Talk:Walkabout (film)

Nudity not the same as indecency

The statement that "since the Protection of Children Act 1978 permitted the distribution and possession of indecent images of people over the age of 16; however, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 raised the age threshold to 18 which meant the actress' age was a factor when the film was re-submitted in 2011" is wrong. There is a prohibition on indecent images of children under 18. But there was no indecency at all in the movie. Nudity is not the same as indecency.Royalcourtier (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

It's just poor phrasing. The section clearly states that the "BBFC reviewed the scenes in the context of the new law and deemed them not to be "indecent" and passed the film uncut". I have changed the wording to "potential indecency" to make it clearer. According to the source used in the section, the BBFC did not check the film for potential indecency originally because the actress was over 16. When the age was raised to 18 the film had to be checked for indecency because the actress was only 17 at the time. Betty Logan (talk) 07:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's true that possession of the film would have become illegal if it had been refused a certificate. Is the statement based on any decided legal case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gomez2002 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

You are probably correct that if the BBFC had withdrawn the rating on grounds of indecency then it would not automatically have become illegal, this would have required the prosecution of someone who owned a copy. It is certainly correct that it would have been illegal to sell a copy though so I will re-phrase it to that effect. Betty Logan (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Stunt double?

I may be imagining this, or thinking of some other film, but I thought I read somewhere that Jenny Agutter's swimming scene used a stunt double for safety reasons. Having your female lead actor swallowing pond water and getting dysentery would not be good news, and film producers (or their insurers) often insist on doubles to do the risky bits. I don't doubt that Jenny Agutter did some of the scene, but was the actual swimming done by someone else? Grateful if anyone could confirm my recollection.81.146.36.77 (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Why would she only do part of the scene? It wasn't exactly dangerous. You can clearly tell it is her in the water and she doesn't mention a stunt double here: http://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/aug/09/how-we-made-walkabout-jenny-agutter-nicolas-roeg-luc-roeg. Betty Logan (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Sport Hunters

I don't understand why my edit regarding sport hunting was reverted. The film shows white hunters shooting several buffalo, then suggests a decent amount of time has passed, then shows several fully intact buffalo carcasses just laying in the mud where they fell. The implication seems pretty obvious to me that the carcasses have been discarded. Jozsefs (talk) 06:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

There are multiple problems with your edits. I will go through them one by one, and explain my rationale for reverting you:

• [1] – Here you assert that the boys "stumble" across the road. They clearly do not. I checked the DVD before reverting you. The Aborigine boy approaches the white boy and takes him to the road. They do not stumble. To "stumble", in the English language, suggests an element of unexpectancy i.e. that the Aborigine boy also did not know that the road was there. This is clearly not the case. I have made the wording more true to the events as seen on screen: [2]
• [3] – In the edit summary labelled "correcting misinterpretation" it is you who is introducing the misinterpretation. There is nothing to suggest the boy's dance is in mourning for the slain buffalo. It is a mating dance, and there is nothing "apparent" about it. The director explicitly confirms on the commentary that he asked Gulpilil to perform the mating dance. This may not be evident to Western audiences unfamiliar with Aborigine culture, but it is obvious to Aborigines and anybody who has studied Aboriginal culture that this is a mating dance. You can briefly see the boy's erect penis in one scene, so this is obviously not any old dance. I think that given the non-obvious nature of the dance (at least to Western audiences) it benefits from a citation so I have included a citation to the director's commentary with a timestamp: [4]
• [5] – Here, you again assert that the hunters were hunting for "sport". This is purely interpretative on your part. There is no evidence that the men were hunting for "sport". They have a trailer on the back of their truck carrying buffalo so it's just as likely they were regular hunters who hunted and sold meat. If they were hunting just for sport why would they gut the buffalo—as they do in one scene—and drain its blood? Surely the point of the scene is that they were hunting, so adding in possible motivations doesn't really enhance the summary.

I have tried to integrate your non-problematic edits here, but you need to stop imposing your interpretation on the movie. Betty Logan (talk) 15:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not imposing my interpretation any more than you are man. You provided a source that it was a mating dance and my edit reflected that, I mentioned that his movements were intended to court her. All the rest of what you are objecting to is just a difference between your interpretation and mine, you need to stop reverting the content that you don't have sources for and instead make an effort to reach compromises with your fellow editors. We're all just trying to make articles accurate and of as high a quality as possible. Jozsefs (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

This is what you added. First of all there is no evidence that the hunters are hunting for "sport"——that is your interpretation—and secondly you removed reference to a "courtship dance" and replaced it with "bizarre ritual movements". It is a traditional Aboriginal mating dance, not a "bizarre ritual" as you call it. You also removed helpful wikilinks. There is no interpretation on my part, and since I did not write the original plot summary I am not defending my "verison". I am defending the existing version from misinterpretation and the removal of helpful links. Betty Logan (talk) 23:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Yolngu

