MovieChat Forums > Walkabout (1971) Discussion > why didn't they just walk back in the di...

why didn't they just walk back in the direction they came?


If I remember correctly there was some kind of brick wall near the place where they stopped for the picnic, suggesting some kind of establishment, why didn't they just go back past the car in the direction they came and not further on into the middle of nowhere?

reply

The brick wall was simply a device indicate a change of scene and that they had left "civilisation".

reply

Right before they stopped, there's a shot of the fuel gauge and it's almost empty. If they started with a full tank, that would mean they traveled a long way...to far to walk back. And I'm sure the girl didn't want to take the little boy back past the car - if you recall, she didn't even tell him what happened, he later figured it out for himself. At the time, she told him that the father had sent them on ahead.

reply

Where the hell did they think he was taking them?

reply

He had a geological map with him, he was probably doing some surveys for a mining company. He lives off the land too...

He took his children along to keep him company but went a little postal.

It's not "sci-fi", it's SF!

reply

They may have traveled a good way, but backtracking would have at least put them on a path with some reasonable expectation of finding civilization before expiring. Wandering off blindly into the wilderness in order to spare the boy some unpleasantness was a very foolish decision.

reply

The Girl wasn't shown to be the most practical person ever.



I disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler.
- Jon Stewart

reply

I'm with you. Why didn't they just follow the tire tracks back to where they came? If she didn't want the boy to see she could have found the nearest hill or cover and make a half circle to the tire tracks.

reply

The girl may have simply panicked and tried to get as far away as she could. Did she even realize that her father had shot himself and was no longer any threat?

reply

They may have traveled a good way, but backtracking would have at least put them on a path with some reasonable expectation of finding civilization before expiring. Wandering off blindly into the wilderness in order to spare the boy some unpleasantness was a very foolish decision.


I agree, not only that, they could of 'walked around' the car...

-----------
Dont be lazy, use the [quote ] [/ quote] tag.

reply

YEah.

I took it as a "stupid decision" device to create a drama.

Going back the way they came would not make a movie!

I'm sure going to miss these message boards. I guess IMDB is cost-cutting at the expense of customer satisfaction. Fully corporate.

:(

reply

I gathered that at first she was trying to keep the boy from seeing that scene. And also probably a bit freaked out, herself, she was trying to get away from it. Then they just get lost.

reply

I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that she forgot which direction "they came" in and simply lost track given the unreal predicament she was in.

Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.

reply

Maybe they were walking back in the direction they "thought" they had come...

reply

I think the answer can easily be summed up with the universal standard of all fiction, Suspension of Disbelief. Of course, following the car's path back to civilization makes sense, but then you don't have a tale to tell. Even in the panic of the moment, common sense would have almost anyone circling back to find the tracks that lead back the way you came. The movie never tries to suggest this thought ever occurs, so we Suspend Our Disbelief and simply allow the fact that they have been stranded and don't know which way to go.

reply

The film's geographic portrayal of Australia makes no sense-look at a map-it's vast and all desert in the middle-they weren't dressed or equipped for an expedition to the interior that would have taken days to get there in a vehicle unable to do so...then there's the slight matter of travelling hundreds of miles north to the temperate tropical area in which the film concludes. Highly unrealistic and treats the audience as ignorant, 'suspension of disbelief' or not...

'What is an Oprah?'-Teal'c.

reply

Highly unrealistic and treats the audience as ignorant, 'suspension of disbelief' or not...


I agree with you and your contention is absolutely correct for any one knowing anything about Australian geography. It really would have made more sense for the father to be flying a plane, than driving a clapped out VW from an Australian metropolis into that sort of terrain in the posed time frame.

However I find I can suspend belief to follow the story.

You don't have to suspend belief IMO to answer the thread question.

They were kids out of their element who had witnessed their father's suicide! It's a given that they may not do what a "sensible adult" sitting in a cozy lounge chair might think is the appropriate action.

reply

It really would have made more sense for the father to be flying a plane, than driving a clapped out VW from an Australian metropolis into that sort of terrain


In the book it was a plane crash, but the filmmakers decided to change it.

reply

Well, I was reminded of one of my favorite films, but one that is generally highly vilified--Gus Van Sant's "Gerry", where Matt Damon and Casey Affleck play two characters who go on a hike in the desert and quite quickly get thoroughly lost. One THINKS they know where they are going, when really they just have no idea. If I remember correctly, the girl in "Walkabout" had the idea of them going up high to see where they were and thus where they should go. Damon and Affleck had that same idea in "Gerry", but the results were, let's say, less than fruitful.

reply

Haven't read the novel, but the answer to OP's question is mild suspension of disbelief. The film is not really in the tradition of realism - in fact it's full of surrealism, metaphor, and social critique.
I'm not trying to condescend, I get that it's a reasonable question, although I say it's mild rather than extreme suspension of disbelief because we don't actually know how far they are from civilization, whether they were asleep in the car, or whether she had any reason unknown to us not to attempt to parallel the route they took until the car was out of sight and then venture back in the direction they came - it's true, if my life and my little brother's life were in utter jeopardy, I would choose risking him see dad dead then choose to venture blindly into the outback.
But remember, the first thing she tried to do was get them to the highest point available, which implies that she didn't know which direction they had come from. And she didn't see anything promising, which allows the metaphorical walkabout to continue.

