Talk:The Ghost Writer (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Story?![edit]

  • The so called ' plot [ yes you must remember:that means the content in one sentence] doesn't tell the real story. Much more happens. The second ghostwriter, not sucessfull, works on a detektive profile [remember: Bloch!],not only on rewriting an autobiographie. He discovers a murder , the CIA connection of the prime and gets under pressure, exploring this.Telling the film , leaving facts and interpretating, is not well made!POV!May be my synopsis deals with the subjective of the main figure, so add and neutralize!--Danaide (talk) 08:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--94.220.254.141 (talk) 09:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear that there was a murder; only a speculation. And, "As the ghostwriter works, he uncovers clues…" pretty much sums up the core of the plot. More details are really not necessary here, unless you would like to add that the ghostwriter secretly interviews some of the men in the background. Alandeus (talk) 09:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why use US title?[edit]

Why does this article use the US title when the UK title would make more sense as its the same as the book? I don't see any reason why the US title has been used. The Film is based on a British Book, the screen play was writen by the books author and Polanski (Who is French/Polish and banned from the US) and the article doesn't have any info on what the film will be called in any other English speaking countries.(94.9.149.191 (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

This is Polanski's movie and his company gave the movie its new name (I read somewhere) sometime during mid-production. I suppose it is just the British distributor Optimum distribution (www.theghostmovie.co.uk) was allowed to use the title "The Ghost" for the U.K. Alandeus (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The Ghost Writer" is the title used by the production company. It is a French-German-British co-production. In the UK the movie was released as "The Ghost", in France, Belgium and the Netherlands it was released as "The Ghost Writer", and in Germany it was released as "Der Ghostwriter". Arfon-Illtyd (talk) 15:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Plot" section plagiarized?[edit]

Go ahead, google the phrase "When a successful British ghostwriter agrees to complete the memoirs of former British Prime Minister Adam Lang, his agent assures him it's the opportunity of a lifetime." - official promotional material comes up (official trailer on http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/summit/theghostwriter/ , imdb, facebook) - did they all take it from wikipedia or did wikipedia copy it from them? 80.121.19.139 (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, and this is valid. Although I have not fully worked through it yet, I have reworded and expunged much en passant, and will likely sweep back some time. FeatherPluma (talk) 09:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plot ending[edit]

If watch the ending carefully you will notice that the ghost writer didn't die by accident. As he walked out onto the road, the vehicle used to run him offer was parked far down the road. As soon as the ghost rider exits the building the car starts up, and then proceeds to run him over. Therefore that is why i changed the ending of the plot on the wikipeida page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgamma3 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Substantial funding from the German federal government?[edit]

"The propaganda value of Polanski’s The Ghost Writer is obvious at first glance" writes John Rosenthal in Berlinollywood? New Polanski Thriller Backed by German Government. "The Ghost Writer is just the latest in a long line of dubious English-language cinema blockbusters that have received German public funding".

This prompted me to add the following sentences to the main article: One sour note came from John Rosenthal, who points out that the winner of Berlin's Silver Bear received a large amount of financial support from the German federal government, which happened to be "part of the self-styled 'axis of peace' that opposed the Iraq War" led by Blair and George W. Bush. "Even under the overtly more 'Atlantist' leadership of Chancellor Angela Merkel, Germany has in recent years continued to engage in a veritable war against America’s war on terror. … It would appear that Germany’s 'Culture Minister' Bernd Neumann has now purchased a new weapon to aid in the pursuit of this war: Roman Polanski." Asteriks (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Practically all films that are produced in Babelsberg are eligible for or get Federal funding, i.e. loans, so interpreting so much political ill will into it is carrying it a bit far. On the other hand, I question whether Wikipedia is well severed by opinions from such blog sites. Is this good or valid reference? Alandeus (talk) 10:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are eligible, but looking at the films that actually receive the funding, seeing political ill will isn't taking it that far at all. Lolinder (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I question whether Wikipedia is well severed by opinions from such blog sites" writes Alandeus. How about The Independent? Is The Independent's John Rentoul — the Sunday edition's chief political commentator — also wrong to link publicly to the aforementioned blog — a blog held by someone who is known for doing his research and who has been published in the Wall Street Journal? Is The Independent not a "good or valid reference"?

