(24 May 2012)

Moody, pessimistic and surreal -- with much food for thought

Originally released in 1971, this film is characterized by great cinematography of the Australian outback and the rather strange story of a lost English teenage girl and her little brother who are helped to survive by a 16-year old Australian Aboriginal boy on his "walkabout", a coming-of-age survival ritual. The girl, played by Jenny Agutter, is steeped in the ways of civilization and always distrustful of the aboriginal boy, played by David Gulpilil. The younger boy, played by Luc Roeg, is the son of the director, Nicolas Roeg, and does a fine job of bridging the gap between the two older teenagers as he learns some basic hunting skills and finds ways to communicate with the older boy. The story is a little too artsy for my taste and raises just too many unanswered questions. Why did the children's father drive them out on the desert and start shooting at them? Why did he commit suicide? Why were there some strange scenes about scientists and a weather balloon? Why did the girl never cease her upper class manners even when faced with starvation and fatigue? Even though there are scenes showing the children washing their flannel school uniforms, how did they keep their clothes in such good condition? And why was the film so horribly pessimistic? There's food for thought here though between the ways of life of the materialistic city dweller, which is contrasted by the natural way of the world. However, neither of these ways of life comes out the winner, especially because there is no understanding between them. No one is spared the director's harsh camera lens, which focuses a lot on the animals. We get the feeling survival means destroying other living things. And it is the same with humans. The film is moody, pessimistic and surreal - not my favorite kind of movie. Its message is hazy and unfocussed. And yet its haunting quality will linger with me for a long time. I can't say I enjoyed this video. Rather I was disturbed by it. And I would have liked more clarity. I do recommend it though for film buffs and art lovers. But be prepared for a confusing film with no easy answers.

(23 May 2012)

Coming of age in the outback of Australia

A very unusual film for its time, Walkabout combines many themes in what is ostensibly a tale of survival in the Australian outback. I suppose it was a bit too racy for American audiences as Roeg focuses lovingly on a young nubile Jenny Augutter but that would be missing the point of this movie which contrasts the sterile life of a young British girl and boy with an Aborigine man-child.The film depicts the initial bleakness of the Australian desert which the two children find themselves thrust into after the father mysteriously chooses to commit suicide, but eventually shows the immense diversity of the outback as the young Aborigine leads the lost children back to civilization. Roeg uses a variety of cinematic techniques to paste together his poetic vision, ultimately developing the sexual tension between Agutter and the Aborigine, culminating in a fateful courting ritual which Agutter appears oblivious too. However, the star of the movie is the little boy, Luc Roeg, who forms a very special bond with the Aborigine.The film may be too much to handle for small children, but it is ideal for teenagers, as it will give them a very different experience from the run-of-the-mill teen movies that proliferate in the video stores. Don't fret over the R rating, as the nudity is fleeting and treated in a very respectful way. In Britain, the rating is 12 for young teenagers.

(23 May 2012)

Walkabout, the Movie, Corrupts Walkabout, the Book

As a middle school English teacher, I was delighted to finally find the movie that bears the same title as one of my favorite adolescent novels. To my disappointment, the movie is nothing like the book. The Book: Two children from South Carolina crash in the Northern Territory on their way to visit their Uncle Keith in Adelaide. Thirteen-year-old Mary drags her little brother to safety and then watches in horror as the pilot and navigator disintgrate when the plane explodes. Mary takes care of her eight-year-old brother, Peter, by wrapping a wound on his leg and giving him the only food they have which is a stick of candy. While the two search for food, a young aboriginal who is on the last leg of his "walkabout" (a rite of passage to prove his manhood) discovers the children. Mary is appalled that he is black and horrified that he is naked. The book is a wonderful opportunity to teach young people about acceptance and tolerance. While Mary has such compassion for Peter, she is shallow and petty in her assessment of the aboriginal. Peter, on the other hand, quickly becomes friends with the bush boy while Mary brings her cultural misgivings to the relationship and eventually causes the boy to die from mental euthanasia. It is only at the boy's death does Mary realize his goodness and her own bigotry. The children bury the boy who has taught them enough survival skills for the two of them to make it to the "valley-of-waters-down-under-the earth" where the children find plenty of food and water and ultimately an aboriginal family who shows the children how to get to a house. The reader knows the children will make it back home after enduring their own rite of passage. The Movie: In this horribly contrived movie, the children are taken on a picnic by their father who has inappropriate feelings for his daughter, Mary. The father commits suicide. The bush boy has designs on Mary, too, which is so far removed from the book as to suggest that the maker of the movie never read James Vance Marshall's novel. The camera zooms in the the crotches of trees for who knows what Freudian absurdity. The children are all conflicted by their relationships because the director seems to want to force some sort of sexual feelings between Mary and the bush boy. In the book, Mary is terrified that the bush boy might harm her even though Marshall makes it very clear that for the bush people there is a time and season for all things, and the bush boy would simply not be interested in a young girl. As a matter of fact, since aboriginals in this particular territory of Australia are all naked, the bush boy doesn't even know Mary is a "lubra," or young girl for most of the book because she is wearing clothing. More importantly, he doesn't care. He thinks the children are from some "freakish" backward tribe because of their total lack of survival skills, but he is kind to them, teaches them, and guides them. The point of the book is that the bush boy might seem to be less civilized than his white counterparts, but in fact is far more advanced in the treatment of his fellow beings than are the children; particularly Mary. The move is sick, twisted, and so disgusting that I have chosen to show A Far Off Place after I teach Walkabout because its namesake is nothing but an awful distortion of a beautiful book. I question how in the world anyone could enjoy such an awful film.

