The Ending - Professione: reporter (1975) Discussion

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] The-Patient-Man 18 years ago

I gotta say that this thread is extremely good in terms of analysis. Great job, guys! I have read very good reviews, all nicely structered.

I saw this movie this afternoon and I still am blowed away. I admit it, I had a cinematographic orgasm on that 7 minute almost-final scene.

I believe that, after reading all these reviews, that these two theories are both plausible:
- Maria's character knows the thugs;
- Maria's character didn't know the thugs.

You have all showed strong arguments for both, and now I am confused and indecisive between them, even though I am inclined to acept the theory that she knows them, because it fits well with the theory that Robertson seeks freedom of soul, and he only gets it by allowing to be killed. After all.. that's what he got from not following his compromises, and the girl kinda arranjed that. But it is really hard to disagree with the other theories though...

One thing I know for sure: this is a strong movie, and its ending is not only psychological, but also very ambiguos. I believe that was Antonioni's idea when he made this one.

reply

[–] Byzantine15 17 years ago

Haven't read all the posts on this thread, so someone may have beaten me to this observation. Rachel didn't exactly say that she didn't recognize the man on the bed as her husband. She was asked "is it Robertson?" and she replied "I never knew him." (or words close to that). If taken literally, it's a different statement from denying that it's Locke. Still, a strange reaction if it was her husband ,who she thought was dead, lying there freshly killed. Then again there was the scene where she ran out of the hotel after him, so perhaps she didn't think he was already dead. No conclusion so far but the speculations are very interesting.

reply

[–] sureynot13 17 years ago

In response to the post directly above mine, and to a few others who have commented on the same thing;
the very last lines of dialogue in the film are this.

Cop (to Rachel Locke): Do you recognize him?

Rachel Locke: I never knew him.

Cop (to Maria Schneider): Do you recognize him?

Maria Schneider: Yes.

And those are the last lines of the entire movie. I found these lines very moving the second time I watched it. I didn't even notice them the first time around, I was so busy trying to figure out what the hell was going on. But on second viewing, I noticed the reflection of the African assassin, heard the ambiguous gunshot, and finally paid attention to these final lines, which are less a wife identifying her husbands body, and more of a commentary on the two different relationships these women had with this man they both loved.

reply

[–] isabellaO 11 years ago

In response to several of the posts in this thread:

---"The girl" is clearly (unambiguously as one poster here says) Mrs Robertson. The scene concerning the passport when Nicholson checks into the hotel is the key. It also explains her presence in London and Barcelona - she was there expecting to meet her husband; when Nicholson showed up in London she looked up briefly but immediately went back to her book. Unlike others, she was not fooled in the least into thinking Locke was Robertson. She then went on to Barcelona where another meeting had been arranged. Once she had Locke/Robertson's passport to pick up his belongings she wanted to know what was going on.

---Byzantine15: Rachel Locke did not think her husband was dead, she was trying to catch up with him in Spain because she realized that he was in danger - she had discovered the switched passport photos and knew that "Robertson" was being hunted.

---The assassin's accomplice doesn't necessarily know Mrs Robertson - he sees her headed for the hotel and wants to steer her away. As soon as he hears the shot, he leaves her and goes back to the car to drive around and pick up the assassin.

---At the end, Rachel was asked if the dead man was Robertson and if she recognized him. Her response "I never knew him" could be taken two ways - she never knew Robertson, which was true, or she is thinking now that she never really knew her husband.

---Lastly, that Citroen rocks!

reply

[–] tchristian68 17 years ago

I like your thoughts about Maria being Mrs. Robinson. Mainly because I don't believe it was a coincidence that she was seen by Locke in both London AND Barcelona. She was following him.
My thoughts about the ending and Locke's death are this. I believe a gun was shot. But I believe Locke was not shot but at the least strangled. To me, the sign that gives this away is 1. No blood at the scene at all. 2. The women aren't horrified by the site of him. and 3. Look at Locke's hand. It's tense and claw-like. To me that signifies a painful struggle. Which ends in his death.

Keep'em coming guys, these are great responses.

reply

[–] scharnbergmax-se 17 years ago

What I don't understand and I'd appreciate any answers, is why Jack Nicholson did not board the bus with the girl, that could take them to a boat for Algiers.

