Ripley

[brundlefly]

Steven Zaillian's Ripley miniseries starring Andrew Scott (and John Malkovich!) is coming to Netflix April 4th. Hopefully in black and white.

[The Curious Sofa]

Looks amazing and Andrew Scott seems to have been perfectly cast. The main flaw in the Minghella film was the miscasting of Matt Damon as a sad-sack Ripley. Trying to make a character whose defining characteristic is his amorality more sympathetic was a bad decision. What's even more frustrating is that Jude Law would have made a perfect Ripley.

Hopefully Netflix won't pull the plug prematurely, I'd love to see all the Ripley novels adapted. Recently, the Netflix series I was most invested in have all been canceled early.

[Walter Kurtz]

Steven Zaillian's Ripley miniseries starring Andrew Scott (and John Malkovich!) is coming to Netflix April 4th. Hopefully in black and white.

Malkovich absolutely owned Ripley in one of my favorite movies ever.

[The Curious Sofa]

Malkovich absolutely owned Ripley in one of my favorite movies ever.

I had this on my "to watch" list forever but never got round to it because of The American Friend. I loved that movie but also always felt its weakest aspect is Dennis Hopper's Ripley and I could see Malkovich being great.

[The Curious Sofa]

I ended up watching Ripley's Game tonight and I agree, Malkovich is an amazing Ripley and the movie is great. Thanks for the recommendation.

[Walter Kurtz]

... Lena Headey had a bucketload of charisma long before Game of Thrones.

[thirtyframesasecond]

She was memorable in one of her very first roles, in The Remains of the Day.

[The Curious Sofa]

I watched the first three episodes of Ripley last night and for the most part, it lives up to (my high) expectations. While critical reception has been mostly positive, it also seems to have divided critics. Some see Matt Damon's performance as the definitive one, but his sad-sack, preppy closet case, acting on impulse rather than sociopathic amorality, never aligns with Highsmith's character or worldview. The attempt to make Ripley psychologically relatable was the movie's flaw. Andrew Scott, on the other hand, is now my favorite Ripley along John Malkovich and perhaps he also surpasses Delon. Scott is a couple of decades older than the Ripley in the novel and I guess the logic behind the casting was, that if they get to adapt all the books, Scott's age is in the middle of where he starts out and where he ends up. In any case, he's perfect as a ruthless, yet still recognizably human, moral void moving toward his serial killing, art-appreciating destiny. Johnny Flynn and Dakota Fanning play less glamorous versions of the characters played by Law and Paltrow in the Minghella adaptation and it works for the approach of the series.

SpoilerShow

In the film, they are so charismatic and their lifestyle is so appealing that envy, jealousy and repressed desire motivate Damon's Ripley to murder. Here that's not necessary, it's Ripley's innate nature that seals Dickie's fate (and from then, that of anyone getting in his way). Soon something like Dickie's thrift-store quality attempts at painting will be enough for Ripley to kill.

As one may have guessed from the trailer, the cinematography is the other star of the show. The imagery oozes menace and every so often Robert Elswit comes up with a shot, so gorgeous and yet malign to make me gasp. That especially goes for shots of the sea and wide shots of Marge's house where characters look (too) sharply outlined in the window. This is the closest a Highsmith adaptation has come to horror, its high-contrast, hyper-real B&W imagery at times reminded me of early David Lynch. Some viewers and critics don't seem to be happy with this, they either reject B&W as pretentious, or the noir look is too on the nose for them, but this adaptation has to distinguish itself from the earlier ones. They had a glamorous, sun-drenched travelogue quality. Here the far harsher look externalizes Ripley's cold amorality. In the early sections in NYC, the look appears to be too much of a noir cliche, almost straying into Sin City territory, but once in Italy, the seemingly counterintuitive approach to depicting its picturesque scenery starts to pay off.

Despite this adaptation stretching the novel to eight episodes, the pacing works, largely because Scott's evolution as Ripley is captivating to follow. Episode three is a nail-biter, and this is where the series got its hooks into me.

SpoilerShow

I'm a sucker for scenes that demonstrate that murder isn't as easy as film and TV make it look. Here getting rid of the body takes up the best part of the episode. It's a perfectly orchestrated series of escalating calamities that ratchets up the suspense and in Hitchcockian fashion, makes one root for the murderer, despite better judgment.