Steve Rhodes (22 May 2012)

In the day since I've seen the film, I cannot put it out of my mind. Its images continue to be savored, and I will never forget the three travelers through the desert.

SixtusXLIV (21 May 2012)

Rousseau would Love This..

This film is very strange. It's form contradicts the the story all thetime. The beautiful scenery of Australian wilderness and its nativeinhabitants honorable behave, minimizes the drama of two children lostin it. Of particular significance is the scene where the dead Father isshown dead hanging of a tree, which the children either do not see ordo not react. It is a major omission..Like Roussau, it's a charlatan'n work. With a big difference. NicholasRoeg, at the time was a great cinematographer, and a bad director.Later on , he improved, but let's nor give this idealist's work, morethan he deserves...

(21 May 2012)

Weird, too weird

I hated this movie. I don't think I got it. There were TOO many things that didn't make any sense to me - the weather balloon people, why the father killed himself, the hunters, the plaster of paris family, or why the boy killed himself. Maybe it was just too deep but I missed the whole point. My family just took away my renting privledges because I told them this was a "masterpiece". Oh well.

MuggySphere (21 May 2012)

Interesting, Emotional, Fascinating

I've never heard of the director Nicholas Reog until this film and Iremember seeing it a long, long time ago on the ABC in its full uncutform. I only just got this on DVD last year and have only watched it twicesince then. I find it an interesting experience. The director seems tohave some kind of fascination with Ms. Agutter and while I can't blamehim I have to wonder if some of the scenes they did with her are reallyTHAT important to the film. The scenes I am thinking of are the nudeswimming at the end of the film, though that is part of her rememberingher time in the desert at the end of the film.There are a few animal killings in the film as we see the girl and heryounger brother met by a local Aborigine played by David Gulpilil andthrough the film we see his reaction to this girl as she and the boytravel with him, and his later suicide as she is ignorant of his sexualdesire for her.I'll probably have to watch this film again in full withoutinterruption to get the full impact of it. One scene that did bug mewas the one with the weather balloon. It looked out of place with therest of the movie and I still wonder to this day why it's even inthere. It serves IMHO no purpose.That notwithstanding I did give the film 7/10

RLC (20 May 2012)

One's eye-popping introduction to Jenny Agutter

Having seen the original version years ago, the re-edited and expandedversion is even better, and more puzzling. Ms.Agutter'snatural charms are showcased here rather better than in any of hersubsequent films I have seen. My younger friends of the '90s would describeher as a "total fox" in this movie. The photography is spectacular, thebasic plot fairly simple, but the undercurrents and symbolism are achallenge at first viewing. The ending is sad, but perhaps predictable. Oneof my top ten movies of all time.

Neil Welch (20 May 2012)

Superb multi-layered film

I watched Walkabout at the cinema when it first came out. I am nearlythe same age as Jenny Agutter and in 1971, when we were both 19, therewas very little nudity to be found in provincial England: I confessthat my main motivation for going to see Walkabout was because I hadread that Ms Agutter would be displaying her all in it (as, indeed, shedid). However, even as a rather callow and unworldly youth, I managedto perceive that there was rather more to this film than simply MsAgutter's youthful (and extremely beautiful and rather touching)nakedness.It has taken further viewings over the years, as I have become a littleless shallow, to appreciate more of the depths within this movie.The stark beauty of Australia, the brilliant performances from thethree young principals, the simplicity and complexity of the story, theunderlying thematic complexities and, ultimately the multiple tragediesof the outcome - all I knew back then was that I had watched somethingspecial, and even now I am finding out more reasons why it was sospecial.

