After the publication of the 1997 national investigation report, Bringing them home: Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families, Phillip Noyce's 2002 film, Rabbit-Proof Fence, and Baz Luhrmann's 2008 film, Australia, are two unusual examples of Australian directors' efforts in remapping the Australian cultural landscape with reference to the issues of “Stolen Generations” and the denial of forgotten history. Through analyzing the representation of cultural landscape and the uneven distribution social spaces for different races in the two Australian films I will explicate the uneven development of mobility. I will focus on how politics of mobility and access is inscribed in the moral geographies and applied in creating space of survival in a colonial social sphere. The escape narrative in Rabbit-Proof Fence the film and the book illustrates the unjust power geometry of mobility and the indigenous socio-spatial strategy of “mobility as resistance.” As a cultural geographical device, the “rabbit-proof fence” triggers postcolonial imagination on “border.” For the colonial government, the moral geography of the fence is to control the racial Others in allotted spaces for further exploitation. The landscape framed by the fence signifies the power geometry of mobility. Noyce highlights how the half-caste indigenous children create space of survival in a landscape of dominance by depicting scenes and landscape with dialogic relation between people and the land. In contrast, the relation between human and the land in Australia is infused with conflict and sexual and racial dominance. The geopolitical imagination in Australia is conservative in that its representation of the white hero and heroine clings to the ideology of Australian “bush myth” and Christian “recovery narrative” whereas that of indigenous resistance is played down by romanticizing devices. Luhrmann's cognitive mapping is regressive in that it re-territorizes the old colonial moral geography in a neocolonial landscape of dominance by recycling the European “recovery narrative” and the Australian “legend of bushman” with various Hollywood pastiches. Noyce's work is more progressive in that it deterritorizes the colonial grand narrative by evoking the lost history and inviting understanding for the indigenous resilient efforts in creating space of survival. Noyce remaps the cultural geography of the new Australian by closing-in observation of the dwelling-in-travelling experience of the “Stolen Generations.” 自1997年澳洲國家原民權益調查報告《帶孩子們回家》公開後，菲利普．諾伊斯執導的2002年作品《防兔圍籬》和巴茲．魯曼執導的2008年作品《澳大利亞》是澳洲白人導演處理白澳政策下造成澳洲原住民［失竊的世代］問題及反省白人所否認的［遺忘的歷史］而重劃澳洲文化地景的重要範例作品。透過分析兩部作品中文化地景之再現與社會空間之分配，本論文將探討流動性的不公平發展。研究重點集中在探討流動性如何被編寫入不同族裔的［道德地理］中，以及他如何被原住民運用在殖民政權下開拓生存空間之經驗中。
《防兔圍籬》原著電影中所刻畫的逃逸敘述呈現出不同族裔間流動性的不平均［權利幾何］，並凸顯澳洲原住民運用流動性作為對抗殖民侵害的策略。作為一種文化地理機制，澳洲政府所設之［防兔圍籬］引發［邊界］的殖民後想想像。白澳政府設此圍籬的道德地理意義在於將族裔以規劃在特定地理空間加以控制和剝削。圍籬所圍出的地景只設流動性的權力幾何。諾伊斯在影片中強調三位混血原住民女孩宰制地景內的逃逸過程中與人與土地和諧互動以開創生存空間。相反地，在魯曼執導的《澳大利亞》中，人與土地的關係是對立的，並且充滿性別族裔宰制意涵。該片的地理政治想像是保守的，原因在於對於白人男女主角的刻劃謹守澳洲人文地理的［叢林神話］與基督教［收復伊甸園敘述］的意識形態，而對［失竊的世代］之族裔政治議題則以將原住民角色浪漫化手法淡化原住民之抗議情結。
魯曼的認知地理重劃是退步的，因為他透過回收［叢林神話］與［收復伊甸園敘述］和仿作好萊塢電影經典俗套將舊殖民政府的道德地理地域重劃於一種新殖民宰制地景中。諾伊斯的地理想像是進步的，因為透過喚醒白人所不願面對的歷史，及刻劃原住民為開拓生存空間而不懈抗爭的奮鬥，他將殖民政府的地理宏偉敘事解除地域；另一方面透過特寫［失竊的世代］中三位混血原住民女孩的［旅行中生活］經驗與見聞，重劃出新澳洲文化地景。