The only reference to Yolngu is in the Categories. I believe actor David Gulpilil is a Yolngu man but that surely needs to be referenced in the article to warrant a Category? Sterry2607 (talk) 07:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

He is, according to his article, but that doesn't warrant the category here, so I've removed it. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Garden of Eden

An anonymous editor is continually trying to insert the folowing sentence into the themes section:

This theme is represented by the adolescent children in the outback, and also by the change wrought by Western civilisation which allows no return to an innocent "Garden of Eden"

Granted, Agutter does use this phrase, but it is presented here as a soundbite. Without the context the phrase is meaningless, and with the context the soundbite is unnecessary. This is what she does say:

Nick Roeg is talking about many things - the film has lots of layers to it. There is the story about children lost in the outback, finding their way. There is a story about society and the loss of innocence. And the film is about losing one's innocence and not being able to go back, once you have gone to a certain stage. And that is our Western society: we go to a certain place, and then we are spoiled, we are changed. Whatever it is, we cannot go back and have that Garden of Eden. We cannot go back and make it innocent again. We cannot go back once we have got to a certain stage..

Agutter is making a point about Western Civilization. She is saying that progress is irreversible. Once changes have occurred, once they have reached a certain stage they cannot be undone. She surmises that the film is an "allegorical tale" and told through the story of these children lost in the outback, unmarked by civilization. She compares the irreversible progress in Western civilization to growing up and losing that childhood innocence. She then uses the metaphor of the "Garden of Eden" to articulate this thought, that childhood is in a sense a "Garden of Eden" which in itself is a metaphor for the "loss of innocence", and you cannot return to it. I am not completely opposed to using the term "Garden of Eden", but its context must be made clear. The metaphorical underpinnings must be explained, otherwise it is just a soundbite that does not tell readers anything. If you have never seen the film the sentence as it as added by the anonymous editor makes no sense. I hope this now makes it clear why have reverted this addition. My version of the text has no more inherent right to be in the article than anyone else's so I ham happy to collaborate to get the text to a point we are both happy with, but it needs to be done through discussion here on the talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Betty. I have the impression that you have understood Agutter's interpretatioh of her film as far as the children's personal (sexual) development is concerned. (I am a bit puzzled by your use of "progress" though. In the desert the Aboriginal's culture is more "progressed" because he can survive and the Europeans cannot.) Agutter's testimony is important because Agutter was the lead actress and studied both the original book and the detailed script, and would have taken Nick Roeg's instructions during filming. However you make clear your anxiety is about citing Agutter's term "Garden of Eden". I appreciate that some people are opposed to religious terminology (sometimes because of fear of death, sometimes because they associate it with an opposing political party/tribe, sometimes perhaps because they were abused in childhood). Since much of Western art is however historically based on Biblical imagery (Agutter mentions the crucifixion scene where the Aboriginal boy hangs dead with arms outspread in the tree), it is not sensible to "censor" the Biblical quotes from Agutter's comments, either in Wikipedia or anywhere else. What may need to be briefly explained is the Garden of Eden narrative: Adam and Eve's childlike innocence which is lost, leading to realisation of nudity (fig leaves) and forever banishment from the Garden with no return possible (at the end of the film the girl, now married, can only dream of returning). Agutter and every child born before 1970 (when the film was made) would be familiar with this narrative, but with the present generation I am not so sure.

Applied to Western society: the girl's civilisation has pushed her beyond the point of no return - she is crossing the desert in a school uniform speaking perfect Queen's English and cannot survive alone, and she cannot understand the aboriginal, neither his language nor his dances. The small European boy however is still partly "innocent" of Western upbringing and immediately achieves communication with the aboriginal. Over to you. 86.173.221.202 (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I have no religious objections against the phrase. I am against dropping it in as a soundbite because it doesn't tell the reader anything. The "Garden of Eden" imagery is a metaphor for an allegory for a theme. The essence of Agutter's comments is that the film uses the burgeoning adulthood—particularly of Agutter's—character and the loss of childhood innocence as an allegory for Western Civilization. What she is saying is that Western society has brought about irrevocable change. Once you get to a certain point it is irreversible (think the World Wars, democracy, scientific advancements etc). In the same way you can not stop growing up and at some point your childhood is gone (think of the recital of "The Shropshire Lad" reminiscing about childhood at the end). The loss of innocence in the transition to adulthood is the allegory, and irreversible change (not always for the better) in Western Civilisation is the theme, according to Agutter's commentary. The Garden of Eden is a metaphor for the loss of innocence and irrevocable change, which the film references through its imagery. The problem though is your addition of "...which allows no return to an innocent "Garden of Eden"" is a non-sequitur in this respect because the section does not provide enough context to understand the quote, so it just becomes a soundbite. Betty Logan (talk) 03:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I largely agree but: When you say "the section" do you mean the Garden of Eden explanation in the Agutter interview, or do you mean the Garden of Eden scene in the film with nude bathing in the rock pool? 86.178.173.151 (talk) 08:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

