web
counter
 

The Ghost in the Machine

By Brian Prisco | Posted Under Film Reviews | Comments (40)



the_ghost_writer_06.jpg

Hey, lookit that giant motherfucking elephant just sitting in the room, shitting in the corner, making a big ol’ stink. It is literally impossible for me to review this film objectively. Because no matter how good or bad it is, it’s going to be overshadowed by director Roman Polanski’s exploits. The merits of his artistry will forever be skewed — either tainted for those who eternally chant “Roman e Rapist” or the sycophants who feel necessary to bolster their appreciation as if touting praise for his work somehow defends him. Allegations of kiddie-diddling aside, Roman Polanski is simply a phenomenal director — imbuing all of his work with signature attitude, concussively mordant finales, and jarring wit. But we can’t put the allegations aside, because that’s how society works. Our history is resplendent with luminaries who have committed sins that forever mar their reputations, be they golden-showering rap stars, car-murderin’ first ladies, or dog fighting quarterbacks. We will never separate them from their work or deeds. I’m not going to even attempt to admonish you for what’s going to happen in the commentary on this article because the majority of you won’t even get the opportunity to ignore this movie and so will merely judge based on the fact that Roman Polanski supposedly committed a most grievous sin. If you want to be angry, that’s your right. I’ve got no business telling you not to hate someone based on prejudice. It’s why I’ve never seen a single minute of any Rush Hour flick.

The Ghost Writer is a low-impact thriller that wouldn’t be out of place on PBS or even a West End 99-seater. Instead of relying on massive car chases or shadowy men with sunglasses and black leather coats stalking our hero through footraces in towns with statuary and fountains, the film does what all excellent mysteries should do. It quietly gets on with the business while uncomfortably settling beneath you and itching at your brain. Polanski and Robert Harris — adapting the screenplay from his own novel — create a taut political espionage in whispers, ponderously letting the audience mire in serious unease as we watch our hero, The Ghost (Ewan McGregor), stumble about like an actor in the wrong play. There are murders and there are gunshots and car chases, illicit sex, and underhanded double-dealing, but it’s all done with such exquisite control and restraint. It’s a Bourne movie without ass-kicking, a Bond without flash and winks, and yet still manages to be thought provoking and entertaining. The only flaw was that Polanski was beholden to his own auteurishness, and so his conventions force his hand into making a Polanski flourish at the end. Instead of the awful gut punch you would expect from the man who gave us Rosemary’s Baby and Chinatown, you get sort of a burbled hiccup like a bit of undigested potato.

Former Prime Minister Alan Lang (Pierce Brosnan) has fled to the isolation of the bays of Massachusetts to assemble his memoirs. His longtime collaborator mysteriously washes up drunk and drowned onshore, and so the publishers and his cronies scramble to bring in a new ghostwriter. Enter The Ghost, who is never named throughout the picture, a gun-for-hire scribbler who takes the voice of his subject and makes it interesting. As he digs deeper into this story, the events unravel like a BBC miniseries, with secretarial mistresses, an intelligent wife being shunted aside, political scandal tearing the fabric of their happy lives. What could have easily been stock drama is cleverly played out, with the help of brilliant satire and some simply rock-solid performances. There is no showboating moment, no grand Shakespearean king clutching the goblet soliloquy. We simply watch a man entirely out of his element flounder and drown.

What helps to elevate the picture is that Polanski is so deft at creating the atmosphere and tone of his flick. There’s probably a lot going on that the film degree in me can’t help but acknowledge. It’s a chilly film — with every scene dark and drab and sodden and depressed. Rain has second billing in the flick, either scouring the barren New England landscape or laying strewn in black puddles. I don’t know if this is sort of a clever jab at American filmmakers’ tendencies to treat most of Europe, particularly London, with rainy disdain, but it covers the entire film with a shroud of mourning.

I know nothing about British political history, but if this is a commentary on Tony Blair, it’s quite literally a steel-toed kick in the trousers. Brosnan’s Lang is accused of crimes against humanity for his supposed involvement with the U.S. government in capturing four Al Qaeda extremists and torturing them in a secret CIA stronghold. The film alludes to Lang being nothing more than a pocket politician at the beck and call of the U.S. Lang’s self-imposed exile to a desolate New England island may even be because the U.S. is one of the few nations in the world that doesn’t recognize the jurisdiction of the Hague. Again, whether this is a dig at the U.S. in general, or specifically at the people who are demanding Polanski’s extradition to answer for his own crimes, I can’t say, but it’s still a fucking ballsier proposition than when I thought Polanski was remaking the late nineties PBS children’s show about the ghost-aided, mystery-solving kids. Particularly considering that Lang is more than likely guilty as sin.

