Walkabout, 1971

November 17, 2022 | ELIZABETH REYNOLDS

Walkabout is a 1971 film that follows an upper-class British brother and sister duo that live in Australia. The movie gets its name from an Aboriginal Australian coming-of-age ritual that takes place in a male’s life between the ages of ten to 16. Tragedy strikes when their father kills himself and the little boy and teenage daughter are left stranded in the outback. It is when they run into an Aboriginal boy that they learn how to survive off the land, as well as how to live in the truest form of man. This is important to note, especially with the theme of the “noble savage”. Throughout cultures that have been colonized, there seems to be this expectation that the “savage” must help out the civilized man. But if a man is so civilized, so modern, why is he unable to understand the most basic of self-preservation skills? The film makes sure to include this concept, which for the time was major. Australians and their native people have a long and bloody past, and this was one of the first films to ever exhibit white and aboriginal racial relations.

Continuing, the aboriginal boy shows them the more lighthearted aspects of life. They chase one another, climb trees, go swimming, and play games. There is no drab work to do in the desert. No thought of social class and reputation. They simply are living each day, in the moment. All one must do is provide for oneself and not take life too seriously. It is a film about nature versus civilization. And which is the better way to live? Should we live in this highly structured (overcomplicated) culture that is concerned with money and things, or be more in tune with our environment? The film exhibits the sad truth that once a man has become “civilized”, he can never come back. We see this by the end of the film once the girl has grown up to become a stay-at-home housewife. It should be noted that the director’s choice of experimental shots helps further this feeling of a once-in-a-lifetime experience for the two main characters. There are many cuts and layering of stills, as well as more unexplainable or even downright strange shots (like when the father tries to kill the kids, and then we hear the gunshot go off, and he falls back on the ground as the car is on fire). This forces the viewers to really pay attention to what narrative is being pushed forward.

Contractualism is both a moral and political theory that is closely related/connected to the social contract theory. The main premise is that there is no morality and no moral judgment before there is an agreement between individuals regarding what is the best way for them to behave and cooperate. When talking about contractualism, one may also bring up contractarianism, which is the idea that there is no morality if there is no social contract, and that naturally, people would be in a state of war, so in order to not be in this state of turmoil we have to give up certain freedoms. Within this ethical practice are different philosophers that have their own interpretations and values.

For instance, Hobbes believed in self-preservation and liberty, and that there needs to be a balance between the two principles. He also believed that the three courses of quarrel amongst men were competition, distrust, and glory. This is seen throughout history. For example, in war people start battles with one another to exercise their dominance over those they believe to be weaker, or those that they dislike. It is an ego-driven bloody game.

John Locke, on the other hand, believed that in a state of nature there would be enough - even plenty of resources to go around, and conflicts that would arise would be easily solved as there are no disparities. Locke emphasized man’s rights to life, liberty, and property. Problems would only come up or escalate once money was involved.

Rosseau, whose take on contractualism relates most to the characters of Walkabout includes the concept of the noble savage. He believed that primitive cultures were better adjusted than civilized cultures because there was more simplicity, and less inequality if any, as primitive cultures did not have complex political, racial, social, or economic systems. He also believed that self-preservation turns into self-interest. He fought to prove that there is a natural sense of empathy in man. That we inherently care for one another. Rosseau found that the most tension man has is between authority and freedom. That with authority we end up giving away some of our freedom. The natural and purest state of man is free - not caged by social and governmental forces.

One of the more recent philosophers within this theory is John Rawls. Rawls stated that a fair social contract is something that all could accept/be included in. He conducted the veil of ignorance study and found that a fair society would be one we would decide if we did not know what position we would end up having in that society. His two important principles were the freedom principle and the equality principle. Conclusively, when analyzing these different philosophers’ interpretations of contractualism, there are similarities as well as nuances.

Present in Walkabout is the idea of social contract theory. That there are individuals in our lives that have certain obligations to us because of their relationship with one another. At the beginning of the film, the geologist father takes his two children to the outback. There he tries to shoot his children and when he fails, he kills himself. As a father, you are supposed to protect your children from danger and cruelty, not cause it and put them in harm’s way. He broke that unspoken but understood contract.

As the film progresses and the children are alone in the Australian outback, they journey along, and the sister hounds the younger brother for dirtying his uniform. She is trying to uphold the contract she has made with civilized society. To look prim and proper. Soon after the siblings meet the aboriginal boy who was traveling alone because he is participating in a coming-of-age ritual. He helps them survive, by hunting and finding water for them. He wears nothing but a loin cloth and carries crude spears. However, he is free and happy. He wishes for nothing. He hunts the very “bloody meat” that the businessman eats. Yet when he does it is seen by civilized society as brutal and unevolved, when in actuality it is more wholesome. The boy hunts, eats, and uses parts of the animal. Nothing goes to waste. Ultimately the boy does not worry about social status or materialism. He is Rosseau’s noble savage. In juxtaposition to the girl at the end of the film, he is much better off than her.

By the end of the movie, the Girl is seen playing the same role as her stay at the home mother, preparing to cook and listening to her husband drone on about work. The girl, now a woman, daydreams and thinks back to her time in the desert. When she did not have to worry about living in the modern world and deal with the daily trivialities that so-called evolution had brought upon humanity. She remembers fondly swimming nude, and the games she would play with the Aborigine and her brother. No matter how much she wishes to, she cannot go back to this lifestyle. She was given that option when the boy performed his mating dance on her and she declined, resulting in his suicide. She should have taken her moment in the desert and turned it into her new way of life. She would be much happier. Now there is the fear that she will lead the depressing life that her father gave into. Ultimately the girl exchanged her freedom and man’s most natural state of life for bleak comfortability.

Hopefully, her brother leads a different life, unlike her, he was still young enough for this experience to have a profound impact on him. When she tried to keep him prim and proper, he got even closer to the Aborigine boy. The little boy started to not wear his uniform shirt and even learned to communicate with the Australian native. As a viewer, you hope that at least one out of the two characters was able to prove Rosseau wrong. That one could go back to “primitive” beginnings. Maybe more people would be happier if they decided to live in this rudimental way. This is the fault of modern man. He feels as though he is above those that live differently than he does. As troublesome as Rosseau may have been (known misogynist), he looked at tribal people through a lens of cultural relativism. He did not impose euro-centric values and practices on native people. Walkabout treats the Aboriginal boy with the same respect. For anything, the Aboriginal boy is revered, outside of his suicide. He lived an honest life. The same cannot be said of his love interest. All in all, through viewing Walkabout individuals can learn about and properly see the elements of contractualism take place.

Additional Resources

Online Reviews:

Roger Ebert, Walkabout

Videos