Walkabout 1971

Comment on what point/s you think the film makers are trying to make

The point the film makers are trying to convey, is the significant contrast between the city life and the outback life of the indigenous. 

The film makers use the brick walls as a way to symbolise the separation between the two kinds of people. One side is completely closed off and isolated from the other, by the walls. Everybody is oblivious as to what exactly is on the other side, as the walls clearly divide the two kinds of people. In addition to this, the walls surround the city, and represent the fact that nobody is open with one another. Everybody lives their own lives and everybody keeps to themselves. The city people do not live openly and freely like the indigenous in the outback do. The outback is a place where there are no walls or barriers blocking one another. Everybody is one, and everybody is family.

The film makers use the close up shot of the city people’s legs to indicate the fact that city people don’t show themselves fully. The viewer’s never get to see their real self. We only get to see a half person – just like we only got to see half of their body in the film. The legs also represent the fact that city people are just a mass of people, and not individuals. They are a mass of wonderers, heading in the same direction with no purpose. In addition to this, they are all robots who mimic each other. The way they walk and the way they dress is exactly the same. We can see this by the school environment, the marching soldiers and people heading off to work.

The many tall, large buildings in the film indicate that the buildings dominate the people. They play a big part in the city, and there isn’t any room for anything else. There is one image where the father of the family is sitting on a bench, and a massive building is surrounding him. He looks very insignificant and small, compared to the building. This indicates that the buildings are the main attractions in the city, and are extremely significant to city life. Beneath all of the buildings and walls we get a small glimpse of the botanical gardens, and the trees within it. Only the trees have labels on them, which take away their natural beauty, and make them unoriginal. We also get a glimpse of the mother of the family watering a few of her pot plants. There is not much nature reviled in their big house. This little indication of nature in the city is very different to the outback. The indigenous are surrounded by the beauty of nature. They appreciate the nature around them. Their habitat is very different to the city, but they still call it home.

The family of four consisting of the father, mother, teen daughter and young boy, represent the little communication the city people have amongst each other. The mother and father’s relationship is very cold, and there is no love and affection for one another. This is similar to the children and father’s relationship. The father does not talk to his children much, and pays little attention of them. This sought of ill communication is very different to that in the outback from the indigenous. They communicate quite openly with their friends, family and even strangers. They do not usually express their disappointment or anguish to one another, as the family tend to do.

My opinion about the movie
I didn't particularly like this movie either. From the ten minutes that we watched we didn't really get much. All we saw was a lot of legs, walls and buildings which didn't really interest me. I liked the idea however, of the meaning behind the walls, legs and buildings, I thought that was a very clever idea, but it was boring to watch. I'm sure if we continued the movie I would have enjoyed it, but the beginning of it was not very entertaining.