David Elroy (20 May 2012)

Beware of animal slaughter

If you've already watched the film, then you know what I'm referringto. If you haven't seen it yet, you might want to be prepared for somerather graphic hunting scenes. Some such scenes fit well with the mainideas - juxtaposing aboriginal life with "civilized" life. But a fewsuch scenes are gratuitous (i.e. we've already seen the kangaroospeared and terrified - we don't need to see it clubbed repeatedly inthe face - in closeup, no less). Fast forwarding is advised.I've noticed that the film has taken more flack for the nudity than forthe animal killings, which makes some sense because the killings are(we assume) in accordance with aboriginal life, while the nudity iscontrived by Roeg. However, it seemed to me that the nudity wasessential to the point of the film; a civilized girl is immersed inprimal, physical existence for this walkabout episode in her life. Ialso felt that the camera was more discreet than voyeuristic; i.e.nearly ever shot is distant, not closeup.MINOR SPOILERS AHEAD. The film deliberately leaves itself open tointerpretation. I did not see it as white/civilized/bad versusaboriginal/primal/good. I felt the point was to demonstrate parallelsbetween the two, to show us that we are not so different as we thought.We see, or overhear conversations about, the civilized folks hunting orpreparing animals for food. Then we see the aborigine hunting for food.We see the civilized people flirting and sneaking glances at eachother. We see the White Girl and Black Boy doing the same. Note alsothe closing freezed-frame image: phallic, obviously, but also an imageof parallels or pairs, suggesting connections rather than separation.At any rate, it's not a masterpiece on par with Roeg's "Don't Look Now"or "Man Who Fell To Earth" but it's certainly an engaging and memorablefilm.

(19 May 2012)

Intricate Beauty

For some reasons I had reservations about seeing this film when I first heard about it; maybe because what I heard and the advertising I saw didn't begin to hint at its depth. Ostensibly its the story of two WASPs who get stranded in the Australian outback and meet an aborigine boy who helps them to surive their journey back to civilization. Most noticeably, for me, the movie criticizes the spiritual emptiness of civilized society and lets the viewer glimpse at some of uncharted territory's secret beauty. The movie works fine on this level. But its brilliance lies in how many different levels it does work, and its subtlety.It is a tragic story of two people who fail to communicate. The blindess of the girl (presented in quite a harsh light, and a symbolic big slap in the face to whitey now that I rethink it) despite huge language and cultural differences is inept or unwilling to understand the aborigine boy's perspective. Indeed she is deeply rooted in Anglo-Saxon values -- only the young boy, her companion, is able to break down the barrier and communicate simple ideas. There are points in the film that expose sexual tension as brilliantly and as subtley as I have ever seen. It is vastly important that the boy is not dramatized or stylized in any way, he seems really to have been picked out of the outback and cast directly in the movie. His behavior should seem at least somewhat bewildering to the audience, it was to me, particularly in the haunting mating dance scene. The girl rejects him out of a lack of understanding and fear, and he sheds tears of failure. Was sexual consumation a part of his walkabout or did he fall deeply for this girl. What are the cues to suggest the latter? I'd have to watch the movie again.Walkabout is delicate and complex but doesn't spoil itself by becoming overambitious. There are many, many internal psychological and emotional aspects of the two children that remain rightfully unexplored. Suffice to say being shot at by your dad and stranded in the wilderness might create some wrenching immediate -- nevermind longterm -- consequences. The film could easily have veered off into myriad branches and lost track of itself. Roeg decides to focus on particular elements and does so meticulously and with grace. And for the film's obvious disdain for civilized society, it doesn't necessarily suggest that the boy has an easier or more satisfying life. It merely presents a different angle -- though that angle is shot in breathtaking, but unsentimental, beauty. There is no sap in this film; the score is moving but does not grab forcefully at one's heartstrings. The shots of the outback are gorgeous, but they do not imply any false notions of peace in nature. And for these very reasons, the film, I would imagine, would be great at exposing both beauty and the harsh face of reality to kids despite all the complexity that wouldn't be understood.