Realizing that anyone who even murmurs support for Polanski is pretty hardcore fucked in the eyes of the outraged, the actors decided to act the motherfucking shit out of their parts. Don’t call it a comeback, Ewan McGregor’s not been a Jedi for years, but he’s finally starting to make headway on the promise of his early Danny Boyle work. His ghostwriter is delightfully pompous and snotty, sort of like the haute couture version of his TMZ counterparts. Pierce Brosnan is having a hell of a stretch lately on acting gigs, and his Lang is a wonderful mix of irascibility and schmooz. Thank Christ he never fell into the slippery post-Bond slope of his predecessors. Olivia Williams, the secret desire of any red-blooded male who’s seen Rushmore in his formative years, is fiercely setting the tent stakes to show that once the Redgraves and Mirrens shuffle off this mortal coil, she’ll be pleased as a steel gauntleted punch to step in. I got no beef against Kim Cattrall, but in this company she felt like the weak link. When Polanski’s able to pull the likes of Tom Wilkinson, the continually solid Timothy Hutton, and the staggeringly awesome Eli Wallach for bit parts, she’s just going to seem all Donny up in this piece — out of her fucking element. I’m not familiar with Jon Bernthal’s work, but he’s quite good as the exuberant agent to McGregor’s ghost. And I saved the stunner for last — Jim Motherfucking Belushi killing, just FUCKING KILLING, as John Maddox, the bull-necked American owner of the publishing firm. With a freshly shorn dome and that pug-ugly mug, he’s kind of got a thuggish Gandolfini in the good years vibe going, and I’m gonna give him the Tim Allen in Redbelt props he deserves. If this is what he wants to do to wash that taste of “According to Jim” out of our collective cerebra, I say, scrub away, my man, scrub away.

But none of that matters, does it? The Ghost Writer is a solid, dare I even say Alfred Hitchcock Presents quality piece of entertainment, a biting commentary on politics. It takes razor slashes at the U.S., albeit with less finesse than In The Loop, but still, for something as understated and ponderous, they read like old school Nintendo Tyson-grade jaw socks. And yet, nobody’s going to read between the lines, because Teen Rape Squad helmed the camera. Even more strange is that it appears to have been “mothertrucking” edited down to PG-13 by swapping f-missiles for Brit idioms like “sodding” and “bloody.” A bigger marketing block than the R rating is the pending massive jail sentence against the director. I’m not that enamored with the final product like some of my contemporaries to bother to forshame you if you want to hate him. That’s your business. Polanski’s is making movies, and he’s still got game.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Pajiba Love 02/23/10 | BBC/PBS Reinventing "Sherlock Holmes"









Comments

Polanski makes such fantastic movies.

Seriously, I can't think of a Polanski movie I've seen that wasn't great. He gets so much out of his actors...

...Yes, both his crime and his mealy-mouthed behavior in the aftermath are so fucking disgusting that I'd happily kill him with my bare hands.

*sigh* But eventually, I will see this movie.

Posted by: Jerce at February 23, 2010 2:13 PM

I'll watch it, and enjoy it. Yes, he's disgusting, but so are a lot of other people we all enjoy in cinema. The only difference is we know about his wretchedness.

Posted by: Smokin at February 23, 2010 2:21 PM

I wasn't sexually assaulted as a child but I did grow up in an alcoholic, abusive home. Then I went to foster care.

My father never went to jail, never suffered any consequences for his actions but even he was able to take responsibility for being a child abuser. He harbors no illusions about what he actually did to me and my brother.

With that said, I get it. You have a movie to review. And it is a good movie, even a great one. (I knew the second I saw that stupid, intensely intriguing trailer.)

But comparing a boycott of Roman Polanski films to your boycotting "Rush Hour"? REALLY? That's comparing apples to fucking landmines.

I am tired of the excuses.

No one is too special or awesome to be held accountable for their actions. Not artists, not politicians, not anybody. And I find that particularly true given the context of this very film.

