MovieChat Forums > Walkabout (1971) Discussion > 'Gratuitous (i.e., $N@TCH)' nudity...

'Gratuitous (i.e., $N@TCH)' nudity...

posted 12 years ago by nycruise-1
24 replies | jump to latest

The nudity called for in the script makes sense: if you're in the desert, you strip down for one reason or another.

Whatever.

If the actress in the story is hot like Jenny Agutter, then of course the audience enjoys seeing this part of the story realized.

But at least it all makes sense.

HOWEVER, in this movie, there is the one scene where Jenny Agutter puts on her presumably-washed panties. The scene starts with a closeup of her feet and the panties being stepped into. Then, Jenny hikes the panties up under her skirt. Well - at that point - she fluffs her skirt up ever so briefly and you can actually see her pubic hair!

It lasts only for about 1-3 frames - but it's there (I wonder if the film was edited to allow for that BRIEF glimpse of $N@TCH).

Interestingly, the shot exclusively shows the bottom half of a female, so there is the distinct possibility that the actress who did the scene was not, in fact, Jenny Agutter but a stand-in.

I'm convinced that scene was deliberately put in by Peter Weir to specifically expressly to show a closeup of $N@TCH.

"Don't call me 'honey', mac."
"Don't call me 'mac'... HONEY!"

[–] RRPounder 12 years ago

She was of legal age when she filmed it...and what does Peter Weir have to do with any of this?

[–] franzkabuki 12 years ago

When does one become of ´illegal´ age? Older than 35?

And, yeah, the ol´ perv Peter Weir maliciously hacked his way into this film in order to show the world some nasty pubic hair. That much have the secret inquiries been able to determine.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gribfritz2 11 years ago

Did you see "girl" checking out "black boy's" package? Did you see the chick ready and willing at the aboriginal sweatshop? Or the weather balloon hottie and the reactions she generates? I don't know why everyone is surprised at nudity in a film that is completely sexually driven.

[–] amsdragons-2 11 years ago

NYcruise,
First, did you not watch the whole movie? There were far more revealing "full frontal" scenes than that brief glimpse.

Second, why would Peter Weir put anything in this movie? He had nothing to do with it; he wasn't the director or producer.

Carol Kester Bondurant: He's never been late this early before. RIP, Marcia

[–] lazarillo 11 years ago

Why is it surprising there is sex or sexual tension in what is really a coming-of-age movie?

Why is terrible or shameful to think that a women who is 15 years older than me had a great body when she was teenager? So did Helen Mirren, by the way, who is only a few years older then Agutter. So did my high school girlfriend back in 80's for that matter.

Also, Agutter swims nude for about ten minutes later in the movie (well. it seemed like ten minutes). So why even mention a nearly subliminal shot of pubic hair? Unless you're one of those weird guys that does freeze frames on his DVD or hangs out at high school football games trying to catch a "beaver shot" of the underage cheerleaders and has therefore had a lot of practice at this...

I think a lot of people "doth protest too much" about this particular subject. But the OP could always write an angry letter to Peter Weir, who would no doubt be just as perplexed as I am. . .

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] spookyrat1 11 years ago

It lasts only for about 1-3 frames - but it's there (I wonder if the film was edited to allow for that BRIEF glimpse of $N@TCH).

Someone definitely has too much time on his hands to be going to so much trouble to over-scrutenize.

[–] kidegoiste69 10 years ago

Exactly

[–] jd-276 11 years ago

It's a coming of age film.

[–] L0GAN5 11 years ago

I have uploaded the frames in question at http://postimg.org/gallery/5nhb0jiy/.

As you can see, there are literally two frames where you briefly see the top of some pubic hair. What is gratuitous though is an underwater shot where her vaginal lips are fairly visible for several frames (which I've also included in the gallery solely for the purposes of a mature comparison). I think a frame or two of pubic hair is ok, but considering Jenny Agutter was only 16 when she made this movie I think showing her labia was a bit exploitative.

[–] Uvtha 10 years ago

What is gratuitous though is an underwater shot where her vaginal lips are fairly visible for several frames (which I've also included in the gallery solely for the purposes of a mature comparison). I think a frame or two of pubic hair is ok, but considering Jenny Agutter was only 16 when she made this movie I think showing her labia was a bit exploitative.

Hah, well its a good thing you went through the film and posted the "gratuitous" frames on the internet where they can be thoroughly reviewed.

Just... boy.

[–] jd-276 11 years ago

1971 movie with a bit of a snatch shot. Over 40 years later, Americans are still offended.

Seems that the ones most offended have a far more intimate - i.e.: frame by frame - knowledge of the movie than the rest of us!