Edward Guthmann (18 May 2012)

Roeg intercuts images of modern life with the lushness of nature -- offering a stunning fable about the importance of respecting the earth.

sunsix (17 May 2012)

INNOCENCE

Goodness gracious it's amazing how many reviewers missed the most obviousaspect of the film. This tale is about innocence and it approaches thatfrommany different angles. As for Roeg practicing camera tricks-maybe todaythese are tricks but at the time the style was a pioneering method oftelling and showing psychological elements, wasted on todays audiences.Roegpresents innocence in juxtaposition with the hardness and neuroses ofsociety, not as WHITEMAN BAD but as society, modern society makes us veryneurotic by taking away our innocence. Roeg makes an brilliant point andstylizes a mostly nonverbal experience by letting us journey with childrenall on the cusp of some new stage of growth. This movie is a smallmasterpiece!!

(17 May 2012)

Culture clash

This visually stunning 1971 movie anticipates many of today's main social and environmental topics.At its core, Walkabout is about cultural dominance: the capacity of European culture to dominate both nature and other peoples. Central to this dominance - as the film indicates - are discipline (the girl's fortitude in confronting the outback), conformity to rules (her rote recitation and dress code), hierarchy (unquestioned obedience, even to a deranged father), subjugation of nature (wild animal slaughter), private property (the station in the outback, the despoiled mine), white privilege (the aborigine is useful and nothing more), but most of all, dominance requires replacement of instinct with institutions and nature with technology. Older viewers will recognize counter-cultural themes of the 1960's.Nicholas Roeg has organized these ideas in interesting ways that keep eyes glued to the screen. However, there is a real need to pay attention to the visual imagery which in Walkabout amounts to a dominant text, with the rather sparse dialogue acting as a subtext. Or put another way, in Walkabout Roeg is making a movie, not writing a play. Thus the opening sequence of imagery indicates reasons for the father's derangement and suicide, while crotch shots of the tree indicate the mating potential of boy and girl, a tension that is otherwise hard to convey since the aborigine boy speaks no English.Roeg's wise refusal to sentimentalize his characters gives the movie much of its strength. Instead, the main characters are treated in straightforward, non-judgemental fashion. Nevertheless, as other reviewers point out, the movie does make a statement. Namely, that the girl comes to regret her return to 'civilization', failing to realize at the time the natural paradise she had found on her walkabout. This rejection amounts to a telling commentary on the price the dominant culture has exacted from us in its demand for well-ordered 'progress'. While I agree with the spirit of the point, I think Roeg has idealized the contrast. After all, swimming, fishing, and roaming, look good from the standpoint of the closeted office in the big city. Yet millions of rural people to whom such simple pleasures are in some semblance available, leave those surroundings for the excitement only a big city can provide. In that sense, the girl's regret at movie's end can be taken as a coming to terms with the problems of modern European culture, rather than a return-to-nature as their oversimplified solution. Anyway, however you might choose to cut it, the movie is certainly worth a look see.

(13 May 2012)

Highways of Happiness

Walkabout is a truly exceptional film. If possible seeing this on a theatre screen or at least a large plasma is ideal, as the heart of it is the awesome imagery of Australia's "Outback." It is in that expansive land, where nature and it's profound beauty and violence that two kids find themselves, abandoned by a father, a modern white man, finished with himself and life. Having brought his kids out into the wild, ostensibly for them to lunch and play while he peruses his geology paperwork, he also can't help stare at his daughter. This interfamily tension, the rigidity of urban life-captured in brick walls and symmetrical classroom alignments where the lifeless droning of school excercise (which poses an early juxta to the ancient chanting and John Barry's fabulous score) and stilted uniforms are what these kids know, but just as soon let go of in a journey through all-time. Without much questioning the girl and her younger brother survive, without very much fear, or doubt only to be saved when they do appear to be starved by a sixteen year old Aborigine on his rite-of-passage-into-manhood Walkabout. The allegorical and metaphorical nature of Walkabout is clear and infinite. Two worlds and civilizations have met, language easily gives way to gesture and sound, and love, the greatest unification of worlds, blossoms.But the divide between the pure ancient young man and the tough, staunch urban girl proves too great for her. Following a remarkable mating dance in which he paints himself and offers flowers, a gesture she dismisses, the bond is broken, and the tragedy of encroachment and progress is upon us. This is a definite masterpiece. A film worthy of school showings, be it elementary or graduate. Memory and reality. Peaceful yet violent. Meditative yet ominous. Warm yet jangling. As a gesture of awe, respect and sorrow at the Aboriginal experience it has few parellels. Perhaps Peter Weir's The Last Wave and Philip Noyce's Rabbit-Proof Fence (both of which feature David Gulpilil, who plays the Aborigine) can be it's companion.

