“Could this be how Polanski views his own situation? Either way, the result is exile. Something Polanski knows about. Something he must have taken into consideration on the set, considering it’s set in Cape Cod – yet he cannot go there. The general mood of isolation is deftly captured.”
First off, I’d like to say that I’m a big fan of the film. Thought it was one of the better crafted films of last year.
As for the quote up there, I’ve read about this in articles, and it’s safe to assume that Lang’s forced exile reflects that of Polanski’s. I don’t want to go too far into controversy here, but if, like the film implies, there’s more to the story than meets the eye, then yes. Polanski is definitely channeling some of his own isolation and frustration into this film.
When you say criticism of the press, what do you mean? Press as a whole? Or the way the media has fixated on that one event in his life, and defined him through it?
I think the film had great dialog, but it’s one of those films where the ending was so stupidly contrived it destroyed the fantasy. That note might as well have read “Please murder me.”
I don’t think Lang’s characterization was sympathetic, but it was less unsympathetic than the reaction to him. The audience is led to assume he’s at the heart of the conspiracy when really he’s just a conservative button-man who honestly believes in cowboy diplomacy and was put in his position of power because he would naturally do what the CIA wanted him to. As the audience is led to assume this, the liberal counter-reaction assumes it too. I think Polanski wanted us to realize “Hey, we’re getting mad at the button-men instead of the conspiracy as a whole”.
“When you say criticism of the press, what do you mean? Press as a whole? Or the way the media has fixated on that one event in his life, and defined him through it?”
More of the latter. Specifically, how the media are essentially outsiders in the story. Outsiders who are unfamiliar with the inner-workings of that particular realm. Outsiders who barge right in, pay attention to only the surface details, and they shove their work down the throats of an audience. An audience that is champing at the bit to vilify the person in question.
Mind you, those are not necessarily my feelings on Polanski (or Blair) in real life. But that does reflect what I felt while watching the film. I think that is what Polanski was going for. To create a sense of empathy for someone who is in a tough situation and is caught red-handed.
I’m reminded of a line of Lang’s:
“I think we should have two lines at the airport. In one line, we have no security screening. In the other, we have full security screening. Then we see which line the bleeding heart liberals put their kids through.”
In other words, Lang was not manipulated by the US into bringing the nation into war. He’s a die-hard conservative who believes it’s worth trading freedom for security, and taking lives in foreign countries to protect lives in your own.
I believe Polanski is saying, Blair did not go along with Bush because he was forced to, he went along because he agreed with Bush. I don’t know if he’s trying to make an allegory to his own legal problems. I think he’s calling the media on pandering to what the public would prefer the news to be rather than what the news really is.
“I think the film had great dialog, but it’s one of those films where the ending was so stupidly contrived it destroyed the fantasy. That note might as well have read “Please murder me.””
Yes. I’d agree. The ending with the message at the beginning of every chapter and the note was not worthy of the previous hour and a half.
“In other words, Lang was not manipulated by the US into bringing the nation into war. He’s a die-hard conservative who believes it’s worth trading freedom for security, and taking lives in foreign countries to protect lives in your own.
I believe Polanski is saying, Blair did not go along with Bush because he was forced to, he went along because he agreed with Bush."
Really? Then why did the film go to such great lengths to show that Lang was being manipulated by his CIA mole of a wife? Why the need for a CIA conspiracy at all, if that’s the intended message. The film directly states – and shows first hand – that Lang mostly follows the direction of his wife. His wife was CIA. So he was manipulated. If he believed in anything, it was because she lead him in that direction.
And this is where the political allegory really falls to pieces and just sort of becomes an uninspired genre-cliche. Is the real Mrs Blair a CIA mole? No. Does Blair really believe in Cowboy Diplomacy, or was he coerced by Bush? Well, I don’t know for sure, and the film never bothers to address this. Instead of making a statement about Blair, it devolved into a hokey little spy game which isn’t particularly relevant to anything in real life.
Which is why I’d argue that the film is less about politics and more about Polanski himself. In that area the film succeeds, and it doesn’t come into conflict with the (fun, but cliched) ending.
But, it was not Lang who was manipulated. They manipulated the system to get Lang in, because they knew Lang agreed with their point of view. Lang was saying what he really believed.
I think a lot of people prefer to believe that the war was the result of massive conspiracies involving political strongarming and oil interests, when really it was the result of a worldview held by the leaders involved that one’s own country is the only country of moral consequence, and that all is justified in the name of attacking one’s enemies.