At that time too many policemen had seen the couple, so they would not have a chance unless they split up.

reply

[–] ishtar-8 17 years ago

Just in general about the ambiguities of the ending: isn't the point exactly that you can never be quite sure who are the thugs and who are the so-called "good" guys - they all of them kill and get killed and "one man's death is another man's bread"?
and not getting on the bus - doesn't David give up on it all, thinking that mere survival is pointless?

reply

[–] alexeroberts 17 years ago

Haven't read all the posts - so sorry if i repeat anything.
Can't remember where but I read in an Antonioni book that David Locke is killed at the end by the government agents. The wife says she never really knew him, relating to his changing identity.
Hope this is helpful to someone.

Alex

reply

[–] www.wedd 17 years ago

I enjoy a metaphysical interpretation, which is valid, in light of the ambiguous circumstances of Jack's death: what if, as well as taking on the man's identity, he also inherits physical aspects of him? Namely, his heart condition, which kills him at the end.
(I know there is plenty of evidence to contradict this, but I like the theory.)

reply

[–] shane-spr8 17 years ago

The main clue, as one person mentioned on page 5, is that when Locked checked into the final hotel, the clerk said that Mrs. Robertson had alread checked in, and that one passport was enough. Maria Schneider has the passport of Mrs. Robertson, and is therefore Robertson's wife. To me, this much is unambiguous. There can be no justification for the theory that she somehow obtained a false Mrs. Robertson passport.

Now, as to the question of whether she betrayed him, or wanted him killed, the issue is muddier. She convinces him to go on to the Hotel Gloria in the previous town after he suggests simply taking the bus and then a ferry to Tangiers. Whether she wants him to go on to meet his death, or, as someone else suggested, to continue her husband's work, is up for debate.

However, when we see her through the window, the Karate man (government agent, white) who approaches her, does so as though he knows her. She twists away from his arm, as though she is upset, which seems to hint at her knowledge that they would kill Locke. Also, she breaks down crying in her room beforehand when Locke tells her to leave, also hinting at the betrayal theory.

However, the large question raised here is, how did she make contact with the government agents? If she betrayed Locke, she would had to have been in touch with these men, something that her husband, as far as we know, never was. And there are several indications throughout the film that Robertson "believed" in the cause of the rebels. It is said by the rebel leader who meets Locke in the church, and again by Maria Schneider when she convinces Locke to continue the journey. If he believed in his cause, his wife probably did as well, and it's not likely they'd have contact with agents of the government.

Taking this into account, it's my belief that Maria wanted Locke to continue Robertson's work, and also truly loved Locke. I believe that she thought the government agents were actually rebel gunrunners, and only realized later that they intended to kill Locke.

Again, this is opinion and not extremely defensible. The weakest aspect is the seemingly familiar relationship between Maria and the white government agent, suggesting previous contact.

The final aspect that interests me is the involvement of Locke's wife, Rachel. Here, the question is whether she led the agents to him on purpose, or inadvertently in her search for the man. One early poster in this thread asserted that she maintained that Robertson was still alive in order to trick the government into killing Locke, her husband. However, it is important to remember that she only learned of Locke's identity theft AFTER she visited the embassy, when going through his passport.

Also, after she spotted him in the hotel when she was on the pay phone, she ran out to try to catch up with him. If her intentions were devious, wouldn't she want to avoid this contact in order that her purported partners could murder Locke?

In the end, I don't think Rachel had a sinister motive. To me, this theory, while intriguing, is assuredly false. Aside form what I've mentioned, she also seems to harbor some resurgent affection for him after his death, as in when she tells her new lover that despite all, she is still looking for him. I think Rachel is a woman who loves her husband and has the best intentions in her search.

I'm interested, of course, in all replies to this theory.

reply

[–] bcheigh 17 years ago

There are so many wonderful posts...

I will simply state how I would like to remember the movie, and how it made sense to me.

1) Coincidence seems to be a mentioned theme - coincidence that Locke and The Girl met before, and find each other again. I forgot what Locke said to The Girl, that he doesn't believe it or he does? But it is mentioned by him that he saw her in London, and she says it was probably true. I don't believe she was an agent or Robertson's wife. Robertson mentions he doesn't have a wife.

2) The Girl is pursuing something as well. She mentions to Locke that she is looking to be with someone who pursues a path, or something like that. Two kindred spirits who find each other amongst Gaudi's architecture

3) Rachel, Locke's wife, probably thinks Locke is in danger impersonating Robertson, and makes her more obsessed about finding him

4) Locke dies at the end. One woman tried to stop it because she wanted to rescue the old Locke from the Robertson situation (gunrunner identity is not a safe one to have). The other tried to stop it because she wanted to rescue the new, fluid identity of post-Locke, which was following Robertson's path. No matter what, Locke dies.