Idocamstuf (13 May 2012)

Wonderful to look at, but.....

This is the first Nicolas Roeg film I have seen, and I was only marginallyimpressed. The scenery is absolutely goergous, but the lack of diologueseemed to make it rather dull. I guess I just didnt take in the fullimpacton this viewing, I'll have to give it another viewing. For now, I give ita6.

lisamba (13 May 2012)

Walkabout

I watched this movie almost 2 times and I still don't understand it.The movie was very good in filming wildlife but the script washorrible. Why did the father shot at the boy? Why did he kill himself?Why did the kids go the way they did? Why didn't the aborigine boy showthem the other people? Why did the aborigine boy die at the end? somany questions left as to what this movie was about. Seemed like theyjust want some nude bodies in the movie cause men are so horny! Thewildlife filming was really good beautiful scenery. I thought maybe thebeginning would tell me what the movie was trying to convey but it wasconfusing also. And the end was just as bad!

(12 May 2012)

Brilliant, haunting film

Wow- What a movie! After having viewed this film several times, I have come to the conclusion that it's probably one of the best films ever- I am a bit biased, though, because I'm a certifiable sucker for art that deals with the limitations of civilization when confronted with something more powerful (i.e. nature)- At any rate, I decided this was such a great movie when, five days after first seeing the movie, I was still thinking about some of the scenes, specifically the scene near the end w/ Agutter and the aborigine- Unlike some people I know, I don't find the film to be overwhelmingly pessimistic- I think the scenes in the middle, with the three of them swimming and whatnot, are really what the film is about: finding transcendence, and that the possibility of that still exists- One of my favorite aspects of "Walkabout" is that, in my opinion, it doesn't pander or overexplain, although it goes a little heavy on the ferocious greatness of nature shots, almost to the point of being didactic- But, thankfully, after finishing the film, I did not feel like I had been preached to for an hour and a half, as I did with some other supposedly "great" movies I've watched

failedscreenwriter (11 May 2012)

The Elegance of Ambiguity

I *finally* got to see this film all the way through. The photography isbeautiful and the story can be enjoyed on a most basic level, but whatstruck me about Walkabout was what it *didn't* say. Roeg wisely pulls hiscamera back and avoids graphic "suffering in the desert" details or theseparate story of the search. The subtlety emphasizes that this film is anextended allegory. My favorite plot device: the children's only link to"civilization," a portable radio, is first heard playing the things amiddleclass English girl in Australia might listen to--music, lessons, etc. Asisolation sets in, it degenerates to a meaningless babble about economics,philosophy and civilization (the same announcer? a different one? is sheimagining her father's voice? We don't know). The film is aboutnon-communication throughout. The family is isolated before the fact. Theyoung tribesman can't comprehend the girl's non-understanding of hisculture. And the rather depressing ending shows us that the social andcultural isolation we all live in does not easily change.

tbyrne4 (11 May 2012)

sorry, but Nicolas Roeg is not a good director

Did you ever someone who is intelligent and well-spoken but who justwon't stop talking. And the more he talks the less sense he makes, andyet he speaks so eloquently and with such style that you feel compelledto listen, even though the headache growing in your brain screams atyou to run away. That's a lot like Nicolas Roeg's films. And that's alot like "Walkabout". Beautifully shot, very stylish, and yetso...soooo vague. One vague scene drifting into another. One ponderousmoment oozing into the next. As it just goes on and on and on...and thebuzzing in your head gets louder and louder. I've encountered this with Roeg's films before, to greater and lesserdegrees. I am aware of the beauty of what's on the screen and of Roeg'stalent, but I can't get past this feeling that he doesn't really wantto make a film that's about anything. And the ponderousness of thestories becomes oppressive. "Walkabout" is supposedly a classic. I admit it has very goodcinematography. And Jenny Agutter is lovely, but beyond that I don'tsee a lot else. The whole nature vs. technology metaphor is so poundedinto the viewer's skull you want to scream "all right!! I get it!! Iget it!!" And Roeg is the king of mixed signals (not in a good way,either), as in one scene we get shot after shot of the aborigine teenslaying animals intercut with full frontal nude shots of sixteen-yearold Jenny swimming around while muzak plays (???) That nonsense ofshowing beauty/slaughter intercut was old by 1969, so Roeg was notdoing anything new. Honestly, I would avoid this movie. It's just frustrating. If you wantto watch something good, check out some of the films of Donald Cammell(who co-directed "Performance" with Roeg), he is less well-known, butwas a far superior director.