One thing I'm not sold on is the casting of celebrity offspring Eliot Sumner as Freddy Miles, especially considering the period setting and that Philip Seymour Hoffman is a hard act to follow. I'm not saying this type of casting can't work, Spielberg did something similar, and with more success in West Side Story,

SpoilerShow

casting a non-binary identified actor in an established and more traditionally gendered role. Here it's distracting, I was mainly reminded of of Gina Gershon in Bound (who was great, but this can't be the idea)

and Sumner's cool-kid posturing does nothing for me, at least so far.

I'm hoping that Steven Zaillian gets to adapt all the Ripley novels, I would especially love to see the ones that never got filmed, but between its less-than-commercial approach and Netflix's habit of cancelling series that aren't immediate blockbusters, I don't hold out much hope.

[The Curious Sofa]

I watched all of Ripley now and while it never reaches the heights of episode 3 again, overall it's very good. Dakota Fanning seems a little wasted till the last episode, which focuses more on her. Eliot Sumner is one of the worst casting choices I can remember but at least one only has to suffer that performance for two episodes and an excellent performance by an adorable cat somewhat makes up for it.

[Matt]

I watched all of Ripley now and while it never reaches the heights of episode 3 again, overall it's very good. Dakota Fanning seems a little wasted till the last episode, which focuses more on her. Eliot Sumner is one of the worst casting choices I can remember but at least one only has to suffer that performance for two episodes and an excellent performance by an adorable cat somewhat makes up for it.

Oh, I disagree. I thought episodes 5 and 6 were even better than 3. Fanning has lots of excellent small moments in most of the episodes, and her characterization is so fleshed out and well-played that she’s by far the best “Marge” of the three adaptations. Having gone to school with a lot of them, she is very believable as a born-rich girl.

Sumner I don’t mind. Hoffman would be a tough act to follow so it feels right to go in the completely opposite direction with casting. They don’t quite come up to Andrew Scott’s level in dialogue scenes, but the physical performance in the latter half of Freddie’s featured episode is pretty great. But yes, the cat is the true star of that episode.

The real revelation for me is the detective in these later episodes. I was unfamiliar with Maurizio Lombardi before this (not having made it through Paolo Sorrentino’s “Pope” series) but he is an incredible actor.

[The Curious Sofa]

It's fine to take a different approach with a character, but Sumner straining to deepen their voice to appear more masculine was like a child playing at being a grown-up. That seems to have taken so much effort, that there wasn't much energy left for an actual performance. Tilda Swinton could have pulled this off on a good day, but not someone this inexperienced. Sumner's mother Trudie Styler, is a chum of Zaillian and has long been a canny operator when it comes to parlaying her husband's fame into a variety of career opportunities for herself and her offspring and for the times Sumner was on screen, this otherwise perfectly cast series went off the rails for me.

I agree with you on Maurizio Lombardi, he was tremendous and I too had not been that familiar with him. And if I say I'd like to have seen more of Dakota Fanning, that's because after having been considered the most gifted child actress of her generation, careerwise she now seems in the shadow of her younger sister and hasn't been given many opportunities to shine. When she does, like here, I still think she can be tremendous.

[Matt]

I did not realize that about the voice. I was unfamiliar with Sumner before this and didn’t really notice.

[Forrest Taft]

When I first read about the show, it was said to be based on the books by Patricia Highsmith, so I was a bit disappointed when it was revealed to be just a third adaptation of the first book. I think both the films are superior, but I enjoyed this a great deal, at least until the final episode, which never grabbed me, and seemed like a neverending epilogue. Wish some boutique labels would have used this opportunity to put out Ripley's Game and Ripley Under Ground.

[therewillbeblus]

I'm interested in checking out this series to see a new approach, but I'm pretty surprised at all the negative reactions to the Damon film. I didn't gel with it either for a while, until my latest viewing, when I realized this wasn't just a different approach to the character but to antisocial personality disorder itself. Anyways, my thoughts. I think it's brilliant now, including the central performance

[Matt]

I don’t know if it was necessarily the approach for me. I just never saw an Anthony Minghella film I wasn’t bored to death by. Jude Law was very pretty though.

Even though it’s not a perfect adaptation, Purple Noon just can’t be beat for Delon’s beautiful blank slate performance. But in terms of storytelling and style, “Ripley” was first-rate.

