The Ghost Writer
Movie Review
"The Ghost Writer"
Review by Eric D. Snider
Grade: B+
Rating: PG-13
Released: Friday, February 19, 2010
Directed by:
Cast:
It is very frustrating that Roman Polanski drugged and raped an adolescent girl and fled the U.S. justice system, yet still occasionally produces outstanding films. We don't want a man guilty of his crimes to continue achieving professional success; we want him to be imprisoned. Alas, while it's been many years since he's made a truly great film, he's had his share of very good ones, including his latest, "The Ghost Writer," which emulates Hitchcock and demonstrates Polanski's mastery of the medium. As annoying as it may be, the guy can tell a cracking good story when he wants to.
Based on a 2007 novel by Robert Harris, "The Ghost Writer" concerns a former British prime minister named Adam Lang (Pierce Brosnan), who definitely is not a slightly fictionalized version of Tony Blair, so don't even think that. Lang is in the process of writing his memoirs, but his ghost writer has just died tragically while on a ferry between Lang's vacation home on Martha's Vineyard and the Massachusetts mainland. The dead man is replaced by another experienced ghost writer (played by Ewan McGregor), one whose agility at shaping a narrative without drawing attention from the credited author is suggested by the fact that we never learn his name. The credits just call him The Ghost. The Ghost has no experience, or interest, in politics -- his last gig was helping a magician with his autobiography -- but this makes him better for the job than an insider would be, as he'll be thinking like an everyday reader.
From this outsider's perspective, the Ghost is puzzled by the paranoid inner workings of Lang's operation. The Martha's Vineyard home is like a heavily fortified bunker, the dead writer's draft of Lang's book locked in a drawer in Lang's office. Even the Ghost, who is supposed to be revising the draft, can't take the manuscript out of the room, lest it fall into enemy hands and be published prematurely. And why all the secrecy over something that's going to be public soon enough anyway? We get a hint at that answer when, early in the Ghost's tenure as Lang's new co-author, Lang is publicly accused of war crimes. It seems that during a certain war in the Middle East, Prime Minister Lang ordered the kidnapping of suspected terrorists and assisted the C.I.A. in torturing them.
Well, the Ghost is in it now. Such controversy is bound to boost sales when the book finally comes out, but how closely does he want to be associated with Lang? Like any good journalist, the Ghost wants to uncover the truth -- the truth about the war crimes, the truth about what happened to his ghost-writing predecessor, the truth about Lang's whole career. And what's up with Lang's ice-cold wife, Ruth (Olivia Williams)? What's up with Lang's over-sexy personal assistant, Amelia (Kim Cattrall)? What's up with everything?
The war-crimes business is what Hitchcock would have called a MacGuffin, the thing that drives the plot but that, in and of itself, is irrelevant. (It could have been any major political scandal.) This is technically a political thriller, you see, but the politics, while topical, aren't the focus. Nor are we meant to dwell too much on the fact that Lang must stay in the United States lest he be apprehended by the International Criminal Court, a not-too-subtle reference to Polanski's real-life extradition woes.
Instead, the focus is the mystery, the sheer enjoyment of solving a puzzle. If Polanski's "Chinatown" was a modern-day film noir, "The Ghost Writer" (which he co-adapted with the novelist) is his homage to Hitchcock's suspense capers. Many of the similarities are subtle: the use of old-fashioned rear-projection in driving scenes, Alexandre Desplat's very Bernard Hermann-y musical score, the presence of a blond femme fatale (Cattrall), the way we are prevented from learning anything faster than the Ghost himself does. More broadly, the way the Ghost, an ordinary man, becomes entangled in sinister affairs with far-reaching consequences is the kind of thing Hitchcock excelled at and that movie audiences have been eating up for decades.
Ewan McGregor is good for the part, a personable Everyman with whom we enjoy taking a dangerous journey. Pierce Brosnan does well with Lang's empty-suit politician, and Olivia Williams is so utterly fantastic at playing frosty, ball-breaking women -- you should have watched Joss Whedon's "Dollhouse" series just for her -- that it's hard not to be mesmerized, if a little frightened, every time Ruth Lang is in a scene. Tom Wilkinson also has a lively few minutes as a reluctant professor who might have information about Lang's past.
