(2012-05-01 13:41:57)

Subtle but Powerful Social Commentary

Walkabout is introduced in the film as an important period in the life of an Aborigine. A time at the age of sixteen or so that the man-child must survive in the bush by himself for six months. If he survives he is a man, if not...well he really isn't anything because he's probably dead. Going into the film my understanding of Walkabout was sort of a break from white society into the traditional Aboriginal lifestyle for a period of time. The other use of Walkabout that I have heard is in reference to a British Monarch or some higher level of person walking around greeting folks in the public. Director Nicholas Roeg seems to understand the various uses of this word as well and ties them in with the maturation of the film's core characters. The parallels make for some very exciting social commentary and the film subtly layers itself and it's characters further and further. For that, Roeg's film in perspective can be seen as two very different kinds of films and split it's audience enormously. One crowd may say that Walkabout is extremely slow and boring while the other crowd will hail the film as a fantastic artistic achievement. Understandably so for both sides I suppose, but I do count myself among the latter group. Walkabout follows two young English kids, one a fourteen-year-old girl and the other a six-year-old boy (I think) as they are abandoned in the middle of the vast Australian outback. The abandonment itself is quite perplexing and I was fairly confused as to how it was handled, but you'll see that addressing those unanswered questions is not what Roeg's film sets out to do at all. Placing these children's survival in the arms of a 16 year old aborigine during his Walkabout is the stage that needs to be set to allow for some far more interesting questions that the audience can ask themselves about how we are all living. To paraphrase Lucas Haas in Tim Burton's "Mars Attacks", I wish we could all just live in Tee-pees...it would be better that way. Who doesn't wield an idealistic anarcho-primitivist message deep in their hearts? It also makes some outstanding observations on maturing into manhood and womanhood. Anyway, let those inquiries enter your brain how you like, but know that this is a smart film that calls for some patience in exchange for it's great rewards. I'm getting a little fuzzy here and I really don't want to urge my own observations on you.There are aspects besides its pace that will turn some viewers away. Firstly, the violence against animals is real and pretty hard, so PETA activists beware. Secondly, it was PG when it came out but the nudity shown here from Agutter is actually too graphic for R ratings today. Thirdly; again, this film is not exactly box office gold with its lower budget and slower pace, so if you find yourself unable to sit through films that don't contain explosions or CGI then you should pass as well. In a simple concluding scene that hits hard for me, the girl is now older and married, and she remembers back to when she didn't understand the things she knows now. It's a simple, melancholy and I believe universal feeling that's part of growing up. Perhaps she loved the aboriginal boy that saved her life and she couldn't understand his advances as a child. Perhaps she would now be willing to cross into that culture as she sees the truth now. Then again, maybe she was just reflecting on what is no doubt a very unique and significant experience to her. Something those who surround her in adulthood could never fully understand. It's a wonderful film and Roeg pulls no punches to give us everything he has and everything he intends to show us. Many celebrate Walkabout for it's cinematography, and deservably so as its among the most beautifully shot films of it's time...but it's a lot more than that. Walkabout is sad, compelling and thoughtful. I'm glad to see Criterion recognize it with this DVD.

Gerry_Biz

(2012-04-30 23:51:53)

...the best outback film....

Some of cinematographer turned director Nicholes Roeg's best. Probablynot the best movies for animal lovers,but a great movie forphotographers. It truly captures Australia. A lot of wildlife footage,and aboriginal hunting. (I sure hope I'm using that wordcorrectly.)Walkabout is one of those films that could never be madetoday. First of all it takes an audience with an attention span, somodern viewers shouldn't bother with this one. It has a slow pace butnot as slow as 2001, but comparable. If 2001 was an outback film, itwould look something like this, however Roeg uses far more cuts thanKubrick. Some graphic scenes involving animals. And, it's realism makesit feel as though you are watching a documentary or wildlifefilm...truly a spectacle.

(2012-04-29 09:11:59)

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.

vinniex

(2012-04-28 17:54:59)

I recommend this movie to everyone.