I can't tell you how tense I felt when I thought a 'real' Mrs. Robertson would show up. But I realize now that The Girl had now gotten an identity as well - she was dependent on being Mrs. Robertson as much as Locke.

What a great movie, and what great posts.

reply

[–] meneldil 9 years ago

I agree with this interpretation.

reply

[–] Ralyyy 13 years ago

I can't believe no-one's mentioned that the clothes Locke wears are different. Just before the long shot starts, we see him lying in bed, with red t-shirt and brown shoes. After the 5 minites in the same scene, the dead man is wearing black shirt and black shoes.

Of course, Locke could have changed in the 3 minutes between the moment we see him lying in bed and the shot, but why would he change his shoes...?

reply

[–] risotto 13 years ago

The reason the shirt and shoes appear to change color is the long tracking scene is filmed as the sun sets and darkness sets in, (another great detail). I played the very last scene with the brightness and gamma turned up, and his shirt is still red in the very last scene where he is found dead. (it was pretty dark maroon red to begin with). Same goes for the shoes.

reply

[–] ozan1982 13 years ago

Guys, I watched the ending a few times carefully. Now, I think I can clarify some mysterious points. The rest contains hard spoilers of course:

At the end, while the camera keeps approaching the window, we see a white car parking. A black guy comes out and starts walking to the hotel. After a short while, sounds of the opening and locking door reveal us that he enters robinson/locke's room. (at 1:58:55 in the dvix version I've seen) Right at this point, the camera pans to the right side!!! It's a shame I missed this move of the camera at the first watching. Because this is a deliberate move in order to show us the reflection of the black guy. If you keep watching the right side (where the wooden cover of the window is) carefully after this moment, you'll see the right guy standing near the bed. At the same time, his white associate approaches to the window, and walks back after seeing the black guy preparing for the murder. While he takes the girl and walks to the white wall with her, the black guy in the reflection takes the gun out of his jacket's pocket. Just after that, his reflection goes out of our sight, because camera pans to the left and keep approaching the window. Right at this point, a motorbike's engine starts working. At the peak of its noise, if you give your ear carefully, the black guy shots his gun. Exactly at the same time the gun shots, the white guy outside, who has been walking with the girl, turns back suddenly. Coz hi hears the noise. He leaves the girl and walks to the car immediately.

After Locke's wife comes and sees him, the police asks him 2 question in a row: 'is this David Robertson?' and 'did you recognise him' . after the second question, she looks half back to the man and says 'I never knew him.' But this answer is given to the first question, rather than the second. So, it's not a wrong answer since her never knew David Robinson. But it has a double meaning. She also never knew her husband, his charachter.

The biggest mysterious point of mine is the change of the Locke's t-shirt in the end. This has driven me crazy. Before he gets killed, he sleeps with a red shirt whereas he wears a black one when we see him that. I watched 3-4 times but couldnt get an answer. The only possible explanation that I could make of is rather a methaphorical one. He wore a red one coz he was 'red', on the side of the communist, or leftis guerillas; he died with a black one, coz black symbolises the dead whereas the black shirt was the unofficial uniform of the fascist paramilitary forces of Mussolini. This black killer and the black shirt at the end also corresponds to the story of the blind man that he told the girl in their last conversation. The blind guy starts a new and bright life which he didn't like afterwards. He returns to the black darkness and commits suicide there. Locke starts a new life as Robinson, but it doesnt go as bright as he expects. So he locks himself to a room and expects for his killer. He gets killed in a half-dark room with a black shirt by a black assasin.

That's all I could make of. It's definetely worth seeing again for many times. After seeing the Blow-up, Zabrieski Point and L'avventure; I said to myself and to my friends that Antonioni was the most overrated directors of all times. This movie is a big reason to rethink about this and to feel ashamed.

reply

[–] DominicJones 13 years ago

Fascinating stuff! Anything less than a great film couldn't cause so many articulate posts.

One thing that has me intrigued that only one poster has commented on is the final shot; the driving school car leaving. When a director like Antonioni puts a shot like that in, you can bet it's not just for atmosphere. Not only does it suggest Learning to Drive and new beginnings for Locke (remember, Locke was meant to not know how to drive and was meant to be The Passenger with The Girl driving originally, only Schneider's inability to drive caused an unintended reversal of the title's definition), but combine this with the change in shirt colours and the ambiguous closing comments makes me think there is a definite possibility Locke escaped and switched identities with Stephen. It's also plausible that The Girl betrayed him only to find that he outsmarted her and she spontaneously played along. It also provides another reading of the 'breaking through the bars'/circular camera shot.

