Blu-ray Review HTF Blu-ray Review: THE GHOST WRITER (1 Viewer)

[ManW_TheUncool]

 

Originally Posted by Michael Reuben

Do you mean "poorly done" because it's a flipper, or are you referring to some other aspect of the disc (and, if so, which one)?
Â

I meant the censoring edits that were done poorly although there was just one or maybe two opinions posted along that line -- the rest just didn't want it edited for censorship reasons at all.

 

_Man_

 

[Michael Reuben]

Originally Posted by Man-Fai Wong

I meant the censoring edits that were done poorly although there was just one or maybe two opinions posted along that line . . .

 

If this counts for anything, I've seen the film both theatrically and on Blu-ray, and I don't share that opinion.

 

[Jeff Swindoll]

I rented the Blu through Netflix and it wasn't a flipper. Liked the movie very much. Even liked the last scene,

 

somewhat arty showing windblown papers instead of showing that.
I did figure out the secret well before that though. Still enjoyed it.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Jeff, I added spoiler protection, because that first sentence showed up in the thread preview.

 

[Jeff Swindoll]

Ok, thought I was okay since I didn't say what wasn't shown. Mea culpa.
 

Originally Posted by Michael Reuben

Jeff, I added spoiler protection, because that first sentence showed up in the thread preview.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

 

Originally Posted by Michael Reuben
 If this counts for anything, I've seen the film both theatrically and on Blu-ray, and I don't share that opinion.

Michael,

 

I thought the US BD has the theatrical version, so the edits would be the same, no? Do you just mean that you didn't feel like anything's missing due to the edits even though you haven't seen the uncensored version? OR did you actually see the uncensored version theatrically (or maybe on a non-US BD) somewhere?

 

Anyway, I don't want to get it on the flipper format (unless it's at some bargain bin price or similar). OTOH, I suppose it's quite possible that the edits actually make the film better for all I know...

 

Thanks.

 

_Man_

 

[Michael Reuben]

Originally Posted by Man-Fai Wong
 

I thought the US BD has the theatrical version, so the edits would be the same, no? Do you just mean that you didn't feel like anything's missing due to the edits even though you haven't seen the uncensored version? OR did you actually see the uncensored version theatrically (or maybe on a non-US BD) somewhere?

 

I mean, simply, that I don't think there's anything "poorly done" about the film released in U.S. theaters with a PG-13 rating and reproduced on the Blu-ray I reviewed -- and I've now seen it twice, and parts of it three and four times.

 

Whether the experience of the film would be significantly altered by the addition of language that would qualify it for an R rating is something I'm in no position to judge. It's not uncommon for films to be shot and edited for an R, then re-edited for release to be PG-13 (though I agree with prior comments that The Ghost Writer is an odd choice for such treatment). In my experience, sometimes the difference is meaningful, and sometimes it's not. So much depends on the nature of the film and the elements it uses to achieve its effects.

 

[Southpaw]

Originally Posted by Hollywoodaholic

What a nifty, old-fashioned spy thriller. Hitchcock would have been thoroughly impressed (and proud of all the techniques 'borrowed'). The passed note is pure homage to the glass of milk in Notorious. If only it had the Bernard Hermann score that it begs for.

 

But this is a master director who just knows how to shoot a well-told story with a compelling, non-stop sense of unease. And a perfect cast. Great stuff. I shudder to think what the Hollywood Studio version of this would be (loud and noisy and jerky and short attention span theatre - in other words, Vantage Point).

 

And please folks, separate the art from the artist. If you took away all the music, movies, paintings and books created by assholes, jerks, criminals, misanthropes, misogynists, perverts, addicts, or just damaged egomaniacs, there'd be very little left of any worth. Sometimes it's what they're escaping from (the ugliness of who they really are or how they feel) that drives them so relentlessly toward crafting something beautiful or masterful.

Agree with all your comments. Don't care for the man but boy can he put together a film.

One thing I thought about after the movie that wasn't clear to me. A macguffin perhaps?

 

 

After landing the job in London, Ewan's character walked out of the building with that lawyer's manuscript to look over when he was attacked by 2 people on a motorcycle. They then stole the manuscript. Who were we to assume those 2 people were and why did they steal something that ended up having no importance in the film?

