MovieChat Forums > The Ghost Writer (2010) Discussion > flaw: first ghostwriter's death

flaw: first ghostwriter's death

posted 9 years ago by eyelikefilms
16 replies | jump to latest

Great movie, but isn't there a logic flaw at one point? When the ghost is driving around on the island with a bike, he meets this older guy, who tells him that people with flashlights have been to the beach where the body of the first ghost was washed ashore. He also tells him that with the current the way it is, a body that falls into the water from the ferry could never be washed ashore on this spot (suggesting foul play). But my question is: The first ghost clearly is killed on the ferry, which we know from the abandoned car at the beginning of the film. A plausible course of death would be that the agents have thrown him into the water and that he has subsequently drowned (instead of falling into the water because of too much booze). But what the hell? It doesn't make a difference where the current takes you if you fall into the water or if you get pushed! Or is the suggestion of the movie that the first ghost gets drowned aboard the ferry and then gets dumped at the beach? Not very likely, I think. I find this sort of annoying in an otherwise great film. Or has anything escaped my attention?

[–] caracallac 9 years ago

The implication is that Mike (the first ghost writer) wasn't killed on the ferry. Rather he was taken off the ferry, probably drugged for interrogation and killed somewhere else before being dumped on the beach.

[–] eyelikefilms 9 years ago

This seems indeed the only possibility, although I have always considered this solution to be somewhat implausible. A ferry seemes a perfect place for a murder, not for a kidnap. But thank you.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tremas-1 9 years ago

Here's another scenario. Mike McAra was never on the ferry. Some conspirator drove his car onto the ferryboat, then got off the ferryboat and remained on the island. Meanwhile, McAra was being filled with booze by his captors, so his eventual death could be blamed on intoxication. Once he was unconscious, he was dropped into the sea, offshore, or drowned in a bathtub and then dropped into the sea.

[–] hilaryjrp 9 years ago

This is definitely the scenario I always imagined. How could anyone predict where a body would wash ashore? Of course it can be argued that the body washed ashore by accident and that it wouldn't have mattered if it had washed out to sea. But it seems the point of the cabal behind the murder that the body's discovery is meant to send a message to Reichart and his partisans.

[–] I_Created_U 9 years ago

It's unlikely since the car's navi had Benett's address as last itinerary, which suggests that Mike indeed went to Benett's and was kidnapped on the way back, probably drugged, put in another car's trunk, brought to an undisclosed location to be interrogated and filled with booze, then thrown into the water close to where he washed up.

Also, it stands to reason that Mike wouldn't have been killed before having visited Benett, just like the ghost was chased after having been there too. So everything points indeed to the fact that he was killed/kidnapped on the fairy.

That's how i see it.

People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs

[–] DaveBowman2001 8 years ago

Yes, I think it's more akin to this. 3x alcohol level is kind of a code that it wasn't an accident.

[–] markfilipak 9 years ago

My first comment is a quibble.
Mike McAra was not "the 1st ghostwriter". He wasn't a ghostwriter at all, and nowhere in the film is he called a ghostwriter. I suspect he was to be co-author. According to the film, McAra was one of Adam's principal aides. As such, there's no way that he would have been anonymous. From the comments about his press releases I'd say he was Adam's publicist, though in The Ghost's opinion, he certainly was not a novelist.

Second, McAra was not on the ferry on the day he was murdered.
You point out yourself that "...people with flashlights have been to the beach..." If they'd dumped McAra overboard from the ferry, they wouldn't have been on the beach that night, not any beach, not any night. They wouldn't have needed to be on that beach. No. They were on the beach dumping McAra's body, on that night, on that beach. I know you know that, but you go on to fall for the bait that McAra "...clearly is killed on the ferry..."

You know, Hitchcock could do the same thing: Put something right in front of people, and still have them believe something else. Polanski is similarly skillful with his red herrings. They both can slip things in that people don't notice until they've seen the film 4 or 5 times. I sometimes think that Roman Polanski is channeling Hitchcock's spirit.
_____
I don't have a dog. And furthermore, my dog doesn't bite. And furthermore, you provoked him.

[–] hilaryjrp 9 years ago

Mike McAra was not "the 1st ghostwriter". He wasn't a ghostwriter at all, and nowhere in the film is he called a ghostwriter.

Don't know about the novel, but in the film, McAra is not a co-author. These are memoirs! For that reason alone, the book had to be credited to Adam Lang. The idea to use the first letter of each chapter as a code, however, has always bothered me. If the writing was so bad McAra was needed: this suggests the original manuscript was Lang's. If the original manuscript was Lang's...who came up with the code?

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] thepooles-1 8 years ago

By visiting Emmett's home with the damning evidence he had doomed himself. Only possibility is that he was drugged and taken off the ferry in another car. He was then taken to the beach and properly drowned so sea water would be in his lungs for a coroner to declare his death a drowning. It is all very grim contemplating there are operatives in the CIA who could murder on command.

[–] hilaryjrp 8 years ago

I re-watched the film for at least the twentieth time this afternoon. I highly recommend the commentary by Robert Harris.

[–] thepooles-1 8 years ago

I did watch the commentary. It must have been a blast for him to collaborate with Polanski in figuring out what would work and what wouldn't Film is indeed a collaborative medium. Harris evidently admires Hitchcock but I felt the ending was forced and out of character for the ghost writer who by then knew what he was up against. I also felt Ruth's character was never "explained". Why WOULD a young woman go undercover for the CIA? Sexual demons?

[–] hilaryjrp 8 years ago

Funny you should mention this. I also, watching it yet again, found myself wishing that Ruth's character had been explored somewhat more. However--that's exactly why I commented on watching the Harris commentary. He and Polanski apparently share a vision, at least according to Harris, that I also share, namely, letting the story be the only meaning. This is particularly effective, but also particularly maddening, when it comes to mystery plots. I'll have to re-watch the commentary (!) and write down Harris' exact words, because they made me look up from whatever I was doing and nod in appreciation. I find, though, that in many, many mysteries, we never learn enough about characters who really deserve attention. This could be seen as a weakness of mystery writers--having the strength of plot more than of how character influences plot. Or it could be a strength of mystery writers, in that (for me, at least) mysteries/thrillers are the only true forms of dramatic narrative that merit re-watching or re-reading: characters in and of themselves simply aren't that interesting. Individual human beings just aren't all drama would have us cracked up to be.

[–] thepooles-1 8 years ago

Another pivotal character who was left semi developed at best was Wade's brother Rolph in AFFLICTION. Wade knew he had been afflicted by their father's sadistic temperament but Rolphe never caught on to why he sought the life of the mind and a somewhat detached engagement with others. Wade reminded him that both of them had been afflicted by their father's abuse.

[–] parkerzielinski 8 years ago

I'm not sure why or how you get a young woman going undercover in the CIA equals sexual demons?