What does it all add up to? What's the take-home message? I'm pleased to report that it is this: political mystery thrillers are fun. Sure, there are deeper implications in the details: the power of words to change the course of history, the manipulation of facts for personal gain, the way law and order are enforced among celebrities and politicians. Like Martin Scorsese's "Shutter Island" -- another Hitchcockian thriller set primarily on an island off the coast of Massachusetts -- "The Ghost Writer" is the work of a skilled storyteller who can deliver commercial entertainment in a way that's smarter and more polished than most commercial entertainment. Damn you for being so good, Polanski, you fugitive rapist you.
Grade: B+
Rated PG-13, moderate profanity, one F-word (plus several more that were obviously dubbed over with lesser expletives), a little violence, brief partial nudity, a little very mild sexuality
2 hrs., 8 min.
Copyright © Eric D. Snider.
This work may not be transmitted via the Internet, nor reproduced in any other way, without written consent from Eric D. Snider.
This item has 30 comments
March 13, 2010 at 7:09 pm
On Film.com I commented that while most critics went through an entire Polanski review without acknowledging the elephant in the room, Eric Snider starts with it. Strange to see that the paragraph I was referring to actual got editing out of that copy of the review. Is reference the etstwhile pedopophilic rape somehow a breach of etiquette?
March 13, 2010 at 7:10 pm
"Actually got edited," not "actually got editing." Bleh.
March 14, 2010 at 3:00 pm
My respect for Film.com went down a great deal after they cut the first paragraph of this.
March 15, 2010 at 8:43 am
The editing certainly make the parking tickets tagline a little more random.
March 16, 2010 at 9:50 am
Eric, what's the story about Film.com truncating the review? Too much personal judgment of R.P. in that opening graf?
March 17, 2010 at 11:06 am
Out of curiosity, I posted Eric's first paragraph in the comments at film.com. Will the edit that out too?
March 17, 2010 at 12:53 pm
My editor felt that bringing up Polanski's past crimes was irrelevant to the matter at hand, i.e., a review of the current movie. As the editor of the site, he feels responsible for all of its content, whether it's under his byline or not. He made the decision to remove the references -- there were more at the end of the review, too -- and while I disagree with his reasoning, I understand it, and I disagree respectfully. You'll see the whole review the way I wrote it next week, when Film.com's exclusivity rights expire and I post it here. Believe me, if I were upset about it and wanted to make it an issue, I'd have done so. But I'm not, I don't, and I didn't.
March 19, 2010 at 8:14 am
I'm not condoning what Polanski did but there's a lot more to that story. Polanski's case was mishandled by the judge and prosecution in the case. Fleeing the U.S may have been wrong but his trial was not exactly fair. Polanski has since settled financially with the victim and she in turn has publicly forgiven him and demanded the charges against him be dropped. But having said that, he does need to return to the U.S and end this thing.
March 20, 2010 at 7:40 am
As a longtime journalist who's done about as much writing as editing, I'd say both sides have merit here. Kudos to Eric for having the courage to wrestle with the "elephant"; his editor's desire for a review dealing strictly with the quality of the film is understandable, too. Still, I don't like the idea of censoring a reviewer who's doing anything less than inciting to violence, so if I have to pick a side I pick Eric's. And I really like his gracious, non-confrontational attitude about the fuss. As for Polanski, he did a heinous thing long ago and he needs to complete the process of atoning for it. That said, the man is a master of his craft and I'm going to see his movie.
March 25, 2010 at 7:04 pm
The director/rapist has been doing excellent work for years and has worked with many in Hollywood and enjoyed their support and the enthusiastic appreciation of the film critic community. Not that people didn't bring up the past but now that he's caught after all these decades film critics feel the need to discuss the controversy and I say WHATEVER. Even the rape victim is sick of all this ****.
April 3, 2010 at 10:18 am
Is this a movie review site or a pulpit for morality? Give us a break with the editorializing, will you please.
Do you also hate to live in a country where the President is an alcoholic, drug user and a criminal? I don't hear you complaining about George W. Bush...a man who obviously has not done enough to get Polanski extradited to the USA...a man who has committed heinous crimes yet walks the streets with impunity if not immunity.
April 9, 2010 at 7:19 pm
Just out of curiosity, how much time has to pass before raping a young girl is too far in the past to be mentioned by polite people? Does the "it was a long time ago so everyone should just get over it" rule apply to everybody, or only to artists? Does it apply only to child molestation and flight to avoid prosecution, or does it extend to other crimes, too? If so, are there any crimes so bad that the rule doesn't apply, no matter how good an artist the criminal may be? Just asking . . .
