Sexuality and revisionist claptrap
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Walkabout
darkthirty — 17 years ago(January 24, 2009 08:17 PM)
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. -
lazarillo — 16 years ago(August 09, 2009 10:20 PM)
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 — 16 years ago(February 20, 2010 11:04 AM)
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(May 15, 2010 05:23 AM)
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 -
ContinentalOp — 15 years ago(November 09, 2010 12:47 PM)
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 — 15 years ago(March 16, 2011 04:12 PM)
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. -
-
ContinentalOp — 15 years ago(November 09, 2010 12:49 PM)
"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(June 11, 2010 02:13 PM)
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(June 17, 2011 02:17 PM)
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 — 14 years ago(October 16, 2011 01:25 PM)
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 — 14 years ago(November 26, 2011 02:10 PM)
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.
-
maz89 — 13 years ago(January 21, 2013 08:23 AM)
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 — 13 years ago(January 26, 2013 02:18 PM)
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.
