There’s a scene in The Ghost Writer where Pierce Brosnan’s Tony-Blair-In-All-But-Name ex-Prime Minister is looking at charges of war crimes and wondering where he can live without being extradited to the World Court that suddenly pulls you out of the story and reminds you that the director of the film himself recently learned a valuable lesson about nations with extradition treaties. Thankfully that’s the only moment in The Ghost Writer that really draws attention to the weird conditions of the film’s final post-production process, although many will insist on watching the film (if they can bring themselves to watch a movie from someone like Polanski at all, what with them being such arbiters of morals and justice, and what with them demanding only the most pure behavior from all artists) through that prism. But when watched as a film – just as a film – The Ghost Writer is smart and thrilling and funny and wonderfully told.
Ewan MacGregor is a delightful everyman in the Hitchcock mold; a ghost writer of memoirs, he stumbles into an assignment that’s way out of his league. The former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, who has retired to an island off the New England coastline, is writing his autobiography. The original ghost on the project -and the PM’s trusted friend – has turned up dead, and the book needs to be finished immediately. As soon as MacGregor starts working with the reluctant Adam Lang, a controversy springs up – did Lang break international law and send terrorism suspects to be tortured? While this makes the value of the memoir soar, it also begins to make Lang question the fate of the previous ghost… and his own safety.
Robert Harris adapted his own novel, and he has given Polanski a script that often has its tongue firmly in its cheek. Not an outright satire of the thriller, The Ghost Writer is aware of, and winks at, the conventions of the genre. The necessary seduction scene – Lang’s wife, played by the feline Olivia Williams ends up in McGregor’s bed – is almost perfunctory, and a scene of McGregor (whose character has no name, reflecting his place in the writing process) tries to evade bad guys is realistically clumsy and awkward. But even with the nods, Polanski creates an air of inescapable tension; as the film’s final scenes play out and secrets are revealed you’ll be on the edge of your seat even though nary a bomb is in sight or a gunfight is pending.
Most of the film is carried on the shoulders of McGregor, proving that when given a good script and a masterful director he can still do terrific work. Opposite him is Pierce Brosnan, playing a character that Harris allows to become more than just a stand-in punching bag for Tony Blair, the great disappointment for the British. Brosnan’s perfectly suited for the role of a politician who is more actor than statesman, and he’s got just the right weariness – surely earned at the hands of the folks behind the Bond films – to get across Lang’s ultimate frustration. Williams gives a sneaky performance, one that keeps you guessing throughout the film; as such it’s tough to praise her adequately without giving away her part in the story. The only really weak link in the main cast (even Jim Belushi’s really good!) is Kim Cattrall, tasked with delivered an awful fake British accent. Had she been allowed to talk naturally I think she could have worked better, but her this-side-of-Dick Van Dyke accent, she’s a sore thumb.
It’s fitting that there’s also a Scorsese movie opening this weekend, and that it’s a strong genre exercise, just like The Ghost Writer. As I said in my review of Shutter Island we all too often have to make apologies for our aging filmmakers, accepting weirdly stunted pacing or stylistic tics that just don’t work anymore. Woody Allen, also a member of Scorsese and Polanski’s 70s class of geniuses, is a good example of this – you have to make a lot of excuses for later Woody movies. But you don’t have to make excuses for Shutter Island or The Ghost Writer; both crackle with energy and verve and feel like the works of men in their prime. Polanski has obviously been better – and while the movie tackles some political themes, he’s been weightier – but he’s rarely been as much fun. The film is a blast, an incredibly well made good time at the movies.
One special note must be made of Alexandre Desplat’s score, which is simply amazing. When I saw the film I thought it was scored with a temp track made up of masterpieces that I somehow failed to recognize. It’s not – Desplat is just that fucking good. If this isn’t a front runner for Best Score in next year’s Oscars, somebody needs to shake some sense into the Academy.
The cliche is that to say that they don’t make ’em like this anymore, and the truth is that they don’t. For fans of expertly constructed genre films this is a great weekend, as two true masters of the form are in theaters, showing the young kids how to make movies that engage, entertain and don’t condescend to the audience. It’s weird thinking that this could very likely be the last film that Roman Polanski makes, but if that’s the case he’s going out on a note that, while not a classic, is very strong.
