MovieChat Forums > Walkabout (1971) Discussion > Sexuality and revisionist claptrap

Sexuality and revisionist claptrap

posted 16 years ago by darkthirty
22 replies | jump to latest

There are some pretty dumb comments on this board, which appear to be made in utter ignorance of the actual theme of the movie, which is, to a large extent, sexuality itself, the conditions under which it grows, the political dimension of even this part of our lives, and the place of loneliness in the sense of meaninglessness of life. You'd think, from some of the comments here, sexuality was just thrown in, out of some prurient penchant, and the movie was about... what? Please tell me, what is the movie about, besides growing sexuality, and lives where all that is natural, including that most basic drive, is stifled, by rules, usages, traditions, prejudices?

This is a great movie, watched on its own terms. Leave your comfy preconceptions at home (no doubt the deadly banal suburbs) when you watch it.

A beautiful movie that is smarter than most of its audience, and Roeg's best. A revisionist take on the movie is just the blandest, most boring, and ultimately dishonest thing one could attempt. The movie itself despises such an act.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lazarillo 15 years ago

I don't know exactly what you mean because there are some dumb comments on EVERY board. But I thought this was more of "coming of age" movie, which obviously has to do with sexuality, but not just sexuality. A real aboriginal walkabout actually has nothing to do with sex from what I understand. Also, if you read the original book, the girl was only 11 and the sexual attraction element between her and the Aborigine was entirely absent. The sexuality wasn't in the book, but doesn't mean that it doesn't work in this movie. This is a brilliant movie and a movie certainly does not have to be exactly like the book it's based on.

Perhaps, you're referring to these people concerned with the underage nudity? That is pretty silly, but it's par for the course these days.

[–] darkthirty 15 years ago

The movie is clearly not the book, and I was talking about people who thought the movie threw in gratuitous shots of the girl's leg, and so forth. That's such a stupid thing to say in the context of Roeg's film.

[–] cinbud 15 years ago

The characters in the movie are of an age where sexuality is an appropriate element. To me their story is kind of like that of a whirlwind romance during a summer vacation.

They were, for a bit, in a sort of isolated world of their own making, outside the norms of their own cultures (she more than he, but both of them were trying to accommodate the other, to know a person who comes from an alien world)

Toward the end, like when summer vacation ends, she started to return to her sense of her own cultural norm, and he did the same, and then the magical connection came to an end.

But for reasons that I don't really understand, it was a more critical loss for him than it apparently was for her.

David Gulpilil is so wonderful...

[–] ubiquitous_diabolus 15 years ago

If you haven't already seen it, see Rabbit Proof Fence which has David Gulpilil in a fairly substantial role. The DVD also interviews him and some of the other cast members and director

[–] ContinentalOp 14 years ago

I think the film is about sexuality, misunderstanding emptiness/loneliness and the loss of childhood innocence. David Gulpilil really only dies because of his passage into adulthood and cultural misunderstandings. Walkabout is a coming of age ceremony but when he comes of age and falls in love with ''Girl'', who doesn't understand him, he is rejected and kills himself.

"Namu-myoho-renge-kyo"

[–] Verdoux-1 14 years ago

I was talking about people who thought the movie threw in gratuitous shots of the girl's leg, and so forth. That's such a stupid thing to say in the context of Roeg's film.

Why not call a spade a spade? There were a lot of gratuitous shots of Agutter's legs/breasts/butt/crotch... (do I really have to go on?). Just because somebody's a brilliant filmmaker doesn't mean that they're not a little bit pervy.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Verdoux-1 14 years ago

I have no objections to the nudity in this film (or any other film for that matter), but I can still question the motives of the filmmaker.

[–] isoleret 12 years ago

Are you saying nudity is pervy? Are you a pervert if you look at someone else's nudity? Do you have sex? In the lightless dark?
How do you define gratuitous nudity? What makes nudity nongratuitous?

[–] Verdoux-1 12 years ago

Are you saying nudity is pervy?

No.

[–] ContinentalOp 14 years ago

"But for reasons that I don't really understand, it was a more critical loss for him than it apparently was for her." - Cinbud

He was in love with ''Girl'', and felt rejected, heartbroken and shamed.

"Perhaps, you're referring to these people concerned with the underage nudity? That is pretty silly, but it's par for the course these days"

Youa re right, it is very silly, especially when it is not even underage nudity.

"Namu-myoho-renge-kyo"

[–] nephihaha 15 years ago

Somebody's remarked in the reviews that it is about innocence. I agree. The sexuality, as it is there, is not some cynical thing. Both the aboriginal culture and the two children are innocent in some ways, until their father does what he does.

However, I do wonder if at the end of the film that her husband is beginning to turn into her father, and everything that that entails.

It's not "sci-fi", it's SF!

[–] Dog112 14 years ago

I think it's a story about how people and societies go about understanding each other, how people's minds close when they grow up in modern "civilizations," and about how people can't see the beauty of the environment in front of them when they don't know how to communicate with its inhabitants.

All three children are on a walkabout, but only the black boy understands it as such. The girl sees it as an excursion in a primitive land, and the white boy sees it as a mission of discovery. If they had had to live in the outback for the rest of their lives, the white boy would have adapted and been fine. The girl would never change. The black boy is the only one who matures from their shared experience.