 

[Michael Reuben]

Jason, in answer to your spoiler-protected question:

 

I was careful to write around this in my plot summary, because the theft of the manuscript is one of those open-ended items that I think you're supposed to wonder about throughout the film. After several viewings, I see several possibilities. One is that Kroll, as Lang's attorney, was testing the waters to see whether McAra's death was truly accidental or indicated that someone was "concerned" about Lang's manuscript. Kroll knew that, if the GW left that meeting with a manuscript under his arm, anyone shadowing him would assume the manuscript was Lang's. If they tried to snatch it, Kroll would know that there was heat on Lang and act accordingly (whatever that might mean).

 

Of course, this assumes relatively innocent motives on Kroll's part. We don't really know what was in that manuscript. Suppose Lang had confided in his attorney and shared with him the message that Lang had encoded in the real manuscript. In that case, the manuscript handed to the GW might have been a decoy that Kroll knew would be snatched and that was designed to mislead the CIA into thinking the Lang manuscript was harmless.

 

Yet another possibility: The "muggers" are working for Richard Rycart, whose loyalties are never very clear. Kroll suspects that Rycart is out there gathering information on Lang, and the manuscript is a test of that theory.

 

Isn't it wonderful how little you can be sure of?

 

[Hollywoodaholic]

This was definitely the thinking person's picture for the past half year, and holds up better under repeated viewings than Inception.

 

 

And I agree that initial manuscript was merely a probe. But speculating is half the fun.

 

[Southpaw]

Originally Posted by Michael Reuben

 

 

 

Okay, I was kind of thinking along the lines of your last paragraph. I think the muggers were working for Rycart. I just don't see how Kroll could assume that a decoy manuscript would be stolen. The way Rycart acted when he got his hands on the actual memoirs at the diner sort of lends credence to the theory.

 


 

 

[Rick Thompson]

Originally Posted by Hollywoodaholic

This was definitely the thinking person's picture for the past half year, and holds up better under repeated viewings than Inception.

 

 

I must be an unthinking person, because I rented this and was bored out of my mind. I like Pierce Brosnan, but am I glad I didn't purchase "Ghost Writer."

 

Hitchcock it ain't.

 

[Zack Gibbs]

This movie needs a discussion thread.

 

Thoughts;

 

 
Edit; Did the forum eat my discussion?

 

[Michael Reuben]

 

Originally Posted by Zack Gibbs

This movie needs a discussion thread.

 

There is one. A search should bring it up. (EDIT: I forgot -- it's listed in the sidebar as a related thread.) It has zero entries.

 

This thread is here, because I asked Adam G. to request a review copy. I thought this film was worth more attention, and limited-release films don't get that until they hit Blu-ray.

 

[Scott Shanks]

 

Michael,

Just a couple of minor quibbles about your review:

1. I didn't get the impression that McAra was a former aide to Lang, just the ghost writer assigned to do his memoirs.

2. McAra wasn't just helping Lang to write his memoirs, he was the one doing the writing.

3. George W. Bush was not an avid runner. He was an avid biker.

 

Really enjoyed the movie and enjoyed the ambiguity of the ending.

Thanks,

 

[David Wilkins]

Originally Posted by Zack Gibbs

This movie needs a discussion thread.

 

May as well christen this review as the official discussion thread. The review itself is a great reference and starting point.

 

[Edwin-S]

Michael Reuben posted:

 

Suppose Lang had confided in his attorney and shared with him the message that Lang had encoded in the real manuscript. In that case, the manuscript handed to the GW might have been a decoy that Kroll knew would be snatched and that was designed to mislead the CIA into thinking the Lang manuscript was harmless.


 

however, shouldn't that be

 

 

McAra's coded message? Lang appeared to be a clueless dupe who wasn't even aware that his own wife was a recruited CIA agent. If Lang had encoded the message I think he would have spoken in the first person rather than the third.


 

 

 

Polanski may be a low-life whose celebrity and money constantly protects him from his just desserts, but his acumen as a filmmaker can't be denied. This film is further proof of that. It is an old school thriller that doesn't need to rely on dozens of graphic murders to generate "tension". It is well constructed and never boring even though it contains very little actual action. I thought it did have a couple of weaknesses: the biggest being the

 

 

too convenient left over instructions in the GPS of the SUV. I found it hard to believe that two professional CIA hitters would not ensure that the memory of that device was wiped clean.
I also thought the acting of the two women felt forced when they were crying on the GW's shoulder. Neither of them came off as very genuine. To me, there didn't seem to be much chemistry between either of the women and the GW: certainly not enough for him to be a convenient shoulder to cry on.

