Is Maria Schneider Daisy?

I agree with you, She is Mrs. Robertson, But the question remains is she Daisy as well?

First, thanks to those who suggested Maria Schneider was Mrs. Robertson (see Jack Turner's Other Voices article on the web for more), and also suggested that she is the woman walking down the street in Munich beside the wedding carriage. I found those helpful and true. And, particularly, the scene with the assassin reflected in the right hand panel of the window in the last shot. Good eye!

I would like to discuss a few other points about Mrs. Robertson. One, Maria Schneider knows that Locke is impersonating her husband right after the scene in Barcelona on the rooftop of the Gaudi building. Locke tells her to take the pesetas and passport, or words to that effect, in order for her to pick up his luggage at the Hotel Oriente. (By the way, curious that in Franco's Spain they'd allow a stranger to pick up a man's luggage, but for the fact that she is Mrs. Robertson!).

That is why Maria Schneider looks so haunted when Martin Knight, the producer, comes up to her on the street. She's found out about Locke as Robertson and is distraught and curious.(And we know that she knows because a) she's had to produce his passport to pick up the luggage (and it would have her (ex) husband's date stamps in it and b) she is shown later to be inquisitive (looking through Locke's luggage and asking him questions about the TV producer)).

Once she knows, Maria/the Girl decides to go on an adventure with him. But why? Because, according to everyone who has written on this, "she is adventurous." That is only part of the story. Much more so, to find out what Locke is doing impersonating her husband. After all, he is a gunrunner and she is a gunrunner's consort (ex-wife as the Turner article suggests?). In fact I would like to suggest that she is tied to her (ex) husband's activities. She is no innocent: she tricks Martin Knight when she tells him to follow her and she at the very least withholds from Locke by not letting on that she knows he is impersonating her husband. And she withholds from the Spanish police later by managing to come back from the station in the white car (what did she say to them to get them to not question Mr. Robertson?).

Two, as another person on this thread has hinted, Maria/the Girl/Mrs. Robertson may actually know the killers of Locke in the final scene. This is indeed disturbing. But look at how she acts. At first the Caucasian killer comes out of the Citroen and seems to be trying to talk to her/pick her up. At first, she shrugs him off. I feel she is distraught here a)perhaps because of conflicting loyalties (a potent Antonioni theme),after all, she has been Locke's lover, and/or
b) more likely, because she wants Locke killed and is negotiating. Later on, she goes back to the killer outside and seems to be saying something to him.

If this seems farfetched, let me first say that I have watched this film a half dozen times and have read most of the major English works on Antonioni. He is a very deliberate filmmaker and his screenplay was co-written by a very deliberate film scholar (Peter Wollen).

Three, Mrs. Robertson has told the killers to come here. How else would they know? They have seemingly been quite inept. (Knight finds out where "Robertson" or Locke is staying in Barcelona by simply phoning AVIS!) But the killers only find out after the Chadian Embassy official learns from Rachel Locke that she is going to Barcelona to find her husband. So the killers follow Rachel. To the police station and to the hotel where Locke almost bumps into Rachel. But they are not following her when she comes out of the police station (the second time with a police station is one of many examples of the remarkable doubling of this film). But, at the end, they arrive BEFORE Rachel and the police do (they can't have passed them to the Hotel de la Gloria because they wouldn't have known where Rachel/the police were going).

To the objection that Antonioni doesn't care about plot, I would suggest that one should consider the comments of his long-time screenplay writer, Tonino Guerra, to the effect that the writing isn't as important as the visual, but still important. To the objection that Antonioni disdains meaning, I would ask why is it so rigorously coherent with respect to certain allusions and devices (the Marais book shown 4 times, the Moravia twice, the echoes of Plato's Phaedrus and the life of Rimbaud?). If Antonioni hadn't wanted this reading, he would have taken it out. The inner coherence may also be attributable to Peploe/Wollen's contributions too. I wish that Mr. Wollen would write an essay on this as he would have many insights to share (for example, Peter Brunette quotes him as saying that Maria Schneider was supposed to be the driver, but(!) couldn't drive).

Four, if Mrs. Robertson told the killers to come and dispatch Locke, why? Earlier, we had seen her insist on at least 3 occasions that he make his appointments (important because Robertson would have made his). And she says she likes the fact that Locke is selling arms to the Chadian guerrillas. But is this because Mrs. Robertson supports the guerrillas or is she working both sides? I would suggest the latter and also suggest that she may be the one to tip off the Chadian government about Achebe when he is kidnapped at the Barcelona cafe (what is she doing on that street near the Munich church?). Indeed, her own activities may have a connection as to why Robertson himself had not been to London for 3 years ( as he says on the tape).

Or is he himself, the original David Robertson, a simple gunrunner for guerillas? He has a "bad heart" and he has already given Locke an explanation that he is a businessman, a partial answer at best. Don't gunrunners by their very nature usually work both sides of the fence? And where, in fact, do they get their guns?

I can't go in to all this till I see it on DVD again, but I suspect that when Achebe says the government is in power because of support from Europe, an insight about which Locke says "[it] isn't surprising," part of that support is from a European agent like Mrs. Robertson. She is, after all, on the road to the church in Munich, possibly working against Achebe.

The mystery of the politics obviously doesn't explain the movie entirely, of course. But it is an important component and sheds light on the political themes. Once one can stop the DVD to see the various appointment book dates, certain elements should become clearer.