Summary:
A ghostwriter finds his life in danger when he begins work on the memoirs of a controversial former British Prime Minister.
My Thoughts:
This year, one of my goals for TMM was to go through all of Polanski’s films. I’ve discussed in multiple reviews now the moral dilemma that comes along with watching a Polanski film, and I’m not about to defend my enjoyment of his films with every review. If you’ve got qualms with watching his films I urge you to look at my review for “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired (2008)”, a film that looks directly at the infamous Samantha Geimer/ Polanski incident.
As for “The Ghost Writer”…
I believe this might’ve been one of the first Polanski films I ever saw; though, at the time, I was unaware of whom Polanski was. I saw this film in theaters when it first came out in spring of 2010, and I remember thinking that it was a very decent film. In the fall of 2010, I attended film school, and my perception of what made a decent film shifted greatly. I had never revisited this film between my initial viewing and my rewatch last night, but I did remember some parts of this film quite vividly (the ending was seared into my brain). Eager to see if this film stood the test of time, I began my rewatch. I’m happy to report I was not disappointed.
“You ought not to be written out of history.”
A nameless Ghost Writer (Ewan McGregor, “Trainspotting”) is approached by a publishing executive (Jon Bernthal, “The Wolf of Wall Street”) to rework the memoirs of former British Prime Minister Adam Lang (Pierce Brosnan, ”Die Another Day”) only to find the new position might put his life in danger. As the Ghost discovers more about Lang and Lang’s wife (Olivia Williams, “The Sixth Sense”), he realizes that the highly controversial foreign Prime Minister might be hiding a huge secret.
As with most of Polanski’s films, the biggest flaw is the fact that it takes a while to get going. Polanski fans are used to his methodic slow burn first acts, so I anticipated waiting a bit for the film to ramp up, but I must admit that this film is a touch slower than most of his thrillers. The first half hour/ forty minutes of this movie aren’t dull, but they require patience. Our nameless protagonist spends time just getting to know the former Prime Minister and his wife, and we’re given only vague hints that something dark might be dwelling below the surface. I must admit I grew a bit restless as I waited for something to happen. Learning about these characters was mildly interesting, but I was more interested about the things that weren’t being addressed; that is, until act two starts up.
Things don’t seem quite right, and our Protagonist finds that his poking and prodding only leads to trouble. Unable to quash his curiosity, he continues pulling at a thread, and soon begins to unravel a mystery. The film takes a turn at about the forty-minute mark, and a sense of foreboding settles over the film. The decisions our protagonist makes seems to have increasing weight, and the film really starts to get intense.
The story and the direction used in this film is very reminiscent of Hitchcock’s “wrong man movies” like “North by Northwest” or “The 39 Steps”, in which the protagonist is usually an innocent bystander who gets wrapped up in some sort of criminal or spy activity. Polanki himself has made movies like this (“Frantic” and “Death and the Maiden” were also very Hitchcockian), and I’ve typically enjoyed the result. This isn’t one of Polanski’s masterpieces like “Tess”, “Rosemary’s Baby”, or “Chinatown.” I think his closest comparative movie would be “Frantic”. This film is a bit more polished and intricate than that film, though “Frantic” was a little more intense in terms of story.
Besides pacing, my biggest issues with this story are just the few coincidental moments that feel a bit farfetched. There’s a scene where McGregor rides his bike around the island on which his character is staying, and when it begins to rain he takes shelter at the nearest home. The owner comes out to talk to McGregor and reveals he had information about what happened to McGregor’s ghostwriter predecessor. That whole scene felt pretty coincidental, and the film couldn’t have progressed without it. There’s another scene where McGregor turns on a car and the GPS has a location already typed in, so he goes to that location instead of where he originally intended- that scene too, felt a bit forced.
As far as acting goes, everybody did a fine job. Pierce Brosnan did well enough, though he’s never able to bury himself in his roles enough that I think of him as anyone other than “old James Bond.” McGregor rides a weird line with me. He has never really blown me out of the water, but he always does a good enough job that I’m willing to believe that, given the right role, he could give an Oscar winning performance. This was one of McGregor’s better roles.
Verdict:
I mentioned above that this isn’t one of Polanski’s greatest films, though it is certainly worth watching. If you’re a fan of Hitchcock (“Rebecca”) or Depalma (“Sisters”) or Cronenberg (“Dead Ringers”), then you’ll probably enjoy this quite a bit. Know that the film is a bit slower in the beginning, but the ending is absolutely satisfying.
Review Written By: