More on the ending

Ha. I had just come to this forum to express exactly the same thing. I found the ending disappointing for just this reason – a shame, because the film was otherwise very enjoyable.

To supplement what you’ve said (‘…putting their own [CIA] man as ghost writer…’), the way a second ghost writer is engaged is highly contrived. It’s made clear that the CIA had already worked out the coded message in the manuscript (the reason they murdered McAra), and wanted to avoid it going to print. But the book was complete – it was ready to go to the publisher for editing and printing. They didn’t need a professional writer; all they need have done was to rephrase that handful of key sentences and the coded message would be lost. There was only one copy of the manuscript (the digital copy on the memory stick was encrypted by McAra, and presumably inaccessible to anyone). No one would be the wiser.

And while I am prepared to suspend disbelief to enjoy a good thriller, there are limits. McAra wasn’t being held captive: he had the capability to tell anyone the information he’d stumbled upon. At that point the CIA weren’t yet aware of his discovery. Why did he refuse to tell Rycart on the phone? Why didn’t he immediately pass on such crucial (and life-threatening) information to someone else – ANYONE else? Putting it in code in his manuscript made little sense other than as a plot device. Besides, the publishing company’s editor(s) might have quite routinely reordered or rephrased some of the crucial sentences – this is, after all, the sort of thing that editors do – which would have been tragically ironic.

It's quite hard to respond sensibly to people who seem to be incapable of thinking about the wider picture.

You seem to have worked out half of the problem but do not seem to have grasped that just because the story was written in such a way that he initially suspected a Lang-Emmet link there was no reason that the CIA could have known how long he was going to run with that and at what point he would realise the truth (if at all) and how he would promulgate the information.

And THAT is what makes the plot absurd.

Had he realised the truth earlier he could have informed one or many people of his suspicions and the cat would have been well and truly out of the bag.

If they were prepared to kill him they would have done it well before there was any danger of his making the information more widely known.

I loved the ending for several reasons. I wasn't very concerned about its logic, although in my mind, what most likely happened is that Ruth or Emmett phoned one of their drivers as the Ghost was getting out of the bookshop. Since it's the ending of the movie and the mystery has already been solved, I don't need it to be strictly logical other than in a purely dramatic sense. And in that respect, I found it fascinating.

The Ghost is defined by his lack of compromise with politics, people and, finally so, with his own existence as a human being. When he takes the path of the previous writer and starts to investigate (to make his own decisions not only for surviving, but for defining himself as individual), he seems to be destined to die, but he manages to avoid it (cheating, acting as if he didn't know). This creates a problem of balance. He is alive when, in some, sense, he shouldn't.

However, he discovers the secret hidden behind the whole plot, and his decission to say it to his rival ("I know who you are") finally kills him, which is the ultimate form of redemption: going where he was supposed to go in the first place, once he has stopped being a ghost.

And then, he seems to disappear, more than dying (we don't see it, we have to guess). He is not the Ghost anymore. Or did he just die? We never know for sure. There is a moment of silence, but we don't know what actually happened off screen.

It's so beautiful visually and so full of suggestions that I felt quite satisfied when I left the theater.

No spoiler alert necessary at this stage, I'd think. Also: wouldn't the first words on each page have changed when the typed manuscript is printed as a book? The code would have been lost in the published book version, if McAra's ghostwriting had gone into print. What would have been the point of having the code in the typed ms?

Plenty of flaws in this film, though enjoyable. The ending, however, was one of the best endings possible for this particular film. Much more compelling than a Hollywood happy.

He was murdered by the the CIA. Watch the final scene, as he walks out the car that struck him was parked down the street on the side lights off, when he steps into the road, you can see clear as day the car turns on, the lights come on, the car veers into the street killing him. looks as though to me to be quite apparent they were watching him. as ruth goes after the ghost writer paul emmett pulled her aside, she of course told him about the note, and then assuming paul emmett called for the attack as he exited the building, if their CIA its not hard to believe they had a team outside, especially anticipationing his arrival, it was the book release party..hard not to think he wouldn't show his face there

I don't generally mind plot holes and implausibilities (although the first "ghost's" stuff being left in his room was GLAREING lol)
for the sake of a good movie which I thought this was but ca'mon!! TG would have to be a complete idiot to be run down like that!! It wasn't like that car came out of nowhere. It accelerated for a significantly LONG distance before (presumably) hitting him. I don't know about most people, but I pay attention to traffic when I cross even a mildly busy street.

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

Is it completely out of the question that him being run over was not done by the CIA but an accident?

Okay the speeding car didn't look like it was going to hit it's brakes any time soon as was speeding up, but 'The Ghost' seems to have a reputation for wandering out in front of traffic (bicycle incident).