MovieChat Forums > Professione: reporter (1975) Discussion > IMDb title should read: 'The Passenger'

IMDb title should read: 'The Passenger'

posted 18 years ago by anthonyr
12 replies | jump to latest

It's always been problematic for English speakers when referring to a foreign film, especially when that title has been mis-translated (À bout de souffle vs. Breathless, etc.) (Even with books: ie, Proust's novel does not translate to "Remembrance of Things Past").

I've always wondered about "The Passenger" vs. "Professione: reporter", but after listening to Mark Peploe's commentary track on the new DVD, it's clear that the title was *always* meant to be "The Passenger", and only in Europe was it forced to be titled something else because of a copyright issue with another film that wan't actually even called "THE Passenger". In other words, they would have called it "The Passenger" in Europe, if they could have.

Antonioni filmed it as "The Passenger", Peploe wrote it as "The Passenger". So, imo, IMDb should remove "Professione: reporter" as the name of this film at the top of every linked page, and call it by its *true*, actual title. For once, the English title actually is the correct one!

I know the "rule" is that IMDb refers to the film with its country-of-origin title. But all rules have exceptions. In this case, the Country of origin is listed as: Country: France / Italy / USA / Spain. The film is spoken in English and has English-speaking actors in it. "The Passenger" is the correct title of this film.

And more importantly, "Professione: reporter" is simply, a stupid, meaningless title! "The Passenger" is so much more apropos, with layers of meaning in it. (Maybe too many layers: Ebert is wrong to conclude Maria Schneider is the title character).

(I'd even settle for "Il passeggero" (Italian). On second thought, no. It was never titled that. "The Passenger" is the title.)

[–] kaream 18 years ago

Hear, Hear! You're absolutely correct about the title. (And no, the Girl is not the title character -- but she is, as Ebert suggested, in a sense a passenger in Locke's life.) As you say, this title has many layers of meaning that are entirely lost in 'Professione: reporter'.

[–] antonking-1 18 years ago

only those who speak only one language would advocate direct and literal translations and refer to other translations as a mistranslation.

How can you say Ebert is wrong when he says:
'Maybe it is simply about passengers who travel in someone else's life: Locke in Robertson's,the Girl in Locke's.' Clearly he did not make a conclusion as to who he considered the story to be about.

[–] anthonyr 18 years ago

> "only those who speak only one language would advocate direct and literal translations and refer to other translations as a mistranslation."

Well, imagine you write a tragedy and call it "Hamlet", but when it's translated into Italian, they call it "Ophelia's Floating Corpse". You should get a little miffed about that. I would. I'd want as direct and literal a translation as possible, if the foreign language allowed for it. In this case, the writer of the film and the director both called it "The Passenger", not "Professione: reporter".

> "How can you say Ebert is wrong when he says:
'Maybe it is simply about passengers who travel in someone else's life: Locke in Robertson's,the Girl in Locke's.' Clearly he did not make a conclusion as to who he considered the story to be about."

If the title were "Passengers" (plural), then Ebert might have a point, which he doesn't, since the title is singular, referring to only one person (Locke). And don't forget Ebert didn't even understand or appreciate the film, and gave it a negative review, when it first came out. So what does he know.

But more importantly, the actual writer of the story, Mark Peploe, the man who invented the tale, definitively states in his DVD commentary that Ebert is _wrong_ to imply that the title can refer to The Girl; it refers only to Nicholson's character. And if that's what the writer of the story says, that about wraps it up. Peploe trumps Ebert.

Anthony

[–] hike_on 17 years ago

Actually, I disagree. Once the work is complete, Peploe's interpretation is not necessarily more "correct" than anyone else's. More interesting, quite likely, but that's as far as I'll go.

Part of the beauty of this film is the layers and layers of interpretation possible. So what Peploe or Antonioni meant to say should not be a limit on what the film itself says.

[–] andy_n_johansen 17 years ago

I have asked people who worked in the italian film industry, and the original title is "The passenger". The italian title was made only for the italian cinema. There should be a distinction from what is the real title of the movie, and a used title for a certain country.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] robfwoods 17 years ago

Let it read what it will - but IMDB should show it as a 'result' for a search with 'Passenger' - and it does not.

I doubt if the naming of the film had anything to do with copyrights - as far as I know one cannot copyright a Title - there are myriads of books and films with the same Title.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] locke325 15 years ago

It does fit with his other films... The Girlfriends, The Cry, The Adventure, The Night, The Eclipse, The Passenger...
Makes sense to me why he wanted to call it The Passenger.

[–] trailinghome 15 years ago

You're correct, the opposing views...dead wrong.

The writer has spent months putting pen to paper, his thoughts. He's lived with the script and dailies etc. 24/7, not just for 126 minutes.

Someone watching any movie has their thoughts about it but the writer knows what he wanted to say and that's, that.
The writers interpretation is the correct interpretation.
No ones but his interpretation counts.

The End.

And Ebert is a pompous a$$. I take his reviews with a pinch of salt.

[–] thatsmydesire 15 years ago

Easy on the salt there. Can raise your blood pressure considering how many pinches you will have to take over time, reading Ebert's reviews.

Did you know that he now has no lower jaw, can't eat or speak?
Yet he is plugging away, surrounded by his books and loving wife.