It's true that great art can be produced by people who are rotten human beings, or who do rotten things. The vicious anti-Semite Richard Wagner comes to mind, as does Picasso's beastly mistreatment of women and Gauguin's desertion of his family. An artist's personal failings don't render his or her work valueless, or justify its suppression, but since art is an expression of the artist's human spirit, knowledge of the other ways in which that spirit has been expressed, not to exclude criminal or other discreditable ways, is relevant to a complete understanding of the artist and the work. In my opinion.
April 9, 2010 at 8:23 pm
*Spoiler alert*
I'm confused by part of this movie. A lot of the ghost's digging started because it seemed clear the PM was lying when he said he got into politics because of his wife. But then, in the end, it seems he did get into politics because of his wife. So was he lying about that or wasn't he? Any thoughts?
April 11, 2010 at 5:33 pm
great movie by a great filmmaker.
If your creepy neighbor raped a little girl, you'd condemn him and move(and what if it was your daughter?!). There's nothing wrong about making a judgement of Polanski- his talent doesn't waive his right of being a terrible, dirty human being.
April 16, 2010 at 8:26 pm
Regardless of Mr. Snider's quality as a reviewer or critic, he is malevolent or ignorant as a relayer of factual information. According to court documentation, Mr. Polanski was never found by a court of law to have "drugged and raped" anyone. He "plead guilty" to "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor", and the court accepted his plea. And that's it. Three important points here:
- To "plead guilty" and having been "found guilty" are not synonymous. For the sake of time, I will not explain the difference here, but if you do not wish to remain ignorant about this, do inform yourself.
- Mr. Polanski "plead guilty" to an offense for which he was not even charged. You should find this peculiar. Again, for the sake of time, I will not explain why and how this is possible, but if you do not wish to remain ignorant about this, do inform yourself.
- Very few jurisdictions, including California where Mr. Polanski was tried, use the actual term "statutory rape" in the language of statutes. Regardless, "statutory rape" differs from "rape" in that overt force or threat need not be present. Instead, the laws automatically presume coercion because a minor is legally presumed to be incapable of giving consent to the act. Therefore, even if a minor consents to the act in actuality, legally a minor cannot. Point is, Mr. Polanski never plead guilty to "rape" (for which he was charged), nor did the court "find" him "guilty" of "rape". Period.
Why Mr. Polanski fled his sentencing from the U.S. justice system is only indirectly related to this case. Again, for the sake of time, I will not explain why and how this is possible, but if you do not wish to remain ignorant about this, do inform yourself.
Laziness and ignorance are often a coupled characteristic. Hopefully they will not remain yours.
April 30, 2010 at 10:32 am
I just say this last night, and I have been searching for a bad review, but have found very few. I thought it was enjoyable to watch and visually stimulating, but beyond that I thought it had very few redeemable qualities.
I was confused by the fact that they chose to make Kim Cattrall British when she has one of the worst fake accents I've ever heard. They would have been fine to make her an American aid, which would have been far less distracting. Every time she opened her mouth we would laugh and we stopped taking the movie seriously, and once you stop taking that movie seriously you realize how terrible the plot line actually is.
When they made the big reveal the other person I went to see it with both said, "Who cares?" They had already revealed part of the secret, but everyone just thought it was a different character. The comparison to Hitchcock is generous. There have been stories, in the TV series especially, that I go back and watch that still blow my mind, and the reveal in Ghost Writer was certainly not in the mind blowing category.
My sister and I were in hysterics by the end, and I was glad we didn't have too many people in the theater to disturb with our laughter. I am disappointed to see all these critics trying to make themselves look brave by judging a movie on the movie rather than the child rapist that created it. They got so distracted by the artistic value that they ignored the fact that the story was boring.
For the record, I had completely forgotten that this movie was done by Polanski.
PS - Eric, I want you to know that the world is a better place because of your Food4Less article.
May 8, 2010 at 10:00 pm
Wow, I came here to read reviews of a movie that stars two of my favorite actors. Reviews are important , for instance this movie is the only movie out that remotely interests my mother and I for a mother daughter outing on Mothers day. I sort of need to know if it will be suitable for a mystery loving old lady who doesn't care for a ton of sex , likes a good plot , doesn't care for the very strange or paranormal but likes political thrillers... so is this the right call or not? That is why I am here, not to read about the criminal record of the director,,, I mean seriously? How many movies do you watch where there are criminal records of the actors, directors, the GRIP or set decorator even!! So many people have a criminal record that are still out there working, I just want to go to the movie and not think about that part. Please.
May 31, 2010 at 7:04 am
Do you always start out by judging the director's personal life?