But you could ask similar questions of logistics to many, many famous and well-worthwhile stories, especially movies where visual details act like clues and allow us to be more scrutinous. I think it's just something you have to accept, if you want to.

reply

I was wondering when they saw the coast, they didn't head that direction (it wasn't that far). Seems more likely to find civilization there.

reply

When the OP actually thinks there is a brick wall, reminiscent of the monolith at the outset of "2001", as the camera pans to the view of the VW, one is made aware that there has been a basic misunderstanding of the film.

How simple it is to ask, "why didn't the girl just follow the car tracks?". Let's review the scene, the girl is bright but only 16 years old and she has just witnessed her father attempting to shoot her brother. She becomes terrified and rushes to her brother to save him but the poseurs, excuse me, posters on this thread are not experiencing this event first-hand, consequently they fault the girl for not making the logical choice as they chomp on their popcorn.

In the act of retrieving her brother, she witnesses her father committing suicide and the VW goes up in flames. She possesses the wherewithal to salvage what she can from the picnic supplies, goes back to her brother and gets as far away from the scene of perhaps the most traumatic event she may ever experience in her lifetime as fast as she can. Before she is allowed a chance to regain her composure they are lost as her little brother realizes much later in the film.

Suspension of disbelief, no problem whatsoever. The film is allegorical, plays with the passage of time and events are sometimes portrayed in a subjective manner. If one tends to get caught up in geography, please avoid this film, the melancholy of the picture will be completely lost.








reply

How simple it is to ask, "why didn't the girl just follow the car tracks?". Let's review the scene, the girl is bright but only 16 years old and she has just witnessed her father attempting to shoot her brother. She becomes terrified and rushes to her brother to save him but the poseurs, excuse me, posters on this thread are not experiencing this event first-hand, consequently they fault the girl for not making the logical choice as they chomp on their popcorn.


I did not eat popcorn during this film, and I would have made the logical choice in that situation and at that age. For the love of god, she was 16, not 6.

In the act of retrieving her brother, she witnesses her father committing suicide and the VW goes up in flames. She possesses the wherewithal to salvage what she can from the picnic supplies, goes back to her brother and gets as far away from the scene of perhaps the most traumatic event she may ever experience in her lifetime as fast as she can. Before she is allowed a chance to regain her composure they are lost as her little brother realizes much later in the film.


She could have gotten as far away as possible by going in the direction the car came from.... And even if she sort of lost it momentary, she should have been smart enough to realize rather quickly she was going the wrong way and to backtrack. Anyone who has enough wherewithal to salvage the picnic supplies would probably not go 100% the wrong direction.

Suspension of disbelief, no problem whatsoever. The film is allegorical, plays with the passage of time and events are sometimes portrayed in a subjective manner. If one tends to get caught up in geography, please avoid this film, the melancholy of the picture will be completely lost.


If that is the argument you want to use, then use it. Do not try to act as if there was logic in their decision.

-----------
Dont be lazy, use the [quote ] [/ quote] tag.

reply

I'm thinking it's possible that the geography of Australia is possibly not the best Trivial Pursuit subject for a 15/16 year old British girl in 1971. No one consider that?

She would know that it is big, that's about it. It's unlikely by 1971 she would know anything greater about the US, but she would probably know that it is immensely populated and that even out west you are likely to come across a road or a settlement in under a days walk. Not so in Australia where you can walk from the east coast to the west and be dead before you stumble upon your first dirt road.

If I was in a land where just how desolate the place is was the least of my knowledge then I would not be logically thinking about tracks, I'd be thinking "pick a direction, find a phone".

Even if she did have knowledge of Australia's geography she would likely be thinking 'father must have been headed somewhere' so why backtrack the 1,000 or so miles that emptied the fuel tank when you can walk 10 miles and find refuge?

She was a teenage girl for *beep* sake!

Damn armchair experts, they should cease and desist their pursuit of telling everyone "what an intelligent person would have done".



Ya Kirk-loving Spocksucker!

reply

She was a teenage girl for *beep* sake!


Are you saying teenage girls are so stupid they would walk in 100% the worse possible direction?

Damn armchair experts, they should cease and desist their pursuit of telling everyone "what an intelligent person would have done".


It's not about being an 'expect' its basic common knowledge. One path leads 100% to safety, while the other has a chance of leading to 100% death before finding water/food/people.

Not playing russian roulette with your life is not something an 'expert' needs to tell you to avoid.

-----------
Dont be lazy, use the [quote ] [/ quote] tag.

reply

I never said she acted "logically". Haven't you already come to the conclusion that most individuals do not act in a logical fashion even in a non-stressful situation.

She acted in a manner that does not infringe upon the ability to suspend disbelief.

reply