The girl was in London (but they don't meet) then she's in Barcelona when they DO meet. Is she tailing him?
Does she lead the assassins to him in the hotel, rather than take the ferry to Africa like he told her to?
In my opinion she doesn't set him up. Although I would think Antonioni would like the audience to find its own conclusion. He doesn't strike me as a filmmaker who is interested in cut and dried answers to what he presents.
On a more pragmatic and conventional level, the point you bring up about him seeing her first in London and then meeting her in Barcelona is intriguing. To me, however, I think it's fairly obvious that her character wouldn't betray him. But, your question is valid and I'm sure everyone who sees the film asks similar questions. It's a pretty dense and obtuse flick, ripe with all kinds of questions for the viewer.
There's alot of speculation into 'Who' the girl is and 'How' she came to be in the same cities as Locke. The interpretation I am most inclined to agree with is that she is the wife of Robertson (the dead arms dealer), and like Locke, kept to Robertson's diary / schedule of meetings with the thugs / arms dealers.
For a good analysis of this as an interpretation, a nice evaluation has been written on wikipedia.com. The link is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Passenger_%28film%29
The interpretation of the girl is under the title 'Analysis'
Hope this helps.
I am going to begin today with a headstand...Diane, I am now upside-down
SPOILERS THROUGHOUT
Through there are good insights in the Wikipedia article carddealt mentioned above, I tend to disagree with the Girl being Robertson's wife. I watched the film when it came out in Brazil in 1976, and have seen it over 10 times since, in the two slightly different versions (without the 7 or 8 minutes that have been added in the recent re-release, which fundamentally do not alter, for better or worse, the greatness of it). I was immediately awe-struck by the film (I saw it 3 times in its initial release alone) -- so much so that when I rode in the Barcelona funicular, I tried to perform the "flying bird" routine -- only to be reprimanded in crisp Spanish.
I have a copy of the original script, published in 1975 by Grove Press (a collector's item now, I suppose), which is longer, more didactic, certainly less mysterious and fascinating than the final film. Antonioni's cuts in the script's "explanations" and over-extended dialogs, allied to his unique, inimitable artistic vision have made the film rise from a slightly-above-average thriller (on paper) to an existential, metaphysical and political artistic masterpiece (on film).
In the script, the Girl is more overtly the possibility that "fate" offers Locke to find love and commitment. Antonioni cut quite a number of scenes that helped "identify" the Girl's background, including Locke's search through her traveling bag, and trifle dialogs that "revealed" her political and existential views. By doing that, he chose to make her the great interrogation mark in the film, which is really fine for my taste, of course hugely helped by the absolutely deadpan, non-challant performance of Maria Schneider, which fits her mysterious character to perfection.
As for her being Robertson's wife, please remember the dialog between Locke and Robertson in the flashback conversation at the African hotel:
LOCKE: "Any family?"
ROBERTSON: "No. No family. No friends. Just a few commitments, including a bad heart."
Throughout the film, Antonioni shows the Girl to possess a great instinct at pragmatic actions. It's her who repeatedly saves Locke to be caught (by his wife, by producer Knight, by the police). She's smart, quick-witted, practical: she travels across countries with a only handbag! It wouldn't be hard for her to either forge a passport or to talk the small Hotel de la Gloria's manager into thinking she's Robertson's wife.
The virtuoso 7-minute penultimate scene of the film is justly hailed as one of the greatest finales in movie history. Not only for its eye-popping technical excellence but especially for its wealth of possible interpretations of what we can and cannot see (just like in real life): a real *beep* It has inspired many filmmakers; I'm sure Michael Haneke thought about it a great deal when he made his last scene in "Caché" (equally evasive and controversial).
Even though I think we're not SUPPOSED to come up with ONE and only "truth" regarding the ending (each time I watch the film I seem to see a different film!), I think there's a great chance that the Girl might be a gun-trafficking contact of Robertson's. And yes, there's a possibility she set him up when she realizes Locke wouldn't stick to his appointments and if you consider Locke's final monologue as a suicide note (I think it is). Some critics have talked about her as a sort of Judas but that implies applying Christian mythology to a director whose religious beliefs are of little or no importance in his work (his metaphysical questioning, yes).
This interpretation makes some sense to me, though I think the finale's real beauty is in the impossibility of establishing one single all-encompassing unarguable "truth". Just like in real life.