…when really it was the result of a worldview held by the leaders involved that one’s own country is the only country of moral consequence, and that all is justified in the name of attacking one’s enemies.
That^.
“But, it was not Lang who was manipulated. They manipulated the system to get Lang in, because they knew Lang agreed with their point of view. Lang was saying what he really believed.”
Except he “really believed” in it because his wife lead him to that conclusion. The film establishes some key points about Lang: (1) He is an actor of a politician and really doesn’t have strong convictions (2) because his wife is the one that sets the agenda for him. There is a scene where The Ghost directly asks the wife if Lang “always does what you tell him?” and she responds in the affirmative. Much like The Ghost himself, who takes the job for the sake of a paycheck, Lang really is far more interested in the superficial aspects of his job. Notice how in the scenes where The Ghost attempts to revise his bio (i.e. get to what Lang is REALLY about) it quickly goes straight to everything but politics – his wife, his acting . Not politics itself.
Also, where exactly does it state that they manipulated “the system” (the voting system?) to simply get Lang in – but not influence him? I mean they made it pretty clear that Lang is rather ideologically aloof and his wife runs the show. They also made it pretty clear that his wife is CIA. I don’t remember anything that alludes to the idea that there really wasn’t a conspiracy at all, and it was just Lang’s belief in Cowboy Diplomacy that created the mess.
“I think a lot of people prefer to believe that the war was the result of massive conspiracies involving political strongarming and oil interests, when really it was the result of a worldview held by the leaders involved that one’s own country is the only country of moral consequence, and that all is justified in the name of attacking one’s enemies.”
In real life? Sounds great. But this really wasn’t in the movie. In fact the movie presents the exact opposite. In this film there is indeed a massive political conspiracy that involves Haliburton, CIA contacts at Oxford, and a mole of a wife who influences her husband. If the film wanted to state the opposite, then why bother to include the above?
per wikipedia:
“Harris said in a US National Public Radio interview that politicians like Lang and Blair, particularly when they’ve been in office a long time, become divorced from everyday reality, read little and end up with a pretty limited overall outlook. When it comes to writing their memoirs, they therefore tend to have all the more need of a ghostwriter.”
Yes. This is the real heart of the film, IMO.
No it’s not about Roman Polanski — it’s about Cherie Blair.
Cherie Bliair is a CIA “asset.” Tony Blair is her hand-puppet.
Outside of the fact that Tony Blair has yet to be assassinated everything in “The Ghost Writer” is absolutely true.
Uh, Riiigggghtttt…..
The Ghost Writer was first and foremost a murder mystery. I haven’t read the novel on which the movie was based. Maybe there is more an attempt to make it into a political thriller, but Polanski didn’t seem particularly concerned with this, he used Blair allusions to distract the viewer, as the clues to the mystery lied within the book itself.
What makes Ghost Writer particularly fascinating to me is how Polanski once again used a book as the center piece of his tale. He had done this in Rosemary’s Baby and even more elaborately in The Ninth Gate. Polanski has a passion for books and the secrets they hold.
The other thing that attracted me about this movie was the very clever spin he did on The Manchurian Candidate. Whether consciously or unconsciously I don’t know, but there were plenty of parallels. It was a wonderfully wrought story with a very fitting ending. I suppose if you were looking for a political thriller, you would have expected more in the end, but this wasn’t what Polanski was after.
“The Ghost Writer was first and foremost a murder mystery.”
Not really. The murder mystery is mostly incidental. It’s only significant because we know it’s part of a grand political scheme that the Ghost’s predecessor, Mike McAra, was unraveling. At no point is The Ghost investigating the murder of Mike McAra in and of itself. Rather, he’s picking up the ‘political conspiracy’ trail where McAra left off…
…A trail, which is, increasingly ridiculous as the film progresses. Which is which I find the whole thing hard to swallow as a political allegory.
Also, I don’t believe we ever lead the specific details of how McAra was murdered. So. it’s really not a murder mystery either.
The figures in the film are too similar to the actuals to be properly allegorical.
Then what would you call it? Or what was the film aiming for?
It was aiming at your gut. And apparently it was a bullseye.
I’d call it thinly-veiled political commentary in which the names have been changed to avoid legal issues.
But what’s the message of the commentary? That Blair’s wife is CIA? This where it really fails for me.
“But what’s the message of the commentary?”
