why didn't they just walk back in the direction they came?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Walkabout
autosonic — 16 years ago(August 20, 2009 01:36 PM)
If I remember correctly there was some kind of brick wall near the place where they stopped for the picnic, suggesting some kind of establishment, why didn't they just go back past the car in the direction they came and not further on into the middle of nowhere?
-
WatchAnythingOnce — 16 years ago(November 06, 2009 09:42 AM)
Right before they stopped, there's a shot of the fuel gauge and it's almost empty. If they started with a full tank, that would mean they traveled a long wayto far to walk back. And I'm sure the girl didn't want to take the little boy back past the car - if you recall, she didn't even tell him what happened, he later figured it out for himself. At the time, she told him that the father had sent them on ahead.
-
nephihaha — 15 years ago(June 11, 2010 02:21 PM)
He had a geological map with him, he was probably doing some surveys for a mining company. He lives off the land too
He took his children along to keep him company but went a little postal.
It's not "sci-fi", it's SF! -
Selish70 — 15 years ago(December 28, 2010 08:18 AM)
They may have traveled a good way, but backtracking would have at least put them on a path with some reasonable expectation of finding civilization before expiring. Wandering off blindly into the wilderness in order to spare the boy some unpleasantness was a very foolish decision.
-
-
junkhotshot — 10 years ago(May 15, 2015 02:40 PM)
They may have traveled a good way, but backtracking would have at least put them on a path with some reasonable expectation of finding civilization before expiring. Wandering off blindly into the wilderness in order to spare the boy some unpleasantness was a very foolish decision.
I agree, not only that, they could of 'walked around' the car
Dont be lazy, use the
tag. -
KutWrite — 9 years ago(February 05, 2017 09:09 PM)
YEah.
I took it as a "stupid decision" device to create a drama.
Going back the way they came would not make a movie!
I'm sure going to miss these message boards. I guess IMDB is cost-cutting at the expense of customer satisfaction. Fully corporate.
-
facebook-835-889963 — 12 years ago(November 03, 2013 08:54 PM)
I think the answer can easily be summed up with the universal standard of all fiction, Suspension of Disbelief. Of course, following the car's path back to civilization makes sense, but then you don't have a tale to tell. Even in the panic of the moment, common sense would have almost anyone circling back to find the tracks that lead back the way you came. The movie never tries to suggest this thought ever occurs, so we Suspend Our Disbelief and simply allow the fact that they have been stranded and don't know which way to go.
-
Darvidd — 12 years ago(December 09, 2013 08:43 AM)
The film's geographic portrayal of Australia makes no sense-look at a map-it's vast and all desert in the middle-they weren't dressed or equipped for an expedition to the interior that would have taken days to get there in a vehicle unable to do sothen there's the slight matter of travelling hundreds of miles north to the temperate tropical area in which the film concludes. Highly unrealistic and treats the audience as ignorant, 'suspension of disbelief' or not
'What is an Oprah?'-Teal'c. -
spookyrat1 — 12 years ago(December 11, 2013 05:36 AM)
Highly unrealistic and treats the audience as ignorant, 'suspension of disbelief' or not
I agree with you and your contention is absolutely correct for any one knowing anything about Australian geography. It really would have made more sense for the father to be flying a plane, than driving a clapped out VW from an Australian metropolis into that sort of terrain in the posed time frame.
However I find I can suspend belief to follow the story.
You don't have to suspend belief IMO to answer the thread question.
They were kids out of their element who had witnessed their father's suicide! It's a given that they may not do what a "sensible adult" sitting in a cozy lounge chair might think is the appropriate action. -
thomasdosborneii — 12 years ago(February 24, 2014 12:09 AM)
Well, I was reminded of one of my favorite films, but one that is generally highly vilifiedGus Van Sant's "Gerry", where Matt Damon and Casey Affleck play two characters who go on a hike in the desert and quite quickly get thoroughly lost. One THINKS they know where they are going, when really they just have no idea. If I remember correctly, the girl in "Walkabout" had the idea of them going up high to see where they were and thus where they should go. Damon and Affleck had that same idea in "Gerry", but the results were, let's say, less than fruitful.
-
parisionescu — 11 years ago(July 22, 2014 11:33 AM)
Haven't read the novel, but the answer to OP's question is mild suspension of disbelief. The film is not really in the tradition of realism - in fact it's full of surrealism, metaphor, and social critique.
I'm not trying to condescend, I get that it's a reasonable question, although I say it's mild rather than extreme suspension of disbelief because we don't actually know how far they are from civilization, whether they were asleep in the car, or whether she had any reason unknown to us not to attempt to parallel the route they took until the car was out of sight and then venture back in the direction they came - it's true, if my life and my little brother's life were in utter jeopardy, I would choose risking him see dad dead then choose to venture blindly into the outback.
But remember, the first thing she tried to do was get them to the highest point available, which implies that she didn't know which direction they had come from. And she didn't see anything promising, which allows the metaphorical walkabout to continue.
But you could ask similar questions of logistics to many, many famous and well-worthwhile stories, especially movies where visual details act like clues and allow us to be more scrutinous. I think it's just something you have to accept, if you want to. -
ridge-m-1 — 10 years ago(May 23, 2015 07:42 AM)
When the OP actually thinks there is a brick wall, reminiscent of the monolith at the outset of "2001", as the camera pans to the view of the VW, one is made aware that there has been a basic misunderstanding of the film.
How simple it is to ask, "why didn't the girl just follow the car tracks?". Let's review the scene, the girl is bright but only 16 years old and she has just witnessed her father attempting to shoot her brother. She becomes terrified and rushes to her brother to save him but the poseurs, excuse me, posters on this thread are not experiencing this event first-hand, consequently they fault the girl for not making the logical choice as they chomp on their popcorn.
In the act of retrieving her brother, she witnesses her father committing suicide and the VW goes up in flames. She possesses the wherewithal to salvage what she can from the picnic supplies, goes back to her brother and gets as far away from the scene of perhaps the most traumatic event she may ever experience in her lifetime as fast as she can. Before she is allowed a chance to regain her composure they are lost as her little brother realizes much later in the film.
Suspension of disbelief, no problem whatsoever. The film is allegorical, plays with the passage of time and events are sometimes portrayed in a subjective manner. If one tends to get caught up in geography, please avoid this film, the melancholy of the picture will be completely lost.