As I said, I recommend this movie to everyone that ever get intodiscussionsabout movies about. I first saw it back in high school on an independentTVstation and never heard of it again until I read Paul Theroux's book "TheHappy Islands of Oceania". In his book he talked about how it had a cultfollowing, but had been kept out of circulation for years due to some sortof legal entanglements. Whether this is true or not, I was very pleasedtosee it become available recently on video. I've rented it about 4 timessince then to show to friends.Roeg's cinematography is stunning. The contrasting juxtapositions ofstoneage food procurement and industrialized food procurement are one of thebestpoints made in the movie. My favorite part of this movie is the screenwipes Roeg uses while the little boy is telling the Abo a story as theywalkalong - stunning symbology! The Aborigine hunting techniques arefascinating, too.

David Elroy

(2012-04-28 13:20:29)

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.

(2012-04-28 01:35:51)

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.

(2012-04-22 19:01:05)

A strange and beautiful story...

What is perhaps lost in this film is the beauty and sadness of the story, essentailly a clash of cultures between two English children lost in the Australian outback following an accident and the Aboriginee boy who saves their lives in this hostile environ. The story is lost because it so often seen as the coming of age work of Jenny Agutter who had played the straight laced, Edwardian, "Bobbie", in the "Railway Children" just a year before this films release. The landscape is stunning and forboding and their is immense and frightning sexual tension between Agutter and the Aboriginee boy who seem to fundementally fear each other and each others strange cultural stances and yet fascination from each about their own emerging sexual energies and attractions to each other. The sexuality of the film is perrhaps a little overplayed so as to border on pornographic qualities at times. Diifcicult since their is a younger child in tha main cast as well, playing Agutter's younger brother. Agutter casts off the rigours of the role which almost type cast her, she fairly crudely casts off her clothes too. Not an easy film but worth while.

(2012-04-22 08:27:05)

Walkabout - inspires wanderlust

What a beautiful piece of cinema. If, like myself, you find yourself leaving most movies wondering why it was made at all, this film is a must! A beautifully photographed masterpiece, which, through a number of brilliant associative links, and a languid pace (not slow), will leave you breathless and wanting more. It is not often any more that I feel changed after a film experience, but Walkabaout inspired a sense in me of wanting to leave the city, however briefly, for a moment, and find the beauty of the natural world again. You will definitely think about life differently after seeing this. A perfect film I believe.

(2012-04-19 11:50:46)

Great film on culture shock, assimilation, disconnection

I first saw this film when I was in college 30 years ago and an anthropology major. It blew me away because of the ways people adapted to extremely difficult circumstances and to very different environments than they were used to. The occasional cutting back or forward to/from "primitive" to "civilized" was mesmerizing; it symbolized what was happening to the characters. The final moments were gut wrenchers, right up to the last shot. Loved it.

bartman_9

(2012-04-18 23:16:14)

Simplistic, pretentious and dishonest

This movie reminded me why I so passionately dislike Nicolas Roeg. ThoughWalkabout is thankfully free of naked rock-stars (no Jagger, Bowie orGarfunkel), all his other kinks (jerky editing and obtrusive photographiceffects) are fully in place and, as usual, hinder rather than improve themovie. The story of two kids lost in the Australian Outback hooking up with a youngaboriginal boy would be interesting enough if told honestly and directly,but unfortunately Roeg doesn't seem to know the meaning of those words. No,Mr. Visionary Director had to contrast the oh-so-pure aboriginal culturewith the unredeemingly evil modern society, sketched in the most simplisticand caricatural way. Is there anything more obvious than cross-cuttingbetween the native way of hunting and two white hunters shooting at buffalofrom a pick-up truck? Is there anything more cringe-inducing thanrepresenting the re-entry into Western civilization of the two white kids bya montage of brick walls? This is first-year-of-filmschool symbolism! Andyet, somehow this movie is still highly regarded by some critics.Make a movie in which all aboriginals are mean and nasty and you'll rightlybe considered a racist. Make a movie in which all white people are mean andnasty and suddenly you're an enlightened filmmaker. **

kevin c

(2012-04-16 13:25:24)

back to basics

Roeg is a vastly underrated director. Alongside 'Performance' and 'Don'tLook Now', this is also a very good film.The simplicity and beauty of aboriginal life, is contrasted with thewesternrigidity. The school uniforms remain nearly intact, despite the perilousposition the children find themselves in.A beautiful film, that will stick in the memory for a long whileafter.It has to be mentioned how stunning Agutter looks in this film. You'llneverbe able to watch 'The Railway Children' again.