[Mr Sausage]

I'm interested in checking out this series to see a new approach, but I'm pretty surprised at all the negative reactions to the Damon film. I didn't gel with it either for a while, until my latest viewing, when I realized this wasn't just a different approach to the character but to antisocial personality disorder itself. Anyways, my thoughts. I think it's brilliant now, including the central performance.

I've always liked the film, too, ever since I saw it as a teenager (I was and remain totally unfamiliar with the source or any other adaptation). Your reading of Ripley in that film is very close to mine, tho' I also read Tom as narcissism perpetually confusing its own need for self love as a yearning for others, ultimately finding that self love by becoming its object of obsession.

[therewillbeblus]

That’s a great reading, I’m into it!

[The Curious Sofa]

I'm interested in checking out this series to see a new approach, but I'm pretty surprised at all the negative reactions to the Damon film. I didn't gel with it either for a while, until my latest viewing, when I realized this wasn't just a different approach to the character but to antisocial personality disorder itself. Anyways, my thoughts. I think it's brilliant now, including the central performance

The Netflix series only takes a new approach if you are unfamiliar with Patricia Highsmith's Ripley novels or some of the other films based on them. Purple Noon (1960, also based on The Talented Mr. Ripley) and Ripley's Game (2002) stick close to the character, even if they take liberties with the plots. Otherwise, the series restores Ripley to Highsmith's harsher and less sentimental moral universe. I'm open to adaptations taking liberties, I love Wim Wenders' The American Friend (also based on Ripley's Game), even if it takes huge liberties with Ripley and the plot of the novel, by shifting the attention away from Dennis Hopper's Ripley to its other lead character, played by a fantastic Bruno Ganz. But it doesn't feel like pandering, Wenders brings his own vision and poetry to it.

With Minghella's film, I can hear the eternal producers' cry: "Can't we make the character more sympathetic and/or relatable?". Being familiar with Minghella's other work, he doesn't need a producer nudging him on (though this was a Weinstein production, the ultimate in controlling producers) that's how he approached everything as a writer/director. He cast Damon because "he had the right mix of 'credibility, warmth, and generosity' to engage the audience and help them understand how Ripley 'thinks and operates'" which is a little bit like casting a clownfish as the shark in Jaws. To make Ripley more likable, he made Dickie Greenleaf more of a villain, more or less justifying his killing, accidentally demonstrating that for anybody who holds Highsmith dear, Jude Law would have made a far better Ripley than Damon.

By the late 90s, I also would have hoped we moved past the trope of the tortured LGBT character who kills (others or themselves) due to their repressed desires, one of the main representations of that minority from the 50s to the 80s (and beyond).

Otherwise, I would highly recommend the series and I'd be curious what you make of it.

[Mr Sausage]

he made Dickie Greenleaf more of a villain, more or less justifying his killing

This is wildly untrue.

By the late 90s, I also would have hoped we moved past the trope of the tortured LGBT character who kills (others or themselves) due to their repressed desires, one of the main representations of that minority from the 50s to the 80s (and beyond).

I think the movie makes it clear that Ripely isn't queer, or even straight. He has no particular sexuality to complement his lack of a personality. He confuses his narcissistic obsession, his need to be someone who is loved and admired, with a healthy emotional response like love and desire for others. But he's only grafting an available social narrative onto an unhealthy, unnamed desire that he does not understand. He's a more sympathetic version of the Paul Bettany character in Gangster No. 1. I understand in order to show this the movie has to come uncomfortably close to some old cliches about gay characters, but I do think it's doing something more interesting.

[The Curious Sofa]

he made Dickie Greenleaf more of a villain, more or less justifying his killing

This is wildly untrue.

By the late 90s, I also would have hoped we moved past the trope of the tortured LGBT character who kills (others or themselves) due to their repressed desires, one of the main representations of that minority from the 50s to the 80s (and beyond).

I think the movie makes it clear that Ripely isn't queer, or even straight. He has no particular sexuality to complement his lack of a personality. He confuses his narcissistic obsession, his need to be someone who is loved and admired, with a healthy emotional response like love and desire. But he's only grafting an available social narrative onto an unhealthy, unnamed desire that he does not understand. He's a more sympathetic version of the Paul Bettany character in Gangster No. 1. I understand in order to show this the movie has to come uncomfortably close to some old cliches about gay characters, but I do think it's doing something more interesting.