More to the point: Is Wikipedia well served — certainly on specific points like this one (i.e., an anti-war movie against Bush and against Republicans) — by an editor deciding, single-handedly, to "correct" this entry, when that editor "happens to" be a(n Obama) Democrat who participated in… anti-war demonstrations? If you want to delete anything, Alandeus — certainly in certain areas — I suggest perhaps you should ask others for their opinion first… 109.210.131.201 (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay — taking into consideration Alandeus's criticism(s), I have changed the text to read, thusly: «A couple of sour notes came from John Rosenthal and The Independent's John Rentoul, who point out that the winner of Berlin's Silver Bear received a large amount of financial support from the German federal government, which happened to be "part of the self-styled 'axis of peace' that opposed the Iraq War" led by Blair and George W. Bush.» [1][2] I trust this will satisfy Alandeus… 109.210.131.201 (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My editing has nothing to do with any political background (you've done you research I can tell, who ever anonymous person you are) - I was just an extra in the movie. I was perfectly justified to do the editing by myself based on Wikipedia's principle of WP:NEWSBLOG, that is that "Personal and group blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." No need to go out looking for a consensus on this. Therefore John Rosenthal would not be acceptable, but The Independent's John Rentoul would be. One of us ought to do the appropriate editing then. Alandeus (talk) 08:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please reread the policy. John Rosenthal qualifies for the exception in WP:NEWSBLOG and Pajamas Media is a for profit media company that exerts editorial control over its content. TMLutas (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is totally unacceptable: Once more, a(n Obama) Democrat and anti-war protester decides to proceed with "editing" which allegedly is entirely neutral and objective and "has nothing to do with any political background" and which is "perfectly justified" because of "Wikipedia's principle of WP:NEWSBLOG" ("Personal and group blogs are largely not acceptable as sources") when he — the Obama) Democrat and anti-war protester — feels totally comfortable with the (like-minded) Huffington Post, allowing a (like-minded) post to remain…

Unless I am mistaken, this seems, offhand, to be totally indicative of double standards of the self-serving kind. Alandeus goes on to say, nonchalantly, that "One of us ought to do the appropriate editing then", before proceeding to — generously — take on the task, diluting the "sour note" by describing it with the briefest of (general) comments, followed by two long sentences explaining why, in so many words, the writer of the "sour note" can only be wrong — thus rendering the latter's protest insignificant.

In the interest of a consensus with Alandeus, however, I suggest we refrain from quoting John Rosenthal by name, albeit keeping the quoted sentence, along with the reference — since The Independent's John Rentoul — a professional journalist (!) — thought that the source was good enough, since he thought that his credentials were good enough — John Rosenthal has been published in the Wall Street Journal, among other places — and since he thought that his (extensive) research was good enough. Asteriks (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This thread has now become the subject of an article here:[1]. Our anonymous friend has identified himself and rightly pointed out a legitimate conflict of interest as well as factual errors. While Alandeus is welcome to defend his actions here, I suggest he refrain from editing the main article further. Rklawton (talk) 00:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And here is my rebuttal on that, which I posted with the blog's comments: Alandeus (de=Deutsch, us=USA) here, joining the fray. True, caution needs to be taken when citing Wikipedia as a source. Consequently, caution also needs to be taken when citing sources. Wikipedia has a policy for identifying reliable sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NEWSBLOG#Newspaper_and_magazine_.22blogs.22). The question was whether or not PajamaMedia qualifies.

On the one hand, it may be unqualified as a group blog as according to "Self-published sources (online and paper)": "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—including but not limited to books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets—are largely not acceptable."

On the other hand, it may qualify as a "Newspaper and magazine 'blog'": "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs; these are acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. …" Although there is no actual newspaper or magazine here to back it up, there seems to be an editorial oversight in place.

Therefore, the qualification as a reliable source according to Wikipedia seems to be a boarder line case here for PajamaMedia. Judging now by the more established status of PajamaMedia, I'd say PajamaMedia qualifies. Thus, I'd like to apology for any upset feelings. And, I caused confusion on the amount or conditions of repayment. I may have picked this up on some other German site to that matter. The amount of the subsidy as a fact to back up the grant procedure ought to be re-inserted; being of interest to all.

One thing I would like to point out in conclusion however. The main idea remains that grants or subsidies can and are given to practically all feature-length films produced in Germany. Regarding content, the only limitation is that it "…may not violate the German Constitution or the laws in force in the Federal Republic of Germany, or moral or religious feelings, and they may not show sexual matters or brutalities in a garishly coarse, speculative manner." (See http://www.ffa.de/downloads/dfff/richtlinie/DFFF-Richtlinie_en.pdf page 7.) Therefore, insinuating any political motivations is uncalled for. What proofs do you have otherwise for this claim? Alandeus (talk) 10:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See DFFF Repaid? below : Some further clarification on grants vs. loans Alandeus (talk) 12:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Berlinollywood? New Polanski Thriller Backed by German Government by John Rosenthal
  2. ^ I was wrong about The Ghost by John Rentoul

A large part of it were filmed in Denmark[edit]

Hello, I know for a fact that the primie ministers house on the island is entirely filmed in Denmark, the exact location I'm not sure off but I can get it. I defiantly think that should be added to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.63.33.62 (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1139328/locations  ? Alandeus (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I did not check that, but atleast we got confirmed that a part of it were filmed in Denmark. I think the main writer should decide himself if it should be added at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.114.158.11 (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DFFF Repaid?[edit]

From Alandeus:

"Most major films produced in Germany can receive a grant (to be repaid) from the German Federal Film Fund (DFFF)."