Do all your aesthetic judgments revolve around whether you think the director is a good guy in private?
Ever heard of critical standards?
Your editor saved you from looking stupid. Unfortunately, there's no saving you from yourself.
May 31, 2010 at 7:33 pm
Would you start out a review of "Psycho" with "Well, Fatty strikes again..."
June 1, 2010 at 4:02 pm
Would you start out a review of "Psycho" with "Well, Fatty strikes again..."
Sure -- if being fat were as unconscionable as drugging and raping a teenage girl.
June 2, 2010 at 9:56 am
@Peter Tarnopol:
Legal minutiae aside, no one--not even Polanski--is debating that the thirteen year old was given alcohol and muscle relaxants and then the two had intercourse. And if you think a 43-year-old having sex with a 13-year-old isn't some form of rape, well, I have nothing to say to that.
June 7, 2010 at 2:29 pm
guess i won't be seeing this movie... i don't believe in sick cowards like polanski!!
glad i read this review because i had no idea.
June 9, 2010 at 5:50 pm
Im no writer by any means or for that matter an actual critic past the fact i have opinions but i have something to say. The work someone does IS affected by who they are whether you like to see it or not. Pfff i hope Peter Tarnopol reads this NO 13 YEAR SHOULD BE HAVING SEX LET ALONE WITH SOMEONE 43 complete foolishness, utterly stupid your heart has to be as hard as a rock to think that is justifiable with linguistics in a court case. The man was completely wrong for what he did drugs and alcohol or not. To be honest i was about to go watch this movie i really was and the truth is there probably has been movies with actors, producers, directors, writers with there own sins on there hands that have lead me to the same conclusion to not watch this film but that doesn't take away form the fact i did learn about this man and what he did. It has meant the difference for me to not watch this film regardless of time line of when the transgression took place. For that matter whether or not he had "served his time or punishment" WHICH HE DIDNT BECUASE HE FLED only to let his pride make him stupid enough to get caught. I say screw you to all of you who stood up for this "man's" art he does not have my support regardless of its quality I wont give him any of my money for his film.
August 8, 2010 at 7:03 pm
Wow Eric D.Snider,GA. You sure know how to stir the pot, especiallly when suprisingly calling it black.Try googling Emily Dow (and Elise) Partridge.Then tell us more about how to punish those who exploit. You will then promptly delete this post.I believe this would be the teaching concerning don't judge or back at you x7. Justify it like the Catholic church or the Boy Scouts. Just shut up, you're embarrassing to all ex-Cougars.
August 8, 2010 at 7:27 pm
#24: Apparently, the fact that Joseph Smith married women who were 19 and 22 means a Mormon shouldn't criticize Roman Polanski for drugging and raping a 13-year-old. I stand corrected.
September 17, 2010 at 12:59 pm
@#16: Kim Cattrall was born in Liverpool, and raised by British parents, so I don't think she was using much of a "fake" accent. Just as there are different accents in the U.S., there are many different accents in Great Britain ...
Also, if a director so obviously alludes to his own legal situation in a film, it is entirely appropriate for a critic to bring that up in his review, IMO. So calm down, everybody.
October 29, 2010 at 7:59 pm
Thanks for the review. Not that anyone cares, but I don't think this movie was very good. It seemed good while I was watching, albeit slow, but upon further review it doesn't seem to add up. Like it was mentioned in previous comments, when the reveal comes it was a major "so what" overall; added to the fact was the reveal had absolutely no proof to back it up. Then there's the ending--sheesh, it was like a big "screw you" to the audience. You just put up with two hours of slowly-paced and poorly-edited intrigue for an ending that tied up no loose ends and then ran out of story altogether. "Well," I imagine Polanski saying, "that's all I've got, what should we do with the protagonist?" SPOILER ALERT: "ah, just kill the bugger." "How?" "Who sodding cares? Hit 'em with a bloody auto for all I care." EricdSnider forever!
November 22, 2010 at 9:07 am
I want to say, at first, the ending kind of threw me. It served the story, but it wasn't logical for an intelligent man to do. If I had the knowledge that he had from "the beginnings" (if you've seen the movie, you know what I mean) then I would have hired 20 bodyguards, would have never been near a street, and for goodness sakes would never have alerted PERSONALLY the secret to the bad guys on the spot! For the purpose of the movie themes it worked, but come on, a smart person would have gotten Rykart's help or something.
Having said all of that, I still liked the film. It was slow, but my kind of slow--like a novel that keeps building--setting up its narrative carefully and methodically until it reaches its natural conclusion.
I rented the film and had no idea who directed it, but my wife said,"It seems really dark and enclosed everywhere; the cinematography reminds me of that movie where a doctor is kidnapped by a woman and forced to remain in her basement--"
"Death and the Maiden"?
"Yeah, that one"!
Wasn't until the ending credits that I realized it was a Roman.
Since we're all talking about it, Mr. Polanski has already created, in a sense, a prison of his own making. Because he hasn't faced the music, the sin keeps lingering on. No one knows his heart, but he can't repent of it because it is constantly the "elephant" in the room. He has served some time in a Swiss jail, so there's that. But mostly his friends support him, actors support him, other directors probably don't think he did anything that wrong. He probably has justified it for the majority of his life saying, "Well, it was the early 70's--it was an experimental time. "Key" parties, and free love, and porn in the mainstream, the dabbling in far-left leaning thoughts about pedophilia in Eastern Europe--it was weird, freaky, groovy time, baby. Hey, even she's forgiven me, man, c'mon...(sorry didn't mean to make Polanski sound like Dennis Hopper there...)"
I guess we'll see what happens. But he'll probably never set foot in America again. If the justice system absolves him, it will set a horrible precedent that fleeing your crime works, so that's not going to happen. It was a despicable act. Period. He has to live with himself. Perhaps, that's sentence enough.
January 5, 2011 at 2:09 pm
Not my kind of movie. I guess I can see why people like Polanski's movies, but I never really have. I only liked The Pianist. Yep, didn't really like Chinatown. Well-made? Sure, I guess. I just think they're boring.
I suspect that if you put The Ghost Writer and The Ninth Gate in two different DVD players and start them at the same time, they're pretty much the same plot. The lead characters in both are more or less the same, making the same dumb mistakes, trusting people they shouldn't trust, making decisions no audience member would make.
And I can't stand Polanski's sloooow pacing. It's like all of his films are on muscle relaxants. Maybe that's the problem. Maybe he's drowsy in the editing room when he chops everything together.
I decided to give The Ghost Writer a try because it was on several people's end-of-year lists, described as a political "thriller." Political yawner, really. Polanski usually creates tension through music, tight shots, anonymous car drivers -- and rarely in the (slow, unfolding) stories themselves.
In the film's last five minutes, I checked the clock and thought, "There had better be some kind of major shock coming up, or this was a waste of time." The final revelation, wasn't really that shocking. And the character's final action (and consequence) just seemed like a false way to end the film. I identified with the character. Empathized with him. But felt less and less connected with him as the film drew to the end. A series of bad decisions at the end made me think, "Oh well, it's almost over. Maybe something will give me the shivers."
Nope. Same old boring Polanski.
Political thriller, indeed.
Well, since everyone else is making a comment on the Film.com's censoring of the first paragraph: it was a funny way to open the review, sure, by shooting the elephant, but I think the editor made the right decision in stripping away the superfluous writer's hand. Brand management. Safer to avoid contention. I suppose the majority of readers had come looking for a film review, therefore...
December 2, 2011 at 3:28 am
To paraphrase a quote from a famous book, let only he without sin be allowed to make movies, and only he without sin be allowed to cast the first stone of criticism.IF God or the censor enforced this,then we would only!not have The Ghostwriter but most of the output of Hollywood of the last century, and nor would we have to listen to the self righteous judgmental views of those supposed Christians who eagerly send everyone else to He'll but not themselves.
That Polanski escaped sentencing for his crime,bearing in mind that plea bargaining of guilty at the time may have released him very quickly,is as much the fault of an Imperfect legal system, as it was Polanski.Taking a more forgiving view over the last thirty years,Polanski may have redeemed himself through his art, but I don't know that for certain.Is Polanski a better human being now then he was then, only he can really answer that. Perhaps he has made a more constructive contribution to society than rotting in gaol over the last twenty years, but many Christians are too strong on harsh punishment (for others of course) and not very good on forgiveness or atonement.
I am not really sure what all the Condemnation of Polanski had to do with the merits of the film.I found it personally like Hitchcock, and very old fashioned in its techniques and this is why some audience members found it slow.It does not have fast cars,quick editing,flashing knives,flashing breasts,or graphic sex. Come on admit it, that is really all you sinners who watch films want these days.It is probably true too, that Hitchcock is
Largely unknown to younger generations of film goers except in name, but they have probably seen Psycho because it has flashing knives, shower murders and voyeurism,making it a very modern film for the early 1960s.It was from period that Polanski learnt his craft.