Interesting theory, debb... I didn't enjoy the film as much as you did but I will try to rewatch it sometime. E eu sou brasileiro, tambem :)
FYC: The Voices Project Movie
We can see clearly from the movie that it was a pure accident that David Locke run into this Gaudi building. So the girl could not have arranged the meeting.
And how do you think she could have arranged that David Locke would go to the other Gaudi building? If Martin Knight had not left the written message, David Locke would never have searched for the girl.
But from the moment the Spanish police found the abandoned car, it would probably have been easy for reporters to figure out where the couple would go. Note, another TV team is present outside the hotel even before the murderers arrive.
LATER ADDITION:
Or am I wrong about the last thing? I have seen the movie several times in the theatre, but this is not recently. I do not have a large window in my computer. I cannot see clearly what the small car outside the hotel is. Some users say it is driving school car. - Well, I just warn you that I am not infallable.
Hey, ahole.Don't put spoilers in your post header next time.
There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.
It's not a spoiler, just a theory. There is no absolute proof that what he said in the title is true, and it does not spoil the ending. Don't let it stop you from seeing it.
Now Playing ... Undeclared #11 "Rush and Pledge"
Seen it numerous times.The title blatantly implies that something happens to "him" and you know it. How about not being a jerk and edit the title, something like: "A question about the girl, spoiler"
"The only bad "f-word" is FCC."
- Tom Morello
>>> Seen it numerous times.The title blatantly implies that something happens to "him" and you know it. How about not being a jerk and edit the title, something like: "A question about the girl, spoiler"
Agree.
Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!
I seldom watch a movie more than once, but this one demanded it. Most of my
questions were clarified on viewing a second time. Two (perhaps) minor mysteries were The Girl being placed in London, near Nicholson's home and, of course, the final scene where the dead body is wearing a blue shirt. When we last see Nicholson alive, he has on a red shirt.
I have to say that the Wikipedia review is way off mark on a lot of points. The notion of Schneider as Robinson's wife is completely wrong, and many of his other interpretations lack insight. I mean "drenched in Christian imagery" ...come on.
Antonioni is, obviously, a deep filmmaker, without the pretension of, say, French directors. Nicholson was at the top of his game at that time, a great realist actor.
Also, a word of praise for the stunning guitar music played over the closing credits.
If you're familiar with London geography, you'll know that the girl isn't near Nicholson's home, she's at the Brunswick Centre in Bloomsbury and his house is in Bayswater, about three miles away. I don't know if in the 'film world' they're supposed to be adjacent, but there's nothing to suggest so.
I just saw the film last night and didn't notice the shirt colour-change, which surprises me. Are you sure about that one?
I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity.
I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned. When Locke checks into the 'Hotel Gloria', the proprietor said "Mrs. Robertson has already arrived a few hours ago... I don't need to see your passport, one is enough." So, it's apparent that she showed a passport identifying her as Mrs. Robertson. Does this reveal her identity conclusively? Maybe not but it's strong evidence.
It's so lonesome in the saddle since my horse died.
how about The Girl was Deisy? there were many appointments with her, and she points her out and mentions her a few times when reading his book. just watched and read most comments here,and think she is a contact of Robertson's, so this is possible.
"Monsters are such interesting people, my stars, the places you must go, the people you must meet!"
[deleted]
"the final scene where the dead body is wearing a blue shirt. When we last see Nicholson alive, he has on a red shirt."
red shirt both times
I got caught out with the shirt on first viewing but it is just a lighting issue. If you look close enough you can see it is still a red shirt. It's a stand out, memorable thriller because it's intriguing like a thriller should be. I've watched the last few minutes a few times and it is excellent because it asks you to draw your own conclusion. Clearly, the black man who is seen initially outside the hotel enters Robertson's room as his reflection can be seen in glass as the camera tracks to outside. The man can also be seen reaching into his suit which would imply he was reaching for a gun. The reasonable assumption would be that Robertson was murdered. On the heading of the thread, was it the girl who set him up, I have no idea.
share[deleted]
The London scene is actually particularly strange because it is Locke who suddenly stops in his tracks coming down some stairs and just kind of stands there and stares at her sitting on that bench for a good few seconds. It's as if he knew her... although that clearly couldn't be the case - and then he sort of shrugs it off and leaves to check out his apartment. It's like some strange, impossible recognition there... which, I suppose, might work well for those who see Schneider as representative of Fate or some such.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan