Reviews

The Ghost
April 16 2010
Roman Polanski
Starring Ewan McGregor, Pierce Brosnan, Olivia Williams
Related reviews and interviews
No credits. No trailers. No marketing at all. Not even a title. This is how movies should be shown to critics. Otherwise the results can be messy. Reactions, appreciations and judgements can so easily get tangled up in the allure of reputation and the tyranny of oeuvre. Take The Ghost, for instance, the new movie from Roman Polanksi. Yes, Roman Polanksi – he of Rosemary’s Baby, Chinatown, The Pianist and much-troubled private life.
The movie opens in pulse-quickening style, with composer Alexandre Desplat’s strings hacking away on the soundtrack as a body is washed up on shore. Yes, we say, this is the Polanksi of Knife in the Water and of Repulsion. He’s back!
The film is based upon the Robert Harris novel, a thinly veiled attack upon Tony Blair, here called Adam Lang, and played with ophidian relish by Pierce Brosnan. Lang is holed up in his publisher’s mansion on Martha’s Vineyard where he is attempting to write his memoirs with the aid of a ghost writer.
The only snag is that Lang is being publicly pursued by a UN war crimes tribunal for his role in extraordinary rendition; he is hated by his wife, Ruth (Olivia Williams, playing Cherie Blair as a stony-faced martinet); he is somehow tangled up with the CIA; and his previous ghost writer has died under very suspicious circumstances. Enter an unnamed, novice ghost, played with a malformed cockerney chirp by Ewan McGregor, and the stage is set for a labyrinthine trip to the sinister base of political power. Well, that’s the plan anyway.
The reality, though, is a series of fundamentally dispiriting moments that are seemingly insulated from criticism by the Polanski brand. Thus a shockingly tedious opening conversation in a publishing office, when McGregor says, “And that’s what sells autobiographies – heart!” is clearly Polanksi being ironic, isn’t it? Or a red double-decker bus that passes clumsily across frame in an early ‘London’ scene is Polanksi being arch, no?
Then there are the countless pivotal scenes in Lang’s seaside office, where key conversations are played out against a fake seafront view (actually Brosnan walking in front of a green screen, with sea view inserted digitally, like a weather map on TV) – this must surely be Polanski playing with visual tropes, hinting us towards the disconnect between appearance and reality, yes?
However, by the time you get to the second act climax in which McGregor reacts to a piece of information with the expository yelp, “Oh my God! Do you realise how important this is? This explains why Lang went into politics!” you can only surmise, somewhat shakily, that this is Polanski ridiculing the tenets of the thriller genre, er, isn’t it?
Whereas, sadly, when the biggest narrative moment of that act is played out in front of a computer screen, with McGregor doing a Google search (yep, he uncovers the movie’s central narrative mechanics on Google), or when the entire film ends with the kind of cheap throwaway twist familiar to anyone who’s seen either Presumed Innocent or Sea of Love, you have to finally throw your hands in the air and admit that the whole movie is actually Polanski being, well, shit.



















Thanks Kevin, I thought I was losing the plot after reading the other critics.
Written by Jack on May 4th, 2010 at 21:00
i love this review. i too think the film was truly awful. i have literally no idea what virtually every other critic saw in this film. i started to hope it was a satire. this was Acorn Antiques on a grand scale.
Written by shrek on May 15th, 2010 at 13:11
Thank you for this review. This movie was at best a run of the mill TV movie and at worst – considering the reported 40 million dollar budget – the work of hack who shouldn't be allowed to direct another film. The film wasn't interesting, suspenseful or even shot that well. The bit with the note going up through the crowd might have been interesting if it was done 70 years ago about the time Hitchcock first did it.
Polanski gets more free rides than any director out there these days which makes me wonder. Is it now a good career move to rape drunk 13 year olds in this day in age or what? Dude, has made one decent film since Tess 100 years ago and no one says anything about crap like this. Unbelievable.
Written by Bill on May 16th, 2010 at 00:11
Saw this film on an airline flight yesterday. Lot's of shady characters featured throughout that were never really explained. I suppose this was to built suspense . I found the whole thing boring and tedious. I didn't know that Polanski did the film until the credits. Your right, leave that dude over seas, film sucked
Written by dicknixon on June 22nd, 2010 at 16:08
I actually enjoyed the film pretty well, but it didn’t leave much of a lasting impression on me, and I don’t really like the ending. I feel like the main character should have gone on to become someone important after the events of the movie, he seemed like he was just getting warmed up here.
Written by Dr. Eggnog on August 12th, 2010 at 22:41