8.5 out of 10
48 comments
I don't give a fuck what Polanski did in real life, all I care about is if the movie is good and apparently it is. People (especially American audiences) need to learn how to separate an artist from their work.
I knew it would be good..
The Art and the Artist are always tied together. It's the personality behind the art that forms the art. If an artist was say a serial killer, then that's going to have an impact of the art he produces wouldn't you think? I think you're afraid of watching a movie with that in mind. You're trying to create a schizm so you don't don't risk drawing a comparison on yourself in self-examination (which is kind of one of the points of art isn't it?). If you like Polanski movies, maybe there's a little bit of yourself that shares his world view.
Hell, I'd watch Olivia Williams read from the phone book for two hours….
"If you like Polanski movies, maybe there's a little bit of yourself that shares his world view" Allow me to deliver the first "go fuck yourself, you self righteous prick" of the thread.
"If you like Polanski movies, maybe there's a little bit of yourself that shares his world view." So if I like Polanski's movies, that makes me a kid toucher? I suppose if I like Mel Gibson, I'm an anti-semite, and if I like Tom Cruise, I'm a brainwashed cultist. Go screw. Separating the art from the artist allows me to appreciate the art on its own without bringing a ton of baggage into it with me.
#3 You are totally and utterly lost in your own opinions to have an open mind about art in any form that you're opinion is automatically invalid. In other words, shove off.
Just thought I'd mention Devin that Kim Cattrall is actually English, so that's her real accent! Oh, and whilst I don't set myself up to be an arbiter of moral justice drugging and sodomising a 13 year old is still abit off
"People (especially American audiences) need to learn how to separate an artist from their work."
He can make all the good movies in the world and it won't change the fact HE RAPED A KID. I bet you defend pedophiles like Victor Salva too.
According to imdb, Kim Cattrall lived in Canada from age 3 months to 11 years before returning to the UK for a few years – and then back to Canada again around (maybe) age 16. I wonder if she ever had a genuine English accent of her own as a result (I personally have no idea).
I'm wondering who the self righteous ones are here. The ones who say "I'm not having anything to do with Polanski's movies because he raped a little kid", or the ones who say "I'm a mature enough person to forgive Polanski and separate his art from his deeds". Look up "self righteous" in the dictionary before you start tossing it around.
"and what with them demanding only the most pure behavior from all artists"
I thought the law demanded that EVERYBODY not drug and rape children.
Comment #3 is still wiping the jizz off his keyboard for thinking he used schizm correctly in a sentence. Toss off, ya cunt.
I was hoping it would be more of an 8.7 at least. Don't know if I'm interested now.
(if they can bring themselves to watch a movie from someone like Polanski at all, what with them being such arbiters of morals and justice, and what with them demanding only the most pure behavior from all artists). That's a bit of a stretch in defending the guy. He is a great film-maker. And I don't think anyone demands the purest of behaviour from artists. But there's a real difference between drug use, alcoholism, constant partying etc… and rape. What he did should not be downplayed regardless of his skill as an artist. One needn't be an "arbiter of morals and justice" to be disgusted by what he did and to hold that act against him.
You know, I think Polanski should go to jail, but I am completely capable of watching and liking his movies. #3, you're an idiot.
Whether to separate the artist and his work or not is a classic Modernist/ Post-Modernist argument that no one here, I'm afraid, is capable of winning. I, personally, don't come down on either side. I find it important to look at the art as an artifact in and of itself, as well as in the context of the artist's life. Only then can one begin to completely understand the art in its totality. If it's a good movie, one can appreciate it accordingly. It's up to each individual to decide whether they want to bother to delve any deeper than that.
I think that if the girl (now a woman) has gone on record saying she doesn't care, and doesn't want him charged then all you pricks should stop whining about it. Polanski already got screwed by karma in the form of chuck manson and his family.
And I do believe that part of the legend of that incident is that Jack Nicholson was also involved…
Way to mire your review by baiting a Polanski debate. The shit would have been fine developing on its own.