With the shots of graveyards, the conversation about the blind man regaining his sight only to kill himself, plus the gunshot/reflection features, and the fact that in the original novel Locke is killed, it's not an exclusive reading, but it is one I think is supported. That closing shot with the car leaving in the late dusk is just too pointed.

reply

[–] mjb442olds 12 years ago

Well, upon watching this film on DVD for the first time tonight, initially I was not impressed with it. But I came to IMDB as usual, and after reading this particular thread, I gained some insight to the film. I'm not familiar with Antonioni's work which led me to being slightly bored with it in some spots.
Regarding the final scene and reading this thread I plugged the DVD back in and re-watched it. I saw the reflection in the glass, and indeed heard the shot. It was a shot for sure because the white agent heard it and immediately turned after leading The Girl away from the window and went to pick up his partner. Was Maria Shneider an accomplice? Hard to say, and as others said it's up to interpretation. I also noticed the color change of Robertson's/Locke's shirt, and the fact that they didn't show his face. Was it an goof in editing? Initially I believed Nicholson's character was shot, but the romantic in me wants to believe there was a character switch and that The Girl and 'Robertson' would go on to Tangiers together.

I want to thank all who posted for giving me some insight and clarity to this film.

Only at the point of dyin'
Once Upon a Time in the West

reply

[–] voided-1 12 years ago

The car leaving is very suggestive, but to me it doesn't mean new beginnings for David. His situation seems so final. He seems resigned to escape life's cage in the only way possible....through death. As someone already pointed out, the car's headlights are reflected in the sky and are suspended there for the duration of the end credits. This is a very deliberate effect and does seem to suggest some sort of transcendence of spirit.

"Just forget you ever saw it. It's better that way."

reply

[–] dread-knight 11 years ago

Damn, seems people here are super confused. Here's what actually really happened:

Main character had a gun. He waits in his room. Two guys come in, he shoots the white one and makes the black one go away. He leaves the body in his own bed.

When the police arrives, main character is near the window wearing sun glasses, you can see him for a second or two, very briefly. A police man scatters him away.

Basically character of Jack Nicholson ends his journey, no longer being "The Passenger", getting out the gun business thing and impersonating the arms dealer.

reply

[–] isabellaO 11 years ago

except the 'white one' never went inside the hotel - he was outside the entire time...

reply

[–] mjb442olds 11 years ago

Exactly! And how did he actually make the black guy go away?

"Give it a name"
Things to Do in Denver (When You're Dead)

reply

[–] isabellaO 11 years ago

...and that's not Nicholson in that shot outside the window - go to YouTube and freeze it - it's definitely not him.

reply

[–] isabellaO 11 years ago

as much as I love this movie - I have to admit how preposterous much of it is: what are the chances of the passport pictures being stamped in such an identical way? And didn't Locke give any thought to the inevitable eventuality of not only 'his' passport, but 'his' body going back to the uk, for a funeral?

reply

[–] kenny-164 11 years ago

Ftr The Passenger is one of those films I should have seen long ago, but for reasons that are both inexplicable and insufficient, I did not see it for the first time until this week. Making it even more so is that I love Blow-up and the four Vitti films, in fact consider L'Eclisse both Antonioni's best film and one of the greatest films ever.

But now I have seen The Passenger, and see this thread. Very interesting theories about the ending, but as I have read them, I am reminded of controversies about the endings of other Antonioni films. In fact one could argue they are all controversial in the sense that they are ambiguous in one way or another. I can add The Passenger to that list.

While I think ambiguity is common to his films' endings, that does not mean of course that they are without meaning. To be precise I think they sometimes are literally clear but thematically complex, as in La Notte, or somewhat open ended, as in L'Avventura, or seeming to be divorced from the narrative that preceded, as in L'Eclisse. But putting aside the specific way in which each ends, what is common to them I think is that Antonioni is telling us the specifics, especially in terms of the narrative, are relatively unimportant. What is important is the way the film ends the examination of the themes covered in the film.

Thematically I think The Passenger proceeds as a film that looks at identity from an Existentialist perspective, with an anomic relation to life leading the protagonist to consider and then attempt to address that anomie in a rather particular way. Here that of course is by adopting a different identity as a means of escape, but also proceeding in a way that retains much of his "former" persona (I would say for obvious reasons). The result he finds is unattractive, to say the least.

In The Passenger I think the narrative is not all that complex, until we get to the end. Why did Antonioni make this film like that?