(2012-04-15 20:04:40)

This movie makes us feel the loss of Eden again.

This is a very "artsy" movie about a young woman and her little brother who are orphaned in the Australian Outback by their father, who has lost his mind. They are rescued by an Aborigine on his walkabout. It is when they leave the idyllic setting and encounter civilization again that tragedy strikes. The aborigine, who is a mystic, can't communicate with the woman, who is a rationalist (and an unconscious snob). I admire the movie for not overly sentimentalizing the case- there are flies in Eden, and they eat lizards and kangaroo tails burned in a fire. But at the same time, without getting preachy, Roeg shows us how alienated from nature we are in civilization. The movie has a deliberate pace, so it's best to approach it with a patient mind. I don't think there's a wasted second in it, but it is totally unlike the MTV-influenced movies coming out today. It's a beautiful, strange film. END

(2012-04-15 12:17:38)

Another world just out of reach

Civilization is mad, or drives people mad is the opening proposition in Roegs 1971 Walkabout, and yet modern man is ill equipped to live outside of it. The script has everything a cinematagrapher would want. An interesting story but not one that needs to be elaborated upon or explained. Early on an incident occurs in the outback and the rest of the movie traces two childrens journey back to civilization. The story relies not on dialogue but on visual data almost exclusively. There have been few movies that have been so perfectly filmed(Lawrence of Arabia is one that comes to mind, on which Roeg served as cinematographer). The beauty of Roegs images of the Australian wild and also the beauty of the young actress Jenny Agutter alone make this a very memorable film but also with that camera Roeg is making a very provocative study of human nature in two distinct elements. And the competence with which he does so puts the film in the very highest class.This film was made in Australia during the decade that countries cinema went through a boom period. But also during a time when international cinema was exploring similar topics. The most similar film to Walkabout I can think of is Antonioni's Zabriskie Point. I think the two would compliment each other very well if viewed in tandem.Many Australian films of the 70's deal with nature with an element of mysticism added in for good measure, usually mysticism derived from Aboriginal customs, and this film does touch on that topic as the children are led back to civilization by an Aborigine but the film does not dabble in the mystic or become lost in its allure as some of the other Australian films did, it simply acknowledges that there are ways of perceiving reality other than western ones. That theme of getting back to nature is appealing to me anyway but Roegs treatment of it is never sentimental or romantic and that too is appealing. In fact what really gives the film its special depth and appeal is that the children still not completely indoctrinated into civilizations ways attempt to adapt to their primal surroundings but find they cannot, they are saved only because they are found by an Aboriginal child who provides them with food and guides them back to the world they came from but the odyssey has been a strikingly filmed one. Roegs camera has been very effective in finding the most poignant images to convey how differently the world is perceived when in nature and when in civilization. An intriguing study by one of the worlds greatest cinematographers using very modern devices to penetrate to the heart of one of civilized mans oldest attractions, the return to nature.

(2012-04-15 00:57:23)

Good for Anyone Who Has Had a Transition

My life has been unusual. I recommend this film for anyone who has been through an experience that they cannot fully (even if they want to) share with other people.I thought that the last scene of the girl now grown up and washing dishes, was a perfect contrast to her life on the walkabout. Obviously, it struck a chord.

failedscreenwriter

(2012-04-14 12:59:16)

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.

