by Aboriginal guides;
• reviews of the film and of David Gulpilil’s performance as the Tracker.

2. What they found

The tracking scene

Early in the film the Follower says “anyone can see he’s not really tracking, just following his nose”. The Tracker shows him a stone in a dry river bed: “That stone belong there, been kicked away about 2 hours ago.” The Follower says “Sorry”. The camera stays close to the ground, then returns to a wide view of a landscape now known to be full of signs the viewer cannot read. The author argues the Tracker does not share his knowledge here; he shows the Follower, and the viewer, what they cannot see for themselves.

Two ways of recognising the Tracker’s knowledge

• The Fanatic also values the Tracker’s skill but treats him with contempt, as a tool of colonial control.
• The Follower’s recognition moves him towards respect. The film ends with the Tracker riding home and the Follower left with no one to follow.

Following has a history

Colonial explorers were often led rather than leading. In 1789 Watkin Tench followed two Aboriginal men, Colbee and Boladeree, hoping to learn about the country; instead they laughed at the settlers’ confusion in the bush. Following Aboriginal guides was itself part of colonial power.

“Bitumenising” the Tracker

Some reviewers said David Gulpilil was not really acting but being “natural”, partly because he said he really was a tracker. The author argues this romantic view of the “authentic” Tracker reassures settler audiences about a violent history, which the film shows mostly through Peter Coad’s paintings.

The No Road film

The author proposes the “No Road film” as a form that resembles the road movie but challenges it. In these films the white man is no longer in control, the viewer is in the country rather than passing through it, and time and place become uncertain (“In 1922, somewhere in Australia”).

3. What they concluded

• The Tracker shows the limits of what settlers can know about the land. Settlers are placed as Followers: they rely on knowledge they do not have.
• She calls this an “ethics of following”: putting Aboriginal knowledge first without fully knowing what it looks like or where it leads.
• This is not simple. Calls to put Aboriginal knowledge first can turn the Aboriginal “owner” into a “guide” who passes knowledge on to grateful whites, which can itself be a form of appropriation.
• In the author’s words, the “road to reconciliation” is “paved with tracks that whites cannot see and cannot presume to know in advance”.

4. How tracking was or was not used

No tracking was done. The essay is about how Aboriginal Trackers and their skill in reading the country are portrayed in film and understood by settler Australians. A footnote cites anthropologists who found that people at Fitzroy Crossing wanted to preserve a Tracker’s hut because it “represented Aboriginal tracking skills which were found wanting in Europeans”.