high ground

Para 1) Johnson includes many instances where perpetrators are actively taking part in the destruction, presenting to the reader the catastrophic effects of actions with ill intentions.

Para 2) Events where destruction occurs as a byproduct of actions, in which the instigator is aware of possible repercussions is another example of designs lacking moral consciousness.

Para 3) Contrasting previous examples of chaos and brutality, Johnson presents devastating events that occur, but those involved believed what they were doing was right and had considered the consequences of their actions.

Intro

At its core, Stephen Johnson’s 2020 film “High Ground” is a brutal depiction of the possible destructive effects of decisions. Utilising the beautiful landscape of Arnham land, Johnson confronts a range of topics in explicit nature, namely the clash of cultures between white settlers and indigenous people. Destructive events that occur vary in their significance. Nonetheless, the cause of each can be traced back to key character decisions. This sets the story in a way that Johnson invites the audience to concider how destruction can stem from both good and bad intentions, and in some cases a mix of both.

Para 1

Despite the many blurred moral lines within ‘High Ground’, Johnson clearly presents situations in which characters’ actions are plagued by their evil. A key example of this is in the relentless white settler attitude. Countless examples show the callous character of the ex-veteran, Eddy, who lacks any sign of sympathy towards the Indigenous people. His mindset is simply kill or be killed, he feels as if he is exhausted of options, and there is no possible way that the two cultures can peacefully co-exist. Since, in his words, they “can’t share a country”, he must instigate violence to protect his culture. A key scene shows the camera angled up at Eddy as he brutally attacks Gutjuk. His psychopathic eyes are wide and locked onto the shaken Gutjuk as he demands him to “tell me what you fucking know”. The director includes both the camera angle and Eddy's expression to make the audience feel a part of the hostile environment. This positions the viewer to critique the heartless insanity shown by Eddy. Johnson illustrates Eddy’s self-absorbed mindset, in which he feels as if he is a part of the superior culture. Hence, he is acting to benefit himself with no regard for the catastrophic consequences of his actions. Another character who displays similar traits is Baywarra. Whether he is the vicious person that the majority of the white settlers set him out to be is ultimately up to the audiences interpratation. There is evidence that suggests against it, but also some to support it. Unlike Eddy, the audience is not positioned to immediately hate Bayawara. This ambiguous style of telling the story presents the reader with the question of what exactly is ill intent. Baywarra is ready to snap as he believes “it’s [their] land” and they “should fight". Many times, he seems on edge, anticipating battle. Johnson raises the question as to whether that is justified giving the inhuman ways the white settlers treat the indigenous. This is a difficult question when taking into account some of the extreme actions, such as setting fire to farms and houses. Scenes involving him finding Gutjuk later in the film have a imense impact when considering the beginning of the film, which depicted a peaceful Baywarra mentoring a younger Gutjuk. Being at the forefront of the conflict, Baywarra develops a sense of overwhelming anger and sees revenge as a suitable justice. Moran is well aware of this, which is why he fears what would happen “if Baywarra gets a voice.”

Para 3:

Directly contrasting characters with evil intentions, Johnson also shines light on those who try to do good, and despite this, are still involved in deadly disputes. One of the most notable examples of characters who display moral integrity is Braddock. The early massacre scene creates an isolated environment for the priest. Amid all the chaos, he is simply too horrified to move. The close-up and slight camera shake emphasise the shocked reaction. He even goes as far as to hold a distressed child and attempt to calm and protect them. This is included by Johnson to show the audience that things done with good intentions can quickly turn devastating, even if not immediately obvious. After the events of the massacre, Braddock is still buried with regret. In his mind, it was “supposed to be a peaceful expedition.” Clearly, he feels a part of the responsibility. He continues to mourn by expressing ““. He continues to hold his pacifist values throughout the duration of the film. The values he lives by are similar to Claire’s; however, Claire is more vocal about them and is constantly speaking up for change. At times, Braddok can be someone who tries to follow the flow of things and not cause adversity.

Claire fits the typical archetype of a key female role in the western genre, being the most compassionate and caring. The director establishes this as soon as she appears on screen through a wide shot of her helping an injured indigenous man. She condemns the vicious conflict and attempts to find peace. In a powerful scene, Claire slaps Travis across the face in disgust at his involvement in the massacre. As the movie progresses, Claire learns the Indigenous people's language. Showing just how dedicated she was to actively listening and further welcoming their culture. As the movie continues, the rising tension between Eddy and Claire begins to grow. Their plans for the future are polar opposites and could not possibly both come true. The subtle yet impactful addition of Claire beginning to refer to Gutjuk by his birth name as opposed to the English name Tommy shows just how much she wants to embrase there culture. Perhaps one of the most pivotal moments in the film is when Claire shoots Eddy. As the camera pans to her holding the gun, she is seen out of breath and in a state of disbelief at her own actions. This marked another tragedy in the film. Johnson decided to end the film with Claire holding the gun to highlight the irony of someone who wanted peace being the one to pull the trigger. Despite Claire’s efforts to end the feud, she finds herself in the centre of it just like Braddock earlier in the film. This presents the audience with the message that sometimes tragedies are out of an individual’s control, and you cannot always achieve a desired outcome without sacrifice.