I don't care if Roman Polanski is ever incarcerated. I do care, however, whether he can face what he did. What is his cinematic pursuit of the truth worth when he can't do that?

It's worth fucking nothing, Dustin. He IS Alan Lang in his denials and counter-accusations and evasions and general sleeze in the pursuit of self-interest.

Posted by: Hayden Tompkins at February 23, 2010 2:29 PM

You know, I remember when The Pianist came out and there were a few mumbles about him, but nothing like now. With the arrest and the rehashing, everything is so present in our minds right now it's difficult to look past and view this as just another movie. But I agree with Jerce and Smokin, I will see it and it will be good because he's really good at making movies.

Posted by: Katers at February 23, 2010 2:32 PM

Nice review Prisco. I don't envy you for having to write it. I'll probably check it out.

Posted by: admin at February 23, 2010 2:37 PM

I could have sworn that byline said Dustin. Whoops! Make that 'Prisco'.

Posted by: Hayden Tompkins at February 23, 2010 2:39 PM

"But comparing a boycott of Roman Polanski films to your boycotting "Rush Hour"? REALLY? That's comparing apples to fucking landmines."

It's called humor. Settle down.

Posted by: Skewicide Blonde at February 23, 2010 2:52 PM

ha! pbs' ghost writer. you totally too me back with that.

i love ewan, but i can't support rapey mcasshole.

on a side note tho, finally saw 'black dynamite'. pretty cute.

Posted by: gem at February 23, 2010 3:00 PM

*took*

Posted by: gem at February 23, 2010 3:01 PM

Ummm... they're not "allegations". He raped a child, plead guilty, and then fled the US to avoid sentencing.

Posted by: monkeyhateclean at February 23, 2010 3:14 PM

Ditto @ monkeyhateclean. There's no "might" if he admitted it.

Posted by: Ava at February 23, 2010 3:26 PM

Wasn't the plea deal only going to be like less than 5 yrs in jail but he panicked (tiny man in jail) and fled? This damn thing has now gone on for 30+ years!

Posted by: Bananapanda at February 23, 2010 3:40 PM

What a brilliant movie. As said Brosnan, Belushi and even that ginger Twat McGregor are just excellent (Cattrall couldn't grease a pole). Polanksi Rocks (and not just the under fourteen's). On that note Swiss jails must be sweeeet as he edited the movie in the clink. He really is a phenomenal director.
The past is the past ( he should have been arrested 30 years ago and not now )this is his work and not his private life, and we will miss him when he's gone!!!

Posted by: bob at February 23, 2010 4:02 PM

Nice review (as usual) Prisco. I've been a fan of Polanski's films for years, and I'm definitely going to see this. Whatever else he is, he's a haunted and genius director.

Posted by: Cindy at February 23, 2010 4:32 PM

Nice review blah blah blah...but who murdered a cat?

Posted by: Marra at February 23, 2010 4:52 PM

I have never liked any of Roman Polanski's films. I can completely separate my disdain for the director from the movie itself because I don't seem to like most of the popular directors.

I think my hatred was created early on when darling hubby made me watch "The Fearless Vampire Killers, or Pardon Me But Your Teeth Are In My Neck." Hubby thinks it's hilarious. It's the most unfunny, boring waste of a vampire movie I've ever seen.

Posted by: BWeaves at February 23, 2010 5:06 PM

I can see the merit in the argument that his art should be judged apart from his actions. If I were to be publicly judged for my most base actions and my lowest moments whenever I accomplished anything worth mention in my life, I probably wouldn't be able to stand up underneath the weight of it all either. I'm not a public figure though, and nowhere near as talented as Polanski, so my misdeeds are largely known only to me (and all those within shouting distance when I'm drinking tequila.)

What I can't stand though is the thought of me paying to see this movie and, in some small way, contributing to his already bloated defense fund. I can respect art for its merits apart from the personality and past of the artist, but I'll be damned if I willingly put my coin in such a horrible human being's pocket. I realize that there's a good chance that the bartender I tip, the barber I use and the hookers that I frequent are fare worse people and also don't deserve my patronage, but as of right now their basest sins aren't known to me.

Posted by: Roaddog at February 23, 2010 6:00 PM

*far worse people. Not "fair."

Need to learn how to proofread more betterer.

