The Ending

It's worth mentioning - since so many don't seem to get it - that the purpose of the learner driving around is intended to make the gunshot ambiguous. The audience and the people in the courtyard might be inclined to think that the gunshot was actually the car backfiring. It's only later that it is confirmed that the noise was actually a fatal gunshot.

Sorry, I am too lazy to read all comments, but many users have really misunderstood important things.

To clarify things we must have terms we all understand. There are two teams, and both of them consist of one black and one white man. There is the church-team, so called by me because the meet David in the church, and pay him money. They belong to the guerrillas.

Then there is the citroën-team, so called because they drive a citroën car. The belong to the dictatorial government.

The first time we see the citroën-couple is an a restaurant yard in München. The church-couple is sitting together at a table and it evidently doing some work involving papers. The citroen-couple does not sit together, but they have eye contact. They send for the four gangsters who kidnap the black man of the church-couple. As far as I could see they did not kidnap the white man of the church-couple. (The reason might be that kidnapping a German citizen could mean much trouble for the African state.)

The white man of the citroen-couple tortures the kidnapped black man of the church-couple. We can take for granted that they murder him.

The citroen-couple are the ones who murders the real David Locke. And they do so because Rachel Locke went to the embassy of the dictator state and told them this following thing (of course phrased in quite different words):

"You murdered the wrong man. You intended to murder David Robertson, but you really murdered David Locke. You have lost every trace of David Robertson, but I can tell you that David Robertson was living at Hotel Oriente in Barcelona three days ago. I am searching for David Robertson, and I have a lot of information that could lead to him. So you need just catch hold of my tail, then I shall lead you to him, so that you can murder him."

And this is exactly what they do.

But Rachel Locke is not just a naive person. She is disgusting. Note, in another scene when David Locke in her presence interviewed the president of the dictatorship state, RACHEL was the one who reproached David for not having told the president that he was a liar. There is a photo of this president on the wall of the embassy when Rachel is telling the embassador how he must proceed to murder David Robertson.

It is by no means true that the guerrillas murders the real David Locke. We are told nothing about WHERE the weapons are to be delivered, so WE/THE SPECTATORS cannot know whether the weapons did not arrive. We cannot know if the guerrillas had enough resources to revenge a swindle. And the black man of the church-couple was murdered. How much did the white man know?

Anyway, the time interval of the movie from David Robertson's death to David Locke's death is so short, that the guerrillas can hardly have learned that they paid the money to the wrong man.

But the goverment had completely lost every trace of Robertson, and could only by a miraculous coincidence have found him without Rachel's help.

Note that a minute after Rachel's visit to the police station, the citroen-couple arrives and waits.

We could speculate why the Spanish police so completely submit to Rachel's ideas. One sufficient explanation would be that it could be very unpleasant to have a conflict with a large British TV enterprise.

This is incorrect. You're right about the movie being brilliant and so on, I think it's one of the best films of all time, but the guys he's selling guns to don't kill him. Rather, the agents we see kidnap and assault one of his contacts (one of the ones he meets in the church in Munich) kill him. The black assassin can be seen at various points throughout the film.

Well, just to add my 2000 Lire to the thread. I saw this film yesterday, Easter Sunday. Clearly his personal journey is an allegory for spritual transcendance. It was ripe with Christian metaphors: Rue de la Inglesia, Hotel de la Gloria to name a few not to mention Cathedrals and cathredral-like architecture. It is true someone was killed by a gunshot in that room (I heard the shot not a backfire) but who it is clearly not defined. During that final breath-taking scene you can feel his spirit leave his body (caged window) float around and return again. When Rachel saw the body you'd think she would have said "This is my husband I've been looking for" if it was him. I think it was someone else altogether who as noted earlier in the thread, Locke switched with. Maria's ID just closes the case. Maybe she set him up or maybe the two of them eloped. Another thing is as the car pulls away, the two headlights are reflected in the sky and then remain there as spirits hovering. I doubt that was just a lens glare. Nice point about the editing and the fact that Jack was always driving since we assume he is The Passenger. Thanks for listening.

This is an interesting thread. I first saw The Passenger at its premiere at the Cannes Film Festival in 1975; then I watched it again last evening (April 21), just shy of exactly 31 years from my initial viewing. It's uncanny how much of the film -- images, scenes and beats -- remained as crystal clear as Antonioni's blue skies.

Many of the questions and insights here are amazingly similar to the discussions I had with fellow critics way back in 1975. Just for the hell of it, here are some of my notes from the original screening. As they are notes, they do not flow as a polished review would do -- but they are revealing none the less.