I will go on record as a moral arbiter, if that means being against drugging and assraping children.
#9: I think you mean "mar" the review:
tr.v. marred, mar·ring, mars
1. To inflict damage, especially disfiguring damage, on.
2. To impair the soundness, perfection, or integrity of; spoil.
The review is also marred by grammatical errors and a bizarre missing phrase in the very first(!) sentence. Devin, you're in dire need of a proofreader.
And of course I failed to proof my own comment. Prior message refers to #19. Whoops.
Child Rape? Unacceptable. You can toss around all the dictionary definitions you want. That man should be making movies from a cell.
Oh, and Devin – we're not the "arbiters of morals and justice". We just think that pedophiles should face some sort of punishment. It's not so much the art itself but the fact that the art exists.
I mean, if Hitler was still cranking out the occasional painting, nobody would give a shit how good they were.
Kim Cattrall doesn't have a natural english accent. I watched a documentary about her going back to Liverpool to meet her family, and she spoke with an American flavour.
As for the dude who thinks you can't separate the art from the artist when judging his work- wrong. An artist's personal life may inform his work, but it doesn't mean we have to appreciate the paedophile part of it. If Polanski made a film about paedophiles, that would raise some issues. But the guy is a good film maker in the same way Michael Jackson was a great dancer.
I see everyone brought their torches and bibles today.
That first sentence is a DOOZY! Are there punctuation marks or whole words missing?? Yes, yes, one can easily discern what's trying to be said but damn, that's irritating.
I'm sorry Devin but I don't think it takes wanting "pure behavior from all artists" to say hey I'm not going to go watch the movie by that guy that rapped that young girl.
Child rapists are child rapists are child rapists. You don't need a torch or a Bible to know that.
Torches and bibles? Nah, just a revulsion for adults who fuck little girls. If you think that's being "holier than thou" then fuck you. It's against the law for a perfectly good reason.
I touch kids. And i HATE Roman Polanski movies. Hmmm.
That first paragraph is a fucking train wreck.
No, but it is being a moral arbtrator when the US all of a sudden decides it's time to punish him after we were honoring him with Oscars a few years back. He was still guilty while makin The Pianist, where were your torches then? The US wasn't after him then so it must not have been a big deal for you.
@#32: "All of a sudden" is since 1978, when he fled the country before being sentenced. And people were outraged during The Pianist Oscar win, but the Hollywood establishment has been stumping to excuse this guy for years, because he's one of their own. Of course, if he'd drugged their 13 year old daughter and sodomized her they wouldn't be so forgiving I'm sure. And, by the way #18, it doesn't matter if the girl (now an adult) wants the whole thing dropped. It's not that she "doesn't care." She wants to avoid the publicity, and who can blame her? But once Polanski fled, he opened up a whole new can of worms. Maybe he skipped town because he wasn't looking forward to being sodomized in prison. Poetic, eh? OH, and CHUD, HIRE A PROOFREADER!
Kim Catterall can do a decent scouse accent.
I can't imagine why this thread degenerated into the usual Polanski trolling and counter-trolling. Certainly Devin didn't set the tone in his opening paragraph … no siree.
good job dev, can't even make it thru the first paragraph without rolling my eyes right off the entire article. i assumed from the rating at the bottom that you liked it though.
I'm going in with the "He's an asshole for raping a kid, but he still makes good movies crowd." He would be easier to forgive (not that he did it to me, but still…) if he had just served his teeny little sentence instead of running away.
Also, I'm not going to even pretend anyone is reading this far into the posts, so: Boogers, Poo-poo, Fart, Pee-pee, Blaphotyah-pbthhh!
If you did read this far in, I don't know you, but fuck you anyway, bitch!
No, Devin. It's not that we need our artists to be saints. It's that we need our artists to not use their position as artists to rape and sodomize children. Polanski was able to rape and sodomize a child specifically because of his position as a renowned artist. This taints the art in a way that is entirely different from say, Miles Davis, who liked to beat his women. What's more, Polanski's actions (and mind you, these are a matter of record, Polanski admitted to doing this) were those of a serial rapist. You don't accidentally lure a child to a house in the middle of the night, then get her drunk, then drug her, then rape her repeatedly. Those actions show a whole lot of forethought. I've never paid a dime for anything related to Polanski and I never will for the simple reason that his art is directly and inextricably tied to rape.
