MovieChat Forums > The Ghost Writer (2010) Discussion > Don't think I got this movie...please ex...

Don't think I got this movie...please explain.

posted 10 years ago by escadamausgaby
8 replies | jump to latest

Spoilers ahead.
OK, I think I didn't fully understand the plot.
I am OK up to the point where the ghost writer, with the help of Rycart, thinks the big secret and scandal was that Lang himself was an English premier minister working for the CIA. If that had been the case, then the whole movie would have made sense to me.
But then, Lang gets assassinated, and the ghost writer finds out about Ruth being a CIA recruit...but what does it imply, exactly?
Does it mean Lang was a mere sock puppet, controlled by the CIA through his wife? And was he in on the secret or did he receive some kind of brainwashing? The movie seems to try to say that he truky believed in what he did and that would mean he didn't understand that he actually wasn't working for his own country's best interest, but that of the CIA.
Also, what is the relevance of the years "not matching up", I am talking about the different years that Lang supposedly entered University. If after all Ruth was the bad guy in this movie, and Lang was just being used, then why are the years relevant?

I'm confused. The whole Ruth development at the end just seems so anticlimactic.

[–] knight3136 9 years ago

It was imply that the United States has personals in academic institutions even in foreign countries that are out ally. There are only 4 nations the United States supposedly doesn't spy on ( New Zealand, Australia, Canada, United Kingdom) along with the United States they form the The five Eyes.

Mr. Lang didn't know anything of Mr. Emmett being identified as a spy or that his wife was also involve.

The years are very important because they lead to Mr. Emmett is a CIA agent. The first writer got hold of pictures through Rycart about Langs days in College.

Picture 1 - Mr. Lang and Emmett Drama club in Yale taken around 1971.

Picture 2 - Mr. Lang and Emmett taken in Cambridge while Emmett was getting his doctorate taken in 1974.

Picture 3 - Mr. Lang and Ruth from 1977 handing out flyers.

Picture 4 - membership card from Mr. Lang from 1975.

Emmett graduated in 1971 became part of CIA. From 1972 - 1974 he was at Cambridge. 1975 - 1979 lecturer at Harvard University. This is when he meets Ruth as she was a Fulbright scholar there and he was her tutor. He recruited her as a Britten citizen who would spy for the CIA.

The first ghost writer when he got hold of the pictures saw discrepancy with the year that Mr. Lang became a member of the party picture 3, and showing that he was a member before that picture 4. He became a member in 1977.

The ghost writer remembered that Emmett was identified as a CIA agent by a whistle blower. Seeing the pictures of them together and how he cooperated in the abduction of possible terrorists and hand them over to the CIA he also probably thought Lang was working for the CIA. But then he would have to ask himself how could he move up the rank within the party since Emmett was an American he won't be able to join political parties to become a politician.

He probably found out that it was Ruth with the connections, found out that she was at Harvard during the time Emmett was a lectuter.

This is my theory base on other things I saw. There is a picture of couples kissing. I wonder if that is of Ruth kissing Emmett or Lang. Emmett after joining the CIA went to Cambridge to look for possible spies to work inside political parties and organizations to keep and eye out for them. Since Emmett couldn't run for office why not recruit someone to become part of the labour paryt and move up the ranks. Since he probably couldn't get Lang to joined since he was more interested in probably becoming an actor and chasing college girl, Emmett recruited a female who would get Lang to join the political Labour party. Cambridge is close to Oxford so it is possible that from 1972 - 1974 Emmett met Ruth. After she graduated she became a Fulbright scholar at Harvard where she probably got training from the CIA, Emmett became her handler. She was probably instructed through her connections to get Lang inside and eventually prime minister. Through her handler she passes on what is going on and advises Lang on what he should do.

The membership card of 1975 was a fake created so he would have the backing of other members since they would have probably not allowed someone who just got into the party.

[–] markfilipak 9 years ago

But then, Lang gets assassinated...

Lang is assassinated by a protester, not the CIA.

...and the ghost writer finds out about Ruth being a CIA recruit...but what does it imply, exactly?

Paul Emmett, Adam Lang, and Ruth Capel were all owned by the CIA. The CIA had infiltrated Cambridge and much of Labor.

Does it mean Lang was a mere sock puppet, controlled by the CIA through his wife?

This appears to be a real source of confusion. Adam was supposedly non-political, a playboy, but then he joins the Labor party two years BEFORE he meets Ruth. In later time, to the ghostwriter, he lies about it. He claims he was NOT a Labor party member until Ruth got him to join Labor, supposedly in 1977. This implies that he was a CIA recruit from the git-go, in 1975. It also implies that he married Ruth because she was his CIA partner.

And was he in on the secret or did he receive some kind of brainwashing? The movie seems to try to say that he truky believed in what he did and that would mean he didn't understand that he actually wasn't working for his own country's best interest, but that of the CIA.

He actually did think he was working for the U.K.'s best interest. He could not see that the U.K. interests and the U.S. interests would/could/should ever conflict. He represents those in the U.K. who welcome the simple expedient that whatever's good for America is good for Britain. It's called the "Special Relationship", and it really does make life easier. Making a life in politics has a lot to do with getting and giving political cover. The U.S. can provide MASSIVE political cover.

Also, what is the relevance of the years "not matching up", I am talking about the different years that Lang supposedly entered University. If after all Ruth was the bad guy in this movie, and Lang was just being used, then why are the years relevant?

I think you know now. Question: What's important about a lie? What does a lie "tell" about the liar?
_____
I don't have a dog. And furthermore, my dog doesn't bite. And furthermore, you provoked him.

[–] geearf 9 years ago

Lang is assassinated by a protester, not the CIA.

Well we don't really know that... the protester could be a fake hired by the CIA or something. It was strangely so easy for him to be there at the right time, at the right point with his rifle... it might just be his experience, but it might be more.

Paul Emmett, Adam Lang, and Ruth Capel were all owned by the CIA. The CIA had infiltrated Cambridge and much of Labor.

I for one don't think Adam was, I believe he was just manipulated all along.

[–] markfilipak 9 years ago

Lang is assassinated by a protester, not the CIA.

Well we don't really know that... the protester could be a fake hired by the CIA or something. It was strangely so easy for him to be there at the right time, at the right point with his rifle... it might just be his experience, but it might be more.

Oh, Good Grief. If the film makers had intended for us to question whether the protester was actually CIA, they would have provided clues. Do you second guess every film you watch? If so, are you ever able to enjoy a film?
_____
I don't have a dog. And furthermore, my dog doesn't bite. And furthermore, you provoked him.

[–] geearf 9 years ago

We actually don't have any fact on anyone being CIA Adam, Ruth.. I mean even the prof is just an Internet rumor.
The fact that Adam gets killed once he's told about the CIA (or once someone again meets with the prof...) is suspicious to me.

If he was just a simple protester, how did he find the ghostwriter so easily? and at the same time the protester is in the hotel, the ghost finds that his room was visited... I take these as clues that he's more than he shows.
Again he doesn't have to be CIA, but maybe the CIA somehow let him get close or something like that... or maybe he worked for someone else...

[–] markfilipak 9 years ago

Since you're being nice, I pulled this out of storage and reviewed it.

If he was just a simple protester, how did he find the ghostwriter so easily?

According to the night clerk, the ghost writer is the only guest in the hotel (ref: 0:37:39). I imagine looking at the key hangers would reveal his room # -- the "missing" key.

and at the same time the protester is in the hotel, the ghost finds that his room was visited... I take these as clues that he's more than he shows.
Again he doesn't have to be CIA, but maybe the CIA somehow let him get close or something like that... or maybe he worked for someone else...

The CIA doesn't need to search the ghost's room. First, he just got there, and second, based on what we learn later, the CIA has already vetted the ghost. The protester, on the other hand, could guess that since the ghost is also British and since Adam is on the island way, way off-season, they are probably closely related. The protester knows that Adam is on the island. That's why the protester is there. So he puts two and two together and rifles the ghost's room.
_____
I don't have a dog. And furthermore, my dog doesn't bite. And furthermore, you provoked him.

[–] geearf 9 years ago

Since you're being nice, I pulled this out of storage and reviewed it.

Why would I not be?

According to the night clerk, the ghost writer is the only guest in the hotel (ref: 0:37:39). I imagine looking at the key hangers would reveal his room # -- the "missing" key.

Well yes, but he still got to the hotel in the first place. And to want to get to that room, he needs to know who's in there. How did he?
It could of course be a random occurrence that he showed up at that hotel and then went to the room while the ghostwriter was still at the bar, but I find it unlikely.

The CIA doesn't need to search the ghost's room. First, he just got there, and second, based on what we learn later, the CIA has already vetted the ghost. The protester, on the other hand, could guess that since the ghost is also British and since Adam is on the island way, way off-season, they are probably closely related. The protester knows that Adam is on the island. That's why the protester is there. So he puts two and two together and rifles the ghost's room.

You might be right, to me the whole thing is strange but I might be overreading into it.

[–] markfilipak 9 years ago

Why would you not be nice? Well, trolls are not nice and you could have been a troll. But you're not.
............ 8^)

You wonder how the protester "found" the ghost. I wonder this: Since the hotel has only one guest, the ghost writer, where is the protester staying? ...h'm, perhaps he's camping (see note later in this message).

Regarding how the protester "found" the ghost, I would imagine that the hotel bar is the only place to get a drink on the island. I think it's reasonable to assume that the protester is on the island in order to stalk Adam Lang -- note that we later see him camped across the street from the gated entrance to Marty Rhinehart's beach house where Lang is staying. If the protester went to the bar for a drink, then heard a guy with an English accent... Well, you can fill in the rest.

I find no fault with this film. It's not a favorite of mine, but I believe that it is well written. ...your mileage may vary.
_____
I don't have a dog. And furthermore, my dog doesn't bite. And furthermore, you provoked him.