Posted by: Roaddog at February 23, 2010 6:02 PM

Fuck me running in the face. I even misspelled my correction. I surrender. I prostrate myself at the feet of the grammar and syntax god and ask that you show mercy. I am insignificant and a simpleton, not worthy of your fiery wrath.

Posted by: Roaddog at February 23, 2010 6:05 PM

"the staggeringly awesome Eli Wallach...."

Wait! Tuco is still alive!

Posted by: KV at February 23, 2010 7:37 PM

Regarding your first and last paragraph: Shut up, Prisco.

The rest of your review is great.

Posted by: dene at February 23, 2010 8:47 PM

Roman Polanski is the most talented ass-rapist directing movies today. And he did not "allegedly" do anything -- he has never denied it.

Posted by: jvon at February 24, 2010 2:44 AM

I read an interview with the victim in which she said she was sick of the incident being rehashed every few years in the media and she (and her family and kids)would much prefer to get on with their lives in peace. I'm divided on the Polanski moral/legal issue but I respect her view. Just sayin.
I've loved most of his films regardless.

Posted by: cinekat at February 24, 2010 4:31 AM

I can separate the artist from the art, sure thing.

But Polanski can't. I don't doubt the film is really well done, but I can't get past the idea that making a film about war criminal politicians we allow to be above the law is all just Polanski saying "How dare you punish me when look at what these bastards are getting away with?"

He does have a point--we ought to be infuriated about all war crimes our elected officials get away with, instead of being nose-led by tabloid media to be scandalized and judgmental about Polanski's crime. Except for that fact that he's as guilty as those he accuses in his film. Right down to the "getting away with it" part.

Posted by: ChaChaHeels at February 24, 2010 7:41 AM

The documentary "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired" raises some interesting questions about the conduct of the judge at the trial, the portion of time he has already served for the crime, etc. It's definitely worth a watch if you are trying to form an opinion on the matter.

Posted by: Desiree at February 24, 2010 10:33 AM

Nice review Prisco... And I have no doubt that this movie is well-made and well-acted. My thing with Polanski´s work is that, if he didn´t skip town after being found guilty, so much of it would never have been made in the first place. And therefore it really shouldn´t have been made, regardless of how good it is. I´m not some holier-than-thou douchebag, and I would never think it´s my place to judge someone else for going to see a Polanski film, but for me... I don´t think I want to support the work of someone who has essentially stolen the right to make art, and stolen the right to profit from that art.

Posted by: b at February 24, 2010 10:47 AM

Yes, let us all forget that old, old incident. He has learned his lesson and probably buys his 13 year olds from "human trafficking agency" now. His movies are great, what do we care?
Blech.

Posted by: IB at February 24, 2010 12:28 PM

Cha Cha, I agree with the first paragraph of your post and am a bit ashamed that I was self-indulgent enough to see a movie by someone who, from what I know from the press, I do and should justifiably despise. That said, I saw the movie. Some thoughts:

The movie is beautifully crafted and the acting is incredible, with one exception: Kim Cattrall's horrific English accent. I didn't find her performance so bad, but her accent was like nails on a chalkboard. Also, Olivia Williams is incredible. I do hope she ends up with the level of fame that her acting talent deserves.

***Spoiler Alert***

My major criticism of the movie is that the premise is entirely implausible. The idea that a British politician would rise to power solely as a result of CIA intervention is laughable and could only be dreamed up by the most avid conspiracy theorist. I get that Robert Harris hated Lang/Blair's justification of the war in Iraq (who could hold the justification up as a bastion of direct truthfulness?), however, the litany of purportedly pro-U.S. decisions that Lang made in the movie were in British (and continental European), as well as American, interests. Also, it is a complete non-issue that the U.K. and the U.S. have chosen to pursue similar foreign policy, even in advocating for the war in Iraq and even in the detention, interrogation and torture (depending on how you define the term) of suspects/enemy combatants. The U.S. and the U.K. have been allies for many years and will continue to be for many years in the future. How is this a basis for scandal or a big reveal?

Posted by: TC at February 24, 2010 12:41 PM

TC, wasn´t Kim Cattrall born in England? I think she ended up immigrating to Canada but I swear I saw somewhere that she´s really British. Weird then that her accent would be bad. Maybe she just has an annoying voice in general?

Posted by: anyc at February 24, 2010 3:56 PM

I'll see it after Polanski is dead and I know my money isn't going into his pockets. Child-raping scum.

