MovieChat Forums > Walkabout (1971) Discussion > 'Gratuitous (i.e., $N@TCH)' nudity...

'Gratuitous (i.e., $N@TCH)' nudity...


The nudity called for in the script makes sense: if you're in the desert, you strip down for one reason or another.

Whatever.

If the actress in the story is hot like Jenny Agutter, then of course the audience enjoys seeing this part of the story realized.

But at least it all makes sense.

HOWEVER, in this movie, there is the one scene where Jenny Agutter puts on her presumably-washed panties. The scene starts with a closeup of her feet and the panties being stepped into. Then, Jenny hikes the panties up under her skirt. Well - at that point - she fluffs her skirt up ever so briefly and you can actually see her pubic hair!

It lasts only for about 1-3 frames - but it's there (I wonder if the film was edited to allow for that BRIEF glimpse of $N@TCH).

Interestingly, the shot exclusively shows the bottom half of a female, so there is the distinct possibility that the actress who did the scene was not, in fact, Jenny Agutter but a stand-in.

I'm convinced that scene was deliberately put in by Peter Weir to specifically expressly to show a closeup of $N@TCH.

"Don't call me 'honey', mac."
"Don't call me 'mac'... HONEY!"

reply

I protest the gratuitous clothedness going on in the rest of the movie. It`s not like the chick crawled out of his father`s butthole wearing a bloody uniform oh brothers.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

The problem here is that you can't even write pubic area or snatch or whatever else, you have to write it in that ridiculous way because a human beings body is dirty and sinful, a woman's body isn't anything but sexual - yeah, you don't even know the directors name and it's written on the page. I can't take you seriously.

reply

To be fair no one took him seriously, he clearly paused the film at an early briefest of brief glimpses of fanny fluff so he could come on here and troll before he had time to realise that Jenny Agutter's junk is given a proper unveiling a short while later while swimming.




Ya Kirk-loving Spocksucker!

reply

[deleted]

I know it'll upset some of the films fans, but the film does have quite a few gratuitous scenes in it - not necessarily featuring nudity, some of the camera work is sort of lingering. I don't think they'd make this film today with a 16 year old actress, and in the UK, they would not get a certificate if it was made this way today.

The film belongs to a different era, laws were different then. The age limit regarding indecent images was 16, but now it is 18 (since early 2000's I believe). It was debated whether or not a Bluwe Ray release would get a certificate, in the end it did of course, the film must surely stand as a significant work of art today.

reply

It's a film from a simpler and more naïve time, when people felt that naked bodies are beautiful and it's OK to appreciate them the same way you would appreciate art. It was long before everyone understood and accepted how common and prevalent sexual abuse and predation of the young is.

Of course, some people are going to jack off at the water hole scene. Some people jack off to Michelangelo's David. Not much you can do about it, except not allow anybody to look at it. Which would be wrong.

reply

Did you know an unlimited amount of porn is freely available on the internet? Dude.. What are you doing 'analysing' some grainy 50 year old movie for a 2 frame shot of some pubic hair?

reply

Most of the movie showed lots of obvious extra-long and low-angle shots of Agutter's legs.

I found her gorgeous and appreciated the director for doing so. Sensuality and sexuality are to be enjoyed.

This is one frame of mind we seemed to clearly have understood and accepted back in the early 70s and I wish we could again.

reply

Who cares why they included it? Just enjoy.

reply