MovieChat Forums > The Ghost Writer (2010) Discussion > Is Ruth Insane AND [SPOILERS]?

Is Ruth Insane AND [SPOILERS]?


I rewatch this film more times than I'd probably admit. I rewatch it for several reasons, among which is trying to figure out the animus toward it, toward the plot, and toward Ewan McGregor's character (or McGregor himself).

To say that it isn't "Chinatown" seems invalid, in respect to the fact that it and other recent noir films share very similar protagonists, none of whom are even hinted at being as individual as Jake Gittes is. "Michael Clayton" and "The American" (not to mention other late '00's foreign noir films) show men either of flimsy conviction, dubious morals, or characters lacking in depth--but getting into situations that test whether they will mature morally.

Having said that, and aware of the foul IMDB board posters who routinely come here to bash (beautiful) Olivia Williams, I found myself wondering if the whole mystery-CIA-car-of-death thing isn't related to Ruth Lang and to Ruth Lang alone. From first to last, this character complains about imaginary or real adultery by her husband, about her lack of parity with Amelia Bly in the looks department (and even with Cambridge coeds back in the day), and with the fact that a guy who sleeps with her wishes she had been gone in the morning. In fact, hers is the only character invested with depth; and so finally I wondered if she's just not plain crazy, and if the CIA-agent identity isn't a red herring.

It's true that some sinister government agency could have wiped out the Ghost at any time prior to the book signing. It's true that the Ghost isn't the brightest of writers (while, however, being one of the more empathetic and understanding), and that it's likely his presence at the book-signing may have been speculated upon by sinister government types, at which time a hit would be just terrible; and not at all connected with sinister government types .

On the other hand, it's possible that Ruth Lang is just plain crazy, and that, no longer in any position of power, and reduced to the role of wife that she herself deems insignificant, she has the car-of-death ready for one last shot at notoriety. She's a particularly malignant individual who sets up her husband for the exact type of fate that befalls him (even though she apparently has nothing to do with the bereaved father's act at the airport, at the end). She just hates her husband's guts, is histrionic, and an all-around termagant.

reply

If Ruth was so clever and so callous, why was she never able to get rid of Amelia? After all, the CIA could have arranged another accident within minutes. Or did it in fact suit her that Adam had not only a loyal and capable assistant but an occasional bed partner as well?

reply

Perhaps because Amelia was also CIA and Ruth's little helper?

reply

"Why was she never able to get rid of Amelia? After all, the CIA could have arranged another accident within minutes".

Well, she was a CIA operative, she didn`t run the agency; I highly doubt she could order hits on anyone she pleased just like that - unless she could show precisely how this person to be offed was detrimental to her job gathering intelligence.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

I think her role as a CIA operative was to act as the wife. I don't think she cared about the affair.

reply

I think Amelia was CIA also. How she knew what was said between the first ghost writer and Rycart in the conversation where the writer tells him the truth is at the beginning. Also she knew Emmett was Ruth's tutor at Harvard.

reply

Your choice of Subject title is unfortunate. Divulging that Ruth is a CIA agent is a spoiler that is hard to miss because it's the subject and therefore visible in a simple listing of the discussion topics. You can and should fix that by editing your original post and changing the subject ... maybe something like "About Ruth [SPOILERS]".

Regards,
Mark.
_____
I don't have a dog. And furthermore, my dog doesn't bite. And furthermore, you provoked him.



... Later:
Thanks hilaryjrp!

reply