In the nude scenes, the black boy and the girl are like Adam and Eve. It's a time of innocence, not a time of depravity. But the girl has eaten from the Tree of Knowledge.

The girl is completely incapable of understanding anyone who is not from her small, sheltered environment. When the black boy dies, she is unmoved.

The black boy commits suicide when he realizes that he and his people have no chance for happiness in a world dominated by an expanding group of heartless, narrow-minded people who waste everything they touch.

All are victims of people who teach a way of life which exists inside the box, and which poisons the lives of those innocent beings who live outside it. The one who understands this is the one who dies.

.

[–] horrorshowmovie 13 years ago

The black boy commits suicide when he realizes that he and his people have no chance for happiness in a world dominated by an expanding group of heartless, narrow-minded people who waste everything they touch.

I really dislike this interpretation. I think it's very clear in the film that he kills himself because the girl rejects his advances (because she doesn't understand what he's after)

The film doesn't take a position on something as asinine as "which culture is better."

[–] bertdockx 13 years ago

Now really... From the moment they're back in modern civilisation, the first (very unsympathetic) man they encounter, immediately goes on a rant about private property! And the movie ends with her not listening to her fresh husband (who's talking about 'promotion') and dreaming away, remembering the more innocent and pure times she spent with the aboriginal. There's many other scenes in the movie which very obviously criticise modern western civilisation, as opposed to a more 'honest', less corrupt, primal culture.

[–] bertdockx 13 years ago

Allthough, at the same time, Roeg also often seems to emphasize the similarities, more than the differences between both cultures... i guess the content of the movie is pretty ambiguous after all... :)

[–] maz89 12 years ago

Although his suicide does follow the scene in which she rejects his advances, the aboriginal boy was pretty torn up already by the heartless, unconcerned actions of the modern civilized folk on the hunting expedition. Do you really believe the film doesn't taken a position on which "culture" is better? In addition to what the poster above me has stated, there's also the pervasive sense of joy and wonder in the journey of the three protagonists as they make their way through the desert. The musical montages, the way in which they communicate with each other, the beauty of the surroundings - there was certainly a hypnotic poetry to how it was all captured. Contrast that with the almost sinister, distant undertones during the beginning of the film (up until the two siblings make their escape from their father who's having a mental breakdown of sorts).

Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.

[–] L0GAN5 12 years ago

I thnk the film takes a firm position that neither culture is better. Nicolas Roeg seems to contrast the two worlds not to preach a simpler more fulfilling way of life, but to show the similarities: in the hunting sequence, both the white hunters and the Aborigine boy kill far more than they can eat i.e. they both waste their resources. The film seems to comment on human nature, and that progress and civilisation hasn't really altered us at a fundamental level. We are what we are, no matter how much we dress it up. Both the father and the Aborigine boy end their lives deeply dissatisifed, so it doesn't seem to conclude that a simpler life is a necessarily more fulfilling life.

[–] maz89 12 years ago

I don't recall the Aborigine boy having killed more than he could eat. There's a slight possibility that I'm wrong... but since I distinctly remember disturbing images of worms consuming the rotting carcasses of animal meat accompanied by images of the tearful Aborigine boy (following the hunting sequence), I don't think I am.

The Aborigine boy ends his life dissatisfied for seemingly different reasons and after going through a much different "process". There's surely his depression over the pointless slaughter of animals he's just witnessed, and then his inability to face "rejection" from the white girl he's attempting to woo. He could have forced his will upon the girl but he didn't. On the other hand, the father lets his depression consume him so much that in his hysterical mindset, he pulls out his gun and shoots mercilessly at his children before committing suicide. Add to that the sinister quality of those early scenes, in which there's an underlying dread and a palpable feeling of incestuous rape.

There are no fundamental alterations in human nature and we are what we are, sure (after all, depression comes in many forms), but the pursuit of wealth (which isn't any cure for existential depression), and our selfish leisure activities that recklessly inflict damage to the natural world (i.e. hunting sequence) have made us lose sight of the natural beauty of our surroundings and have trapped us in our mechanical day-in, day-out routines (perhaps, the kind that fosters such kind of depression in the first place). The movie feels more like a nostalgia-induced contemplation of a more simpler, more innocent life (when depression is about reckless death of animals, and rejection by another we love dearly) when it was just about living and survival (although, admittedly, this might be a rather simplistic picture). That's the way it comes across to me, anyway.

In any case, there's no "preaching" given the way it's all so masterfully rendered... and also the fact we're still discussing about what it might mean.

Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.

[–] L0GAN5 12 years ago

It's a complex film by a very complex director (Roeg), so obviously it's open to considerable interpretation; but the best review I've ever read about it was Roger Ebert's in his "Great Movies" series: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19970413/REV IEWS08/401010372/1023. It certainly made me appreciate the film in a whole new light.

[–] maz89 12 years ago

Yeah, don't think I've read that particular review before but it was well-written and articulates the film's themes well.

About which culture is "better", I still feel that the film takes a rather clear position (although I don't want to use the word "agenda") in just the way the journey of the trio is captured. However, I should clarify that this does not mean that the supposedly "better" culture is somehow able to stop any of that human depression and despair from rearing its ugly head. There's no magical way of life that could "fix" that. In that sense, yeah, the film doesn't take a position and now I don't know what we were disagreeing about.

Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.