I don't go so far as to say that the particulars of the ending are irrelevant, and the various theories expounded here aer of value in addressing what the film might mean. But I do think Antonioni did not intend there to be a single, simple understanding of the ending. Instead we should look to its thematic purpose.

Our protagonist signaled in his story about his blind friend who got back the power of sight that his change of identity did not resolve his search for greater meaning, and to address and resolve his anomic existence. It instead brought not only literal physical dangers but also a "lesson" that he could not and would not be able to resolve his anxiety by such a change. The experience has left him unable to see a way forward, and only "ugliness" (here a short hand way of identifying an inauthentic existence) in his life.

Whether he somehow escaped the physical danger present is in effect beside the point. We can conclude he may have, but that such escape would not in itself have resolved his existential anxiety, and would not have suddenly by itself given his life meaning. He already attempted such a resolution and escape, and found it no solution at all.

This of course is not the only theme. THere are also the social and political, which in varying degrees also are universally present in Antonioni's films. Those forces are in fact part of what makes up the ending, and are also part of the overall theme of identity and its relation to existential anxiety. But the central point remains one of acknowledging the failure to have used identity to resolve the challenge.

Interesting that Antonioni in effect anticipated the growing trend to focus on identity and how one "performs" that identity as increasingly the primary way of understanding being with others, rather than say self examination or even some religious path or approach. The protagonist in effect focused on the veneer of appearance, and failed to achieve his goal. A lesson for all of us. It is in fact like his other films not really nihilistic, since only the specific means chosen by the characters has been addressed. For example the failed lovers in L'Eclisse, or the failure to find essence in inadequate means of perception in Blow-up, that are found wanting. Of course neither does Antonioni specifically show us the way as it were to the "right" approach to life. But I do think there is an implication left open.

reply

[–] meneldil 9 years ago

Yes, he was killed by a government agent. The black agent entered Locke's room. The white agent then approached the window of Locke's room and gave the go-ahead to the black agent (you can see the reflection of the black agent on the right side of the frame). The white agent then walked over to Locke's girlfriend, turned her away from Locke's room and distracted her during the actual assassination of Locke. The black agent killed Locke. Locke's wife told the police that she didn't know the dead man in Locke's room. This could be interpreted in several ways:

1) She meant that she didn't really know her husband, because she couldn't understand what he had become.

2) She didn't want to be associated with the crimes Robertson/Locke had committed.

3) She didn't want her husband to be remembered as a criminal.

My interpretation is that the film is called "The Passenger" because Locke became a passenger in Robertson's life. He followed the trajectory that Robertson was supposed to follow. But in the end, the result of that trajectory was the same for Robertson and Locke. He/they ended up dead in the bed of a hotel room.

reply

[–] ttetpos 8 years ago

I've studied carefully all of the very intelligent comments and suggestions in this thread. I want to thank all of you for providing very stimulating material!

I feel that most mysteries surrounding the movie's ending have been cleared up by the material presented here. Also, a few questions remain hanging, and it's that they can not be cleared up, their lingering mysterious quality will continue adding to the movie's value.

One issue that came up and went unaddressed, is the face of a stranger which appears at the window just close to the very end.

If you count up and observe carefully all the police members and civilians who are present or rush to the scene and account for their locations, speed and movements, everyone can be accounted for except ONE face which appears out of nowhere. It's the man with the sunglasses who appears outside the barred window just before the camera stands still at the bars to show us the final scene inside the room.

Who is that man? How did he get there?

One commentator here posted the idea that HE is the protagonist in a new identity. Is that possible?

Some may say "well, he's unshaven", but we saw earlier that our hero (or anti-hero) was very good with disguises; previously he wore a fake moustache that he took off while he was on the phone with Avis (minute 53). Also it was obvious he knew how to choose clothes that cast a different "air" or style according to the persona he projected.

The unknown face has somewhat different lips than Jack Nicholson, and also a different "snout" (naso-labial sulcus) but it's easy for an impersonator to fake both of them. The unknown face has a beginning pattern of baldness that fits that of the protagonist.

Please have a look at his photo here:
http://cyprus-org.net/uknown.face.end.of.The.Passenger.1975.jpg

If you have more thoughts on this I'd really appreciate them!

And a second question.

A few people here have suggested that Stephen's body was substituted in place of the protagonist's. But I didn't notice him anywhere else in the story except during the tense moments of intimacy in London with Rachel. Did anyone else notice him appearing anywhere else in the movie?

Thanks!
Petros
___________

reply