German Federal Film Fund

However, according to that reference: "In essence, the funding need not be repaid."

I doubt whether Alandeus is 100% neutral on this. He's perfectly fine with using Huffington Post as a source, but not Pajamas Media? This seems to indicate a bias.

Lolinder (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Lolinder. This wiki entry stands as a useful reminder of the increasing irrelevance of wikipedia as a useful resource. Only the reference lists are of some use, the main text is simply not worthy of trust if you want propaganda-free information. It is unethical editing and censorship of the kind on display in this instance that has done so much to ruin wikipedia. What a shame, and how shameful Alandeus. Msaatslab (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some further clarification on grants vs. loans: The German Federal Film Board (Filmförderungsanstalt (FFA)) [[2]] is the superordinate organization of the German Federal Film Fund (DFFF) [[3]]. It is actually the German Federal Film Board (Filmförderungsanstalt (FFA)) [[4]] that "can grant project funding as a conditionally repayable, interest-fee loan..." for 'Selective funding according to the project principle' [[5]] This is where I got my information about the repayable loans. Also under the same "Production funding" heading "Automatic funding according to the 'reference' principle", a "… producer with headquarters in Germany is entitled to subsidy as a grant…". This is where the DFFF steps in with its "funding need not be repaid". So therefore, my shame is only that I did not make a good enough difference between the FFA and the DFFF. Alandeus (talk) 12:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rundown Section?[edit]

What is this? Even if it can be proven to be necessary, it needs some major voice work.173.72.220.147 (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed ==Rundown==. Is unscourced, POV, etc... (quite strange) Alandeus (talk) 07:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Setting as described in Plot section[edit]

I've revised the part of the Plot section which describes where Adam Lang's oceanfront house is. Before it read this way:

"The ghostwriter flies out to work on the project, in the middle of winter, at an oceanfront house on the eastern seaboard within a reasonable driving distance of New York (in the book it is Martha's Vineyard)."

I've updated it to read this way:

The ghostwriter flies out to work on the project, in the middle of winter, at an oceanfront house in the fictional village of Old Haven (an allusion to Vineyard Haven) on Martha's Vineyard.

In addition to the original being somewhat wordy, it avoids the fact that the location is specifically indicated in the film. Lang's house is located in a fiction village called Old Haven (an allusion, but not a direct reference to Vineyard Haven) on the Vineyard. Old Haven is visible on several signs and vehicles throughout the movie. Aside from the numerous indirect indicators that Old Haven is on Martha's Vineyard (such as the island being ferry-accessible and docking in Cape Cod), the GPS in the BMW when The Ghost drives to Boston reads "Edgartown Vineyard". --NINTENDUDE64 04:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-news.[edit]

It looks like our (mis-)handling of sources for this article has itself become news: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-trouble-with-wikipedia-a-cautionary-tale/. Dylan Flaherty 01:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is all the way back in July... Still a very valid question, though we did manage to get Rosenthal in there, that paragraph is very weird. Lolinder (talk) 03:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rycart[edit]

I think this needs to be added:

Rycart is a mix of George Galloway (alive), UK Foreign Minister Robin Cook who died on a mountain after he said Al Qeada was just a database. Also, the Film uses the dead in the woods quote by David Kelly, who then died in the woods, as he himself predicted. He knew the Iraq WMD were bogus and he could have prevented the massacre in Iraq would he have been allowed to speak out. 203.184.41.52 (talk) 10:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is speculative and without references. Anyway, it would belong with the article on the original book. Alandeus (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reception[edit]

Hello - very new to Wikipedia so apologies if I'm not doing this right. The 'Reception' section, in particular the fourth paragraph, appears to be very oddly written - tantamount to an evangelical style, that appears quite obviously meant to dismiss the view of the journalists being discussed? I'm not sure that this fits within the guidelines about a 'Neutral Point of View'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.185.135 (talk) 13:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Ghost Writer (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Ghost Writer (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Ghost_Writer_(film)&oldid=1201809529"