(2012-04-14 04:50:28)

great movie--plus reasons for some of you not to see it

Many other reviews here have pointed out the best parts of this movie quite well, so I don't feel the need repeat the praises for this movie. One should clear one's mind of preconceptions or expectations, just watch without trying to judge what's going on first. I direct the following advice to potential viewers who probably should NOT watch it: If you go to the Grand Canyon and think, "Boy, wonder why someone bothered to make this useless big hole in the ground" or "I wish I could buy a condo on that ridge right over there and have a golf course nearby" instead of just enjoying the view--stop right there. Don't watch this movie. If you like to watch movies to "compare" them to something else such as a book it's supposedly based on, you won't enjoy it--so don't watch this movie. If you think all movies from 1971 should have the same style, budget, sound effects and editing style of the latest mega-budget Jerry Bruckheimer film, don't watch this movie. If you think an art film means it's put out by Miramax and has a sensual scene with Kate Blanchette, spunky and irreverant foreigners who win your heart, or lots of serious English folk with great diction --don't watch this movie. If you think people need to be clad in opaque cloth at all times when potentially viewable by strangers, don't watch this movie. If you think that your dinner wasn't slaughtered (or if you're a vegan, that some process of agriculture didn't kill the lives of countless animals and insects--nevermind the odd trillion single celled organism here or there), don't watch this movie. Face it: when we eat, something else dies--otherwise become a Jainist, an Indian religious sect whose ultimate goal is the practioner's demise, because even stepping on a bug is a sin--if you're dead, you can't collect bad karma. Perhaps this is why the father shot himself? If you do realize and wholly accept that killing for food is a fact of life, yet consider actually being shown this reality in a movie to be redundant or disgusting--go right ahead in living in your comfortable, insulated world where nothing shall possibly disturb you and don't watch this movie! If after all of the above, you still choose to watch the movie and are totally baffled and perplexed: you are basically Jenny Argutter's character in the movie--you see the guy dancing but can't for the life of you figure out why, or even if you suspect, you're afraid and disgusted by it and reject it out of hand. Congratulations, you've won your prize, please exit on the left with the other dazed and angry patrons. Yes, the director's plan was to annoy you all along!

Stephen Hitchings

(2012-04-13 16:34:15)

Tedious

I've read all the positive comments, but to me this remains a tedious,plotless, pointless film. The precipitating incident, in which a fathertakes his children to the desert and tries unsuccessfully to kill them,makes no sense as there is no attempt to give it motivation. The resultingtrek through the bush likewise seems to serve no point other than as anexcuse for showing extended shots of Jenny Agutter swimming naked. There isno real plot, no character development, no psychological point, just aseries of images and lots of long, boring silences.

(2012-04-12 22:03:17)

Very Unlike the Book

This was a very confusing and inaccurate movie adaption of the book "Walkabout". I read the book for 7th grade English, and it is very beautiful and moving. It gives information about Australian plantlife and about the Aboriginals. Sadly, the movie is very different, and it is very untrue to the book. Some examples of the mistakes: 1. In the book, the kids are from South Carolina, but in the movie, they are from Australia. 2. In the book, they are in a plane crash. (In the movie, the father tries to kill the kids, burns the car, and then shoots himself.) 3.The girl is supposed to be 13 and the boy is supposed to be 8. In the movie, the boy acts like he's 3!!! 4.Although I can see why they would do this, the boy isn't supposed to be wearing a loincloth. He is supposed to be naked!!! And that's just in the first 15 minutes! So if you really want to know the story of Walkabout, read the book, don't watch the movie.

(2012-04-12 15:21:33)

mesmerizing

This review is from: Walkabout: The Criterion Collection (DVD) This film is a classic. It is one of those rare artistic statements that is bigger than the sum of its parts. I don't know why, exactly, I was so impacted by it, but I was. And I find I don't want to analyze why as, it doesn't deserve to be tampered with. It deserves to be seen and enjoyed, repeatedly.

gridoon

(2012-04-12 03:46:20)

Typically tedious Roeg film.

This is one of those "art for art's sake" films that were so popular inthe70's (Roeg's "Don't Look Now" is another). Tedious pacing (meant to be"deliberate"), obscure editing tricks (meant to be "inventive"), TERRIBLE,confusing storytelling (meant to be "elliptical"), poorly definedcharacters(meant to be "symbolic"), in an allegory that probably only Roeg himselfunderstands fully, yet it has people writing (quite eloquent) essays onit.At least the images are beautiful - but then again, how difficult is itreally to make a tree or a lake or a sunset look beautiful?(*)