That Blair’s prime ministership was “ghost written” by foreign (American) interests, interests that not only weren’t elected by British citizens, but probably weren’t actually even freely elected by American citizens. “Forget politics, Jake. It’s Chinatown.”
_Not really. The murder mystery is mostly incidental. _
I guess we watched different movies, as the mystery surrounding the previous ghostwriter’s death was hardly incidental. This is what drove the “ghost” on his quest. What was incidental was all the political intrigue meant to capture viewers imaginations like yours. Even the ending was no more than an Agathie Christie twist. There was nothing allegorical about this movie.
The whole think between Lang and his wife Ruth played out pretty much like The Manchurian Candidate.
Interesting interpretation Matt. I can see that. The CIA takes the place of Communist China in this case. The only problem is that Blair had long supported action in Iraq. He apparently tried to push Clinton into war but Bill was content to retain the “no-fly” zones. Polanski chose to play the political connections pretty close to the surface, avoiding any snags that might result if he delved too deeply. Plot was more important than political intrigue in this case.
The “lone gunman” was also interesting. One of several allusions to Kennedy, not least of all the Martha’s Vineyard setting, even if it was filmed in Denmark for obvious reasons.
I made a list of movies that came to mind watching The Ghost Writer.
“I guess we watched different movies, as the mystery surrounding the previous ghostwriter’s death was hardly incidental. This is what drove the “ghost” on his quest. What was incidental was all the political intrigue meant to capture viewers imaginations like yours. Even the ending was no more than an Agathie Christie twist. There was nothing allegorical about this movie.”
Ok, Then if the movie was about solving the Mike McAra murder, then please explain to me why…it uh…never gets solved. We never really learn how Mike McAra died. Did Ruth do it? The CIA? How’d they find out? Did Tom Wilkinson’s character tip off the CIA to silence McAra? We don’t really know because the Ghost was never really investigating it in the first place. He simply picked up where McAra left off; investigating the political ties of Lang. Which leads him to investigate just how a former teacher had connections to Halliburton and thus the CIA.
“The whole think between Lang and his wife Ruth played out pretty much like The Manchurian Candidate.”
What? He obey’s assassination orders that he forgets based on the fact that he was brainwashed? Again, per Wiki: “Harris hinted at a third, far less obvious, allusion hidden in the novel’s title, and, more significantly, at a possible motive for having written the book in the first place. Blair, he said, had himself been ghostwriter, in effect, to President Bush when giving public reasons for invading Iraq: he had argued the case better than had the President himself.5”
It was the ghost’s hunt for the reasons surrounding McAra’s or McCarron’s) death that drove the action in this movie, not Lang’s political problems or the eventual CIA connection that was uncovered. The Ghost’s job was to clean up a manuscript for a book publisher. It was when he became more curious in the events surrounding McAra’s death that the action started, not before. That was very clear to even the most casual observer. We eventually learn who killed McAra. Again, that was pretty clearly shown, although not stated which is apparently the only way it would satisfy you.
The funny thing about the wiki comment you posted is that it is the complete opposite of what was suggested in the film. [spoiler] In this case it was the CIA who was doing all the plotting, with Ruth Lang as one of their operatives, successfully influencing her husband’s foreign policy decisions. Hence, the allusion to The Manchurian Candidate, with the CIA replacing Communist China as the “ghost,” or “spooks” as CIA agents are sometimes called. [end spoiler]
In regard to Dubya, everyone knew he was a puppet for neocon interests. Cheney and Rummy were calling all the FP decisions in his WH, while Dubya watched ESPN sports news before going off to bed at 10 o’clock. It didn’t take Blair to convince the Bush WH of the need to invade Iraq, or write the script. All the US needed was a pretext and 911 suited the bill. They had to link Hussein to 911, build up a case for WMD’s and the WH had Congress in its pocket.
The relationship between Blair and Bush was effective in lending the war effort an international front. Bush had also managed to enlist Howard of Australia and Aznar of Spain. All of whom saw their political fortunes deteriorate quickly. Blair stuck by Bush for reasons we can only guess at it, as it ruined him politically, but to this day he doesn’t regret the choice.
Harris may get into this more in his novel, I haven’t read it, but Polanski wasn’t too interested in this. He used the political connections as intrigue, not as action, making a number of comments like Lang being out of of ICC jurisdiction as long as he remained in the US, but not delving in too deeply. Of course, as a viewer you can run with these connections, but in the end it is nothing more than a “McGuffin.”