Posted by: ziggy at February 24, 2010 4:54 PM

When it comes to my money, or my cable-viewing stats, I give none to those by whom I am repulsed. I don't give a damn how good the product. Shame, because this review makes the acting in the movie tough to resist. Yet, resist I will.

Fuckers like Polanski or mere moron irritants such as Sean Penn and Tim Robbins retain their position (and soapboxes) in life due to their success.

Not one damned red cent of my money will support those with whom I disagree so profoundly and, Polanski may be at the top of that list.

Posted by: jmflynny at February 24, 2010 9:58 PM

Ugh.
Good old Rapist Polanski.
He can work a camera. Kudos.

I might watch it illegally. At least that way I'm stealing from a rapist. Which does make me feel good about myself.

I just wish I could do more. Like stone him.

Posted by: Ren at February 24, 2010 11:02 PM

TC, I don't think the big scandal of the movie is a scandal or shock to anyone (well, actually, I think there are quite a lot of extremely ignorant people in the world who still believe Blair and Bush and Obama did and still do the honourable thing regarding Iraq and Afghanistan and Iran and Pakistan and torture and and and) but the idea of all of it being plotted out via conspiracy? Why not? The CIA has to have some raison d'etre. It's also another parallel to Polanski's crime: a whole lot of people have conspired to keep him out of prison, and a few well known people conspired to help him commit the crime all those years ago, too. Hell, people are signing petitions now to let him go unpunished.

I wouldn't condemn anyone for watching the film, or even acting in it. I completely understand the victim of his crime wishing the media would shut up about it, and forgiving him for what he did to her (I'm one of those people who think forgiving is something you do for your own benefit). But her complaint is with the media. Wishing they would stop reminding her of her ordeal is different from saying "Polanski doesn't need to be punished for his crime".

Posted by: ChaChaHeels at February 25, 2010 8:24 AM

The only thing I am going to roast you for here is inconsistency. Where is the outrage and anger that we saw with Mel Gibson? As another poster commented, why boycott Rush Hour over this? It appears that you are willing on some level to overlook behavior when the work is good, but when it isn't then it is much easier to rail against. I think this movie looks intriguing and may even still see it, but I also am not the one who is yelling at Mel Gibson or boycotting Rush Hour. Consistency Dustin...just make sure to be consistent with your own character. Also, I think it appropriate that we don't separate the work from the man (or woman). It is clear what happens in one part of a person's life affects all others. On the other hand, I am also much more forgiving of things, especially when we know that not all that a person does is bad (Don Imus I suppose is another example of this).

Posted by: Brian at March 1, 2010 3:11 PM

I just made an ass out of myself...somewhere I thought that I saw that Dustin wrote the article...he didn't. Disregard most of the previous post.

Posted by: Brian at March 1, 2010 3:13 PM


the review is solid but the film assumes that everyone will be
outraged that the usa would consider torturing terrorists. what
is a war crime to some is common sense to others who believe
that the marquis of queensbury rules don't apply to fanatics
who think nothing of cutting off civilians heads with a pen
knife.

Posted by: snake at March 2, 2010 5:06 PM

you should check out Day Zero for some ridunkulous work by Jon Bernthal. Film is not w/o flaws but MAN this kid can fucking BRING IT. Sofia Vassilieva also teh bomb in that film.

Posted by: yoyo at March 5, 2010 12:48 PM

Hayden, don't you mean "apples to [i]sodding[/i] landmines"? I'm with the guy who is gonna watch this movie illegally, except I'm going to illegally break into his hosue and steal his real lesson. While I'm there, I'm going to burn all of his Mel Gibson and Woody Allen movies too.

Posted by: altan at March 5, 2010 11:25 PM

What movie were you people watching? It is a boring movie. I personally dont understand why that information would lead to murder in the first place. It made very little sense.

Posted by: JAY at March 15, 2010 1:01 PM

okay, this thread is dead, but...

Polanski never denied having sex with the girl. He thought she was of age, and claimed he was led to believe this by the mother of the girl who brought her to his house in an effort to get the daughter into acting. A party of sorts occurred, with lots of wine & alcohol...

... hmmmm, people have already decided the level of his guilt or innocence so nothing I say is going to change that. I'll STFU now.

Posted by: JoJo at November 15, 2010 4:06 AM