Hmmmm, let's see a drunk guy ranting about Jewish people or a child molester who actuallly molested children. People are judged by what they do, not by what they say, unless you are a tainted partisan. I don't think Mel Gibson has molested any Jewish people lately– then again, I haven't received my daily news from my Alien overlords lately.
A reboot already … was Nic Cage really that bad in the original? (I guess he was …)
Considering Devin's raging hard-on for "Hit Girl" from "Kick Ass" I'm not surprised by his opening paragraph. Do 13-year-old girls in short dresses saying naughty things make you horny, Devin? Also, how much hentai and loli porn do you own?
You don't have to forgive or accept the guy to enjoy his movies. Movies are the collective work of many people not just the director. If you not going to watch a movie that polanski directs then by that logic you shouldn't want to see movie with the involvement of anyone he's ever worked with because the don't object to what he did enough to refuse to work with him, and working with him takes alot more time and commitment than just watching one of his movies.
I know I am feeding the troll but here goes…….Your statement at the begining of the film dismissing the natural abhorance many people have for Polanski is ridiculous. You don't have to be a paragon of virtue to know not to rape children, you also don't have to be perfect for me to be interested in your work, just please don't rape children as it makes me not want to support you.
If you like that, you'll love this.
http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/02/19/movie-review-the-ghost-writer-this-review-includes-an-exclusive-note-from-alfred-hitchcocks-ghost/
There's about a billion light years on the moral scale between "pure behaviour" and "ass raping a child". Maybe more. That first paragraph makes what could be a good point in a very, very weak way. There's a place for flippancy and hyperbole and it's nowhere near child sex abuse. Thing is, it's not that some people will "insist on watching the film through that prism", it's that some people have a harder time forgiving Polanski's very serious crime and consciously forcing that knowledge from their minds in order to be entertained for 2 hours.
and yet, #3 and #13 both manage to spell "schism" wrong, correct use or not …
Jeebus H Christmas what a totally expected chest thumping brigade of idiots. "He raped a girl" or "She doesn't care anymore", neither viewpoint makes any difference. FFS. Get this into your thick heads. The US isn't going after him for the rape. They're going after him for escaping their justice system after conviction rather publically and for a long time. Whether the girl involved gives two hoots these days doesn't mean a thing, that's NOT why they're making a public spectacle of him. It's for evading jail for so long and making them look like idiots.
Beyond that, anyone who can't watch a movie by him because of what he's been accused of, get over yourselves. Charles S Dutton murdered a guy but I'll bet you all still would watch Alien 3 (if it was a decent film, that is), yet I consider murder worse than rape funnily enough. Whoops, no watching re-runs of The Soprano's because one of the actors was involved in killing a cop. Damn, you can't ever watch The Blues Brothers, American Werewolf or Animal House ever again because Landis is a fucknut who basically killed three people. Whoops, you can't ever watch a Mickey Rourke movie because he's banged hookers, which supports the illegal sex industry that ruins so many lives. No more Eddie Murphy films for you – he was potentially involved in murdering a transexual.
In short, get a fucking grip. If you can't seperate art from artists private lives, then don't ever partake of art again because an awful lot of artists do rather nasty shit from time to time. "Oh but Hint, rape is so much worse than blah blah blah!" Go fuck yourself. Taking drugs supports a massive illegal drug industry that kills thousands and imprisons even more. Not to mention provides a means of control for the people forcing a lot of women into the sex trade, not too mention underage kids. It's all connected. Railing against Polanski and not railing against the rest is being a hypocrite. Enjoy the movies for what they are.
#3: Go toss off. The "victim" forgave him. He already had some time served.
Anyone can separate the artist from the art if the viewer can be an adult.
How many people walked out of Apocalypse Now or 100 other movies that used a Wagner piece? Wagner was a staunch anti-semite and his music used posthumously as the soundtrack for the Third Reich. And yet we still use his music in films & at weddings (the traditional wedding march). Put your big boy panties on & grow up.
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.