[more spoilers]
More intriguing is the Ruth Lang/Cherie Blair connection. I don’t know if Harris and/or Polanski intended this, but David certainly seems to believe it is “true.” The relationship between Cherie and her husband is more similar to that between Hillary and Bill Clinton. Cherie has some pretty strong left-leaning stances and some rather odd New Age views to be seriously considered a CIA agent pulling the strings of Tony Blair, but I suppose in this cynical world we can view this as simply a “front.” Anyway, Cherie tried her hand at politics and failed, returning to her law practice where she does very well.
I have to think that it suited Polanski’s and/or Harris’ creative instincts to cast Ruth as a villain. It certainly made for a great twist in the end.
Shocked
After seeing it the first time around I picked up on the parallels between Adam Lang and Tony Blair, as most did. But on second viewing there really isn’t much beyond the surface when viewing the film as a political allegory. It really doesn’t make very striking or hard hitting comparisons. It just sort of has the trappings of a political allegory, but without really saying much. Sure, Blair was a lackey of the Bush Administration, but that’s like shooting fish in a barrel. It falls flat as a political allegory, mostly because it devolves into pure fiction past the mid-point; wives as CIA moles, assassinations, and coded messages. Total Hollywood genre film-making. Not necessarily a bad thing. Just not real life. Not even allegorical. Tough to draw hard hitting parallels there.
More impressive are the parallels to Roman Polanski himself. It seems we all agree that the source material links Lang with Blair to at least some degree. But because Blair fell out of favor with any good, civic-minded liberal a long time ago, there are many instances where the film empathizes with Lang’s character that seem to go totally un-acknowledged. People are holding up the real life Blair to this fictional character and they assume that he is the villain. I don’t think Lang is supposed to the the villain of the story. Instead, he is more of a scapegoat. Someone who has been unfairly thrown to wolves. Someone who gets manipulated and hung out to dry.
This is a character who is suddenly embroiled in a political issue that has snow balled into a wretched, mainstream, media circus. One that the general public can’t get enough of; A general public which, as we later learn, has virtually no understanding of what is really going on. This is pretty interesting. Could this be how Polanski views his own situation? Either way, the result is exile. Something Polanski knows about. Something he must have taken into consideration on the set, considering it’s set in Cape Cod – yet he cannot go there. The general mood of isolation is deftly captured.
The parties in opposition to Lang are hardly depicted as being civic-minded, either. More like a bunch of self-righteous, band-wagoning, media-chasing hypocrites. Look at how obnoxious the protestor is who runs into McGregor’s character. He seems to embody every negative stereotype one could apply to an activist. He’s a total hypocrite. He’s protesting in favor of peace, yet at one point threatens to kill McGregor for working with Lang. Here, the directorial intent wasn’t so much to show a guilty man’s lies being exposed before a just public. But, rather, to show how mindless and utterly clueless some people can be; ones who latch onto a story and think they know the full details. They so often don’t. Are they in search of the truth? Or in search of justification for their pomposity and self-righteousness? Either way, the film seems to portray the protestors as assholes. Coming from Polanski, why not? He’s been in the same situation. Not hard to imagine which party he sides with.
I though the most clever and effective scene was when Ewan McGregor awoke from his slumber at the hotel, only to see that his quiet, dreary, little hotel had been completely turned upside-down by the arrival of the press. The contrast between that morning and the night before is so jarring. As a viewer, I had become accustomed to the somber and isolated nature the setting. To see it disrupted almost made me upset. It’s a rude awakening to be sure. To see this media herd come in and totally disrupt the general mood of the town was so off putting. It almost conveys a lack of respect on the part of the media. To just come in and completely trample over everything just to get a crack at the next big story…hardly an example of journalistic integrity. And coming from Roman Polanski, this really isn’t hard to imagine.
I don’t want to make it sound as if the whole movie is built upon this idea. It may not have even been intentional. But this is where the heart of the film is in my opinion. This is what elevates it from being a well crafted but simple Hollywood yarn, to being something personal and far more interesting.
BTW – By putting the blame on others, the story seems to totally side step Lang’s culpability. What also caught my attention – to a lesser degree – was the fact that his rather cold and shrewish wife was the manipulator behind everything. The only other female character was a rather naive bimbo played by Kim Catrall. Kind of an interesting dichotomy; along with the Ghost being a somewhat selfish, amoral, and oblivious to the world around him.