Unlike in the novel of the TV series, the Dickie of the 1999 movie cheats on Marge, impregnates a young woman, cruelly dumps her and as a result, she kills herself. How is that not more villainous than the Dickie of the book and the series, who genuinely loves Marge, doesn't cheat on her, or callously causes an innocent's death? It makes his death feel a lot more justified.

Damon's Ripley is unambiguously queer. He is shown to lust after a naked Jude Law and he doesn't kill him in cold blood, like in the book or TV series, but on impulse during a fight that ensues after Dickie denies loving Ripley, who suggests they should more nor less elope. Towards the end he even has a male lover (a character not in the book or series), who he also ends up killing. Of course, he too is a narcissist and sociopath, but the film goes out of its way to connect this to his queerness, otherwise, why would it add so much regarding his sexuality that isn't in the source?

In the novels sex, sexuality or desire are never motivating factors for Ripley's crimes or even feature much in his personality, and eventually, he is happily married to a woman.

[untitled]

Ripley is one of the better things that's been on TV in recent years. It was an interesting choice to go with black and white given such a brilliant and color-saturated setting, but it works. I think of it as a kind of 'noir de noir.' The cinematography is gorgeous, sometimes breathtaking. Although I'm good at divorcing other versions of art from one another -- films from their source books, for instance-- Ripley is a much truer version of the novel than Minghella's movie was, which I thought was fine, too. (I re-watched it after I watched the series.) There's room for both.

I found it interesting that Malkovich shows up in the final episode as Reeves Minot. I agree with those who said here that he's the most interesting Ripley. I don't know if there's a plan to continue this show doing more of the novels, but Malkovich reoccurring as Minot would be very interesting...

Towards the end he even has a male lover (a character not in the book or series), who he also ends ....

Peter Smith-Kingsley does occur in the book; He invited Tom to his place in Ireland to get away from Venice. Tom fantasizes about going and something similar happening with Peter that did with Dickie. See chapter 28. Granted, not the same relationship nor end to it as the film.

[The Curious Sofa]

You are right, I read the novels a long time ago and forgot that they kept the name, but my point is the same: in the film, his role gets changed to make Ripley more explicitly queer. Glad you enjoyed the show, unfortunately, it looks like not enough people are watching this for it to get more seasons:

https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/netfli ... 235697082/

[DeprongMori]

As someone who has been interested in the many ways the Tom Ripley character has been portrayed on film (and has read all the novels, though long ago), the thing that got in the way of my prioritizing seeing this one was the casting of a fifty-year-old actor in an adaptation of the first novel, “The Talented Mr. Ripley”. It just seemed like a bad artistic choice given the narrative and characters of the novel.

From all the reviews here from folks familiar with both the other adaptations and the novels it appears that the factor of age does not create a problem in this presentation. I’ll give it a look.

[Roscoe]

I watched the first episode, and found it a dull and dreary experience, for all the self-consciously gorgeous cinematography and design and detail all over the place. It just plain PLODS, and Scott and Flynn's being 20 years and more too old for their roles, and the choking solemnity didn't help matters, only serving to deaden all life in the proceedings. Call it Novocaine Noir. I was only curious how they'd handle the ending, and found that

SpoilerShow

once again, filmmakers find it necessary to refuse Ripley the unambiguous happy ending that Highsmith supplies.

And I won't be watching any further.

Thanks to CuriousSofa for saying what I've been saying all these years about the Minghella Ripley, which seems alas to have become the accepted and most common take on the character, that he's a self-torturing closet case who kills the boys he loves. Entirely agreed about Ripley's sexuality not being a motivating factor. He doesn't want to fuck Dickie, he wants to be Dickie. Ripley's sexual orientation is a matter for speculation, though -- there's mention of his being rather green about the gills as he departs on his honeymoon with his wife.

[untitled]

Glad you enjoyed the show, unfortunately, it looks like not enough people are watching this for it to get more seasons:

It's a little odd. It keeps popping up in my socials (probably algo-driven as I read every article I see) so it seems like it's everywhere but I've mentioned to a number of people who I'm surprised haven't even heard of it--people I think would have.

WRT Ripley's age, I had thought starting with an older actor might make sense if there was a plan to film the subsequent novels as he ages as they progress. 5 novels over ~35 years vs a 5-season limited series over 6 or 7.