****SPOILER WARNING****

Nicholson/Locke is a passenger in his own life; an observer, not a driving force. As a reporter, he is the quintessential observer. Beyond the frustration he elicts when his jeep is mired in the desert in the opening reels, the one time he seems the most truly startled/emotionally distressed is when the rebel leader he is interviewing turns the camera on him, saying "now you can ask me all the same questions again." Locke is incapable of telling the truth; of showing the world (or the mirror) who he is.

Locke's journey is one toward assisted suicide -- assisted, because as a "passenger" -- he is incapable of pulling the trigger himself. A spiritually dead man takes the identity of a physically dead man (Robertson) in an effort to start the machinery of his own death. Albee's Zoo Story.

In the final reel, as a cue for the story about the blind man who killed himself after regaining his sight, Maria S. runs her fingers over Locke's eyelids exactly the way someone would shut the eyes of dead man. Unlike the blind man of the story, Locke (as noted) is incapable of such an act; he is only capable of helping to set the machinery in motion (which he has done by assuming Robertson's identity.)

The Girl: Maria S. does not have a name in the film. She is credited as The Girl. Although she may be Daisy and although she is definitely involved in Locke's death (see below), in a mythological sense she functions more like Charon -- the boatman who steers the dead across the River of Styx. She is Locke's guide toward the underworld: Hence, Locke's repeated question: "what the *beep* are you doing with me?" -- a question that is by turns both self-pitying and accusatory (ie. 'what do you really want with me?')

The Girl appears in London (sitting and reading on screen left) when Locke re-emerges in London as the dead man Robertson; she appears a reel later (sitting and reading) in exactly the same position when Locke arrives in Barcelona. Is she working with the white and black agents. Evidently. What ultimately matters though is that she remains nameless and -- in filmic terms -- linked to Locke. She is an avatar. She is his death wish.

PRELUDE TO THE LONG TRACKING SHOT: After the story of the blind man, Locke says to Maria S. "You'd better go." She agrees; we see her toss some clothing into a case in the bathroom, but the point of the shot is to show her sit down, ball her fists and hang her head in dispair over her iminent betrayal. In a film drenched in Christian imagery, she is Locke's Judas.

And although she says she'll "go", she does no such thing. Instead, she wanders outside to wait in Antonioni's 'corrida' (we hear the bull fight trumpet)to rendezvous with the agents.

LONG TRACKING SHOT: Just before the shot begins, we see Locke via an overhead angle lying in bed. His sunglasses are beside him. (The blind man has shed his protection; exposed his wounded eyes and soul to the world.)

As the camera begins its move toward the caged window, we see Locke's feet pointing upright as he is lying on his back. As the shot progresses, we see Locke's feet flip as he rolls over on to his stomach -- literally assuming the face down position of Robertson's body on the bed. Point: from this moment on, Locke is dead. The film's tentative plotline has come full circle (much like Antonioni's camera will do over the next seven or so minutes.)

As the camera proceeds toward the window, Maria S.(outside in the corrida)reenters the frame from screen right to interact with the white agent -- and as she does, the camera makes a slight revelatory pan to the right to show the reflection of the black agent in the glass. My sense is that many viewers will miss this as they will watch the Girl and the agent instead. The deliberateness of Antonioni's camera move, however, indicates that we should watch the agent... or at least attempt to watch the split scene as one action as the simultaneity proves Maria's involvement in Locke's death.

Whether or not the agent shoots Locke is ultimately up in the air. Yes, it sounds like a gunshot... but when Locke is discovered he is once again on his back. My sense is that rather than shooting him, the agent rolled him over, saw that he was already dead (like Robertson)and simply left the room.

Wife's Remarks: the police inspector asks Jenny Runacre: "Do you recognize him?" She replies: "I never knew him." The inspector asks her again: "Do you recognize him?" Now she replies: "Yes." This is Blow-up all over again... the first answer is metaphysical/spiritual -- she married him, lived with him, but "never knew him" -- the story of many marriages. The second answer is literal: "Yes" I recognize him; he's my husband (for what it's worth.)

One thing that entered our discussion back in 1975 was the final shot of the Nick Roeg-Donald Cammel film Performance -- a Borges inspired film about identity that is still today ahead of its time (and a film that strongly suggests that Nic Roeg was the real force behind Petulia -- not Richard Lester.) Although the subject matter couldn't be more different, Performance and Blow-Up have a lot in common.

Another good reference point for The Passenger is Mark Peploe's (the screenwriter)film Afraid of the Dark. It's a terrific film about cinema as voyeurism and the art of seeing. It's 20 years or so after Passenger, but relevant

So -- for the most part -- minus a few present day insights and an attempt to structure the notes to address a number of the questions evoked on this thread -- the above is straight from 1975. Hope some of this will help fuel the discussion.

The caucasian assassin engaged Schnieder's character in conversation and led her to the left of the screen so she would be distracted and not hear or see the assassination of Locke/Robertson. Immediately after the shot, he stops talking to Schnieder and walks away.