All right, I think you are referring to the "Garden of Eden / naked rock pool/ innocence/ being able to go back" scene explained by Agutter in the YouTube interview at minute 13:10. Please confirm, and then we can try to make this Eden theme clear in the Wiki article.86.178.173.151 (talk) 13:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I am talking about the section in the article. The problem with Jenny Agutter's commentary is that she doesn't elaborate on what she means by the "Garden of Eden". I know what she means because it is a film I am familiar with and I also studied the book when I was younger (so I am familiar with the symbolism), but if you are not familiar with the film then it is just a meaningless soundbite and it is not clear how it relates to the theme. Readers could even come away from this article thinking it is a religious movie. What is needed IMO is some exposition about the film's imagery. We won't get that from Agutter's interview, but I will tell you what I can do: I actually own Louis Nowra's book about the film (https://www.amazon.com/Walkabout-AUSTRALIAN-SCREEN-CLASSICS-Louis/dp/0868197009) so I will look through it this weekend to see I can find something that we can use to add a bit of context for Agutter's comments. Betty Logan (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

It would be a pity to silence Agutter, because she says that Nick Roeg discussed the film extensively with her. With Roeg now dead, she is our next-best witness. Shall I try to explain the Garden of Eden/innocence/nudity concept in a half a sentence, or would you find any religious content on Wikipedia intolerable? Mind this was 1970 - Biblical imagery was an uncontroversial and widespread form of artistic expression, because the artist could assume that his audience immediately knew the significance of, for example, a fig leaf or a serpent.86.178.173.151 (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you have quite understood my point. I am not trying to "silence" Agutter! I am saying her quote "we cannot go back and have that Garden of Eden" makes absolutely no sense in the context of what is already there in the article. It is referring to imagery in the film that is not discussed in the article. If you do not discuss the imagery the quote makes absolutely no sense to the reader, unless they are already familiar with the themes of the film. To bring in the quote you have to discuss the imagery first. Unfortunately, Agutter does not discuss the imagery. We as editors cannot interpret the imagery of the film, we can only summarize what sources say about it. If you have sources that explicitly discuss the Garden of Eden/Adam & Eve imagery then by all means have a go. I will also have a look through Louis Nowra's book this weekend and see if it discusses the imagery. Betty Logan (talk) 21:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I have now added some contextual commentary about the film's "Garden of Eden" imagery to ground Agutter reference. Please let me know if the new version is satisfactory or if you have any further suggestions. Betty Logan (talk) 04:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Betty, you have done an excellent job. The article is a pleasure to read after watching the fantastic film. Thank you. 31.4.130.73 (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The accents

I think it's relevant that the girl's accent is upper/middle class English rather than Australian. If they'd wanted an Australian actress for the role I'm sure they could have found one. It amplifies her narrow experience of the world, hence her inability to communicate even the most basic things like her need for water to the Aboriginal boy. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I suspect it was more the case that the director specifically wanted Jenny Agutter since he had approached her a couple of years earlier about the role. Sometimes actors play characters of other nationalities and their accent is not necessarily intrinsic to their characters i.e. Michael Caine playing a cockney Nazi in The Eagle Has Landed, or Sean Connery having a Scottish accent while playing a Russian submarine captain in The Hunt for Red October. Given that the children's father in the film speaks with an Australian accent it's not even clear what their nationality is supposed to be. If you have reliable sources to back up the assertion that Agutter was cast because of her accent then I think that would make an interesting addition to the article, otherwise it would just appear to be editorial speculation. Betty Logan (talk) 03:04, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

She says they are "English" in the film, though confusingly she says they are from Adelaide. Also the elocution lessons early in the film definitely suggest a well to do background. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think she says they are English, the girl simply states "English?" while attempting to communicate, as in "Do you speak English?" As for the girl's elocution my mother attended a girl's grammar school in the 1960s and elocution lessons were on the curriculum, and her father was a plumber! I confess I don't know what the format of education was in Australia in the 60s, but the apartment they lived in did not suggest a well-to-do background, and the father appeared to be in a fairly ordinary white-collar job. If sources discuss the role of class in the film, or touch upon the accents of the children, then I think that would make an interesting addition to the "themes" section and it would then be appropriate to draw out details pertaining to that in the plot summary, but without sourced commentary it would be projecting an interpretation on to the story. Betty Logan (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2022 (UTC)