Kelly WandThe Passenger
October 1st 2006 06:27
If Michelangelo Antonioni came out of a film school today, he would never make a film. No one would finance his work. His scripts would be dumped in the bin. If he arrived in Hollywood, he couldn’t catch a cold. This probably explains a lot of the reasons behind the lack lustre nature of the modern film industry.
Antonioni is not a director who takes an easy path. His films are about ideas which he feels little need to explain. The films have many layers and multiple meanings. I have watched his film “Blow Up” three times and I would have written a completely different review on each occasion.
Antonioni has a superb cinematic eye. He makes his films like an artist paints a picture. He captures the essence of the places he films in a way that seems to elude others. When he films London it is London as I remember it. When he films Barcelona it is the Barcelona I remember. I can’t describe how he achieves this but the effect is quite magical. It may be something as simple as choosing a lens that approximates the human eye or perhaps it is just because he approaches his locations as an outsider.
“The Passenger” isn’t a film about answers. It isn’t even a film about questions. You just sit down and take a ride. It is not a fast ride. It is not a ride you have any control over. Neither do the characters who live in the film. Calling Jack Nicholson’s character a protagonist gives him far more credit than he is due. He makes one decision in the entire movie and rides the consequences from there.
When Jack Nicholson acts, it is something that is always worth seeing. These days, unless directed by Sean Penn, he tends to fall back on slicing large chunks of ham in an attempt to steal the show. This is Nicholson in full actor mode. There is no mugging. No scene chomping. Nicholson plays a dull man with all the dullness that man deserves. His talent is making a dull man likeable. He allows us to identify with him.
David Locke is a reporter who goes out to the Sahara Desert to investigate a civil war. In the introduction sequence, he goes in search of guerilla leaders. He may as well be in a bubble. He has no way to communicate with the people around him. He is utterly disconnected. Whenever he thinks he understands the rules, the rules change. Finally, his jeep, like his life, becomes bogged in the sand.
Later, we will see his interview footage. For such an allegedly famous reporter, he is incapable of asking the hard questions. He lets his subjects control the show. He merely promotes their agenda. One subject even takes the camera off him and points it at him. Locke, exposed, cannot say a word.
When he finally gets back to his hotel room, he finds his neighbour – a man named Robinson – is dead. The two men are of similar age, height and build. There are some vague facial similarities. Locke decides to swap lives. Using Robinson’s diary, he trades places effectively becoming the passenger of the film’s title. Of course, nothing has really changed. Locke has merely swapped vehicles.
It turns out that Robinson is a gun runner. He is being hunted by killers representing the African regime the guerillas have been fighting. Nicholson is along for the ride. He just keeps moving. If, at any time, he took arms against his sea of troubles, he would – by opposing – end them. Locke/Robinson is incapable of any such action. The film’s ending is inevitable from the opening credits.
The penultimate scene is a cinematic tour de force. It is an extended one take shot that will not only astound you with its technical brilliance but also it’s emotional impact. I don’t want to spoil it for you but it tells a whole story by showing you nothing.
This is a film that takes its angst with a healthy dollop of existentialism. I can’t guarantee you will enjoy it. It isn’t meant to be a barrel of laughs. I can recommend it wholeheartedly but not on a day when you are in need of entertainment. It is a film to meditate upon. You do have to try new things some time.
Antonioni is not a director who takes an easy path. His films are about ideas which he feels little need to explain. The films have many layers and multiple meanings. I have watched his film “Blow Up” three times and I would have written a completely different review on each occasion.
Antonioni has a superb cinematic eye. He makes his films like an artist paints a picture. He captures the essence of the places he films in a way that seems to elude others. When he films London it is London as I remember it. When he films Barcelona it is the Barcelona I remember. I can’t describe how he achieves this but the effect is quite magical. It may be something as simple as choosing a lens that approximates the human eye or perhaps it is just because he approaches his locations as an outsider.
“The Passenger” isn’t a film about answers. It isn’t even a film about questions. You just sit down and take a ride. It is not a fast ride. It is not a ride you have any control over. Neither do the characters who live in the film. Calling Jack Nicholson’s character a protagonist gives him far more credit than he is due. He makes one decision in the entire movie and rides the consequences from there.
When Jack Nicholson acts, it is something that is always worth seeing. These days, unless directed by Sean Penn, he tends to fall back on slicing large chunks of ham in an attempt to steal the show. This is Nicholson in full actor mode. There is no mugging. No scene chomping. Nicholson plays a dull man with all the dullness that man deserves. His talent is making a dull man likeable. He allows us to identify with him.
David Locke is a reporter who goes out to the Sahara Desert to investigate a civil war. In the introduction sequence, he goes in search of guerilla leaders. He may as well be in a bubble. He has no way to communicate with the people around him. He is utterly disconnected. Whenever he thinks he understands the rules, the rules change. Finally, his jeep, like his life, becomes bogged in the sand.
Later, we will see his interview footage. For such an allegedly famous reporter, he is incapable of asking the hard questions. He lets his subjects control the show. He merely promotes their agenda. One subject even takes the camera off him and points it at him. Locke, exposed, cannot say a word.
When he finally gets back to his hotel room, he finds his neighbour – a man named Robinson – is dead. The two men are of similar age, height and build. There are some vague facial similarities. Locke decides to swap lives. Using Robinson’s diary, he trades places effectively becoming the passenger of the film’s title. Of course, nothing has really changed. Locke has merely swapped vehicles.
It turns out that Robinson is a gun runner. He is being hunted by killers representing the African regime the guerillas have been fighting. Nicholson is along for the ride. He just keeps moving. If, at any time, he took arms against his sea of troubles, he would – by opposing – end them. Locke/Robinson is incapable of any such action. The film’s ending is inevitable from the opening credits.
The penultimate scene is a cinematic tour de force. It is an extended one take shot that will not only astound you with its technical brilliance but also it’s emotional impact. I don’t want to spoil it for you but it tells a whole story by showing you nothing.
This is a film that takes its angst with a healthy dollop of existentialism. I can’t guarantee you will enjoy it. It isn’t meant to be a barrel of laughs. I can recommend it wholeheartedly but not on a day when you are in need of entertainment. It is a film to meditate upon. You do have to try new things some time.
| 100 |
| Vote |
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
Any self respecting fan of cinema should see this complex work which features a one of a kind Nicholson performance.
Comment by Tracy
Movies and Life
What a great review of the film. I also just saw it a while ago and reviewed it on my blog. It is definitely a film to see, one that stays with you for quite a while afterwards, always a sign of a good film in my eyes.
I like what you say about Jack Nicholson making one decision and the events occur following that decision. That is very true. Like you said, it is a film about questions rather than answers. I found myself wondering why Jack Nicholson felt the need to swap his life for someone’s? Surely the risk was greater than the decision to leave his own life?
This film is enigmatic, the cinematography is stunning. Presences are evaded, related absences emphasised. The protagonist's fate reflects each individual's own private thoughts about real and/or imagined destiny. The climax of the film, alone - a final sequence lasting seven slow minutes is truly a synthesis of the movie and a tribute to the director's art.
Comment by Bob Short
I have to do a review of "Blow Up" too but that is going to take some time working up to. Some reviews you can just knock out and others take for ever.
Comment by Tracy
Movies and Life
Tracy
Comment by Bob Short
Bob
Comment by Nathan 1