 

One other thing I found interesting was
 

the car "chase". It is interesting how Polanski constructed that scene so that, as a viewer, a person is left with the impression that McGregor was recreating the exact actions of his predecessor after leaving Emmet's house, including turning off into the deadend side road in an attempt to throw of his pursuers. Polanski basically created a flashback without actually showing a flashback scene.
At least that is the impression that I was left with. This was a very good film that I had never heard of before reading this review.

 

There were trailers for two other films that looked promising. I can't remember the name of the one, but "Triage" looked interesting. It's directed by the same fellow who did "No Man's Land".

 

[Zack Gibbs]

Discussion;

 

First, given that politicians write the history books, I like that the title can refer to Ruth. How many put that together, show of hands? The subject is probably more ambiguous when it's titled just "The Ghost," like the book and European release was.

 

Regarding the GPS, Edwin. Who are the two professional CIA 'hitters?' Tom Wilkinson, understandably, has to keep his distance from Lang. He's not going to have access. And Ruth isn't exactly a field agent. She was recruited at a very young age (implausibly young really, Olivia Williams was 6 in 1974, so she's playing a much older character.) and immediately went into service as Lang's 'Ghost.' She's not a spy, they hired her to be what she was; a politician. I can let that go.

 

The numerous implausibilities regarding the ridiculously simple coded message in the manuscript are far more bothersome, but hey you gotta have a movie. And I can pretend the code was much more difficult, and only simple in the movie so the audience can 'experience' it.

 

I ponder Kim Cattrall's role in everything. At the end she is wholly responsible for everything that happens to GW. She tells him about Tom Wilkinson's relation to Ruth, clarifies the CIA's interest in the manuscript, clarifies "beginnings." And She's the one who invited him, the only reason he was attending. It seems too much to take at face value.

 

[Michael Reuben]

 

Originally Posted by Scott Shanks  

Just a couple of minor quibbles about your review:

1. I didn't get the impression that McAra was a former aide to Lang, just the ghost writer assigned to do his memoirs.

 

The dialogue is explicit that McAra had been with Lang for a long time.
 

Originally Posted by Scott Shanks  

2. McAra wasn't just helping Lang to write his memoirs, he was the one doing the writing.

 

That's an interesting point. Nowhere in the film is it explicitly stated who wrote what. And if McAra was the author, why was the thing so hopelessly dull? More importantly:

 

If Lang had no responsibility for creating the manuscript and encoding a secret message in it, why was he killed? One would have to go with the theory that his assassin was just a lone gunman crazed with grief -- one who just happened to penetrate tight security to end up on the airport roof at just the right moment, after seeking out the GW at his hotel (when he was the only one staying) to establish a pattern for the police to ask about and make the GW the principal witness, etc. etc.

 

I don't buy that theory at all. I think Lang was onto his wife and was assassinated to clean up the operation. But I can't "prove" that any better than anyone else can prove the contrary.

Originally Posted by Scott Shanks  

3. George W. Bush was not an avid runner. He was an avid biker.

 

It's a quibble not worth debating, but I've seen too many pictures of Bush jogging and read too many accounts that refer to the activity. Also, the story of the collapse while jogging that lead to his sobriety is part of the official biography. If you prefer, think of it as a devotion to "exercise".
 

Originally Posted by Edwin-S

Michael Reuben posted . . . however, shouldn't that be


McAra's coded message? Lang appeared to be a clueless dupe who wasn't even aware that his own wife was a recruited CIA agent. If Lang had encoded the message I think he would have spoken in the first person rather than the third.

 

You have a point, but speaking in the first person would risk a lack of clarity, which is especially dangerous when one is dealing with covert plots and conspiracies. Explicit language is preferable. Also, see my comments in the spoiler above. There are no clear answers in this story, which is one of the things I love about it.

 

[Zack Gibbs]

 

Was Lang onto it all? I don't think so, but there is material to suggest he could be. Ruth says he always used to take her advise, but recently had not.

 

But personally I don't think he had anything to do with the code. That doesn't make his death a coincidence from a lone gunman. He was killed after GW exposed his own theory. It may have been funny to Lang at the time, but he was given enough information that he most certainly would have put everything together very soon. So they took him out.