Ripley is essentially a striver, and striver characters are often fascinating because they're charming and driven and duplicitous. In this version, Ripley is a soulless nebbish. The cinematography and editing are stunning, but there's nothing and no one at the center. The filmmakers have essentially misunderstood the character Highsmith created. Creative re-interpretations are fine, but his one fails to engage on the essential level of character.
I think they read the first book, and decided to make Tom a tabula griseo rather than tabula rasa. I don't see any evidence they read the subsequent novels. Ripley gravitates toward the luxe life because he sees that as his destiny, not because he has no other options. My chief complaint about the subsequent Ripley novels is the lack of gay erotic subtext, though I understand why Highsmith needed to suppress that. In the later novels, Ripley's sense of esthetics supplies the eroticism.
Finished it last night. Beautifully shot, as you note, but if anyone gets into a drinking game in which you toss one back every time a staircase appears, they won't make it through episode two. The actors are all tools for the look of it, and pale (literally, in b&w) compared to the movie leads. Still, worth a go through the whole thing I thought, but maybe because it's sometimes difficult for my wife and I to find the next series/show together. It was this or "Ricky Stanicky."
Dickie and Marge do seem oddly pale for people living in Italy for a year, don't they? I was quiet about my issues with "Ripley" until my spouse started pausing the TV and started making the same complaints I did. I can understand why Zaillian wanted to strike out in a different direction, but casting someone thin and quiet as Freddie when he's big, loud, and pushy just seems dumb. It adds yet one more affectless person to the story.
Looking for a series? You could try the new Sugar. Colin Farrell is surprisingly good as an upscale PI who has heart.
Spot on analysis. I am struggling to sit through each episode but my wife and son have demanded that I share in the experience with them. They are both fans of both Highsmith and the Matt Damon film, so their assessments compare well with yours. I can't find any characters with whom I can share a para-social relationship so I can't care about them or the story. I want them all to lose. Cinematography is lush, but it is misplaced. At times, I felt I was watching outtakes from Jaws or The Deep.
I'm halfway through and yes, it's spectacularly filmed. The biggest flaw, apart from the age of the actors, is Ripley's gloom. Can't understand why Dickie keeps him around, he's boring as hell. Of course he's empty inside and can't feel a genuine emotion, but for the character to work, he has to be able to pretend... I'll stick to the end but hey, give me Shogun anytime!
Having known a sociopath, I find the new portrayal false and unconvincing. But then none of the leads work for me, they're all vapid and uninteresting. I'm also watching the movie in alternation and it's once again hypnotic: great script, erotic, and vivid.
Ripley is essentially a striver, and striver characters are often fascinating because they're charming and driven and duplicitous. In this version, Ripley is a soulless nebbish. The cinematography and editing are stunning, but there's nothing and no one at the center. The filmmakers have essentially misunderstood the character Highsmith created. Creative re-interpretations are fine, but his one fails to engage on the essential level of character.
Do you think they bothered to read the book? Because they missed exactly what you say, plus they made the story as un-erotic as possible, and bleak.
I think they read the first book, and decided to make Tom a tabula griseo rather than tabula rasa. I don't see any evidence they read the subsequent novels. Ripley gravitates toward the luxe life because he sees that as his destiny, not because he has no other options. My chief complaint about the subsequent Ripley novels is the lack of gay erotic subtext, though I understand why Highsmith needed to suppress that. In the later novels, Ripley's sense of esthetics supplies the eroticism.
Oh, and Lev, thanks for pointing me to this series and for your comments here and on FB.
You're welcome!
Finished it last night. Beautifully shot, as you note, but if anyone gets into a drinking game in which you toss one back every time a staircase appears, they won't make it through episode two. The actors are all tools for the look of it, and pale (literally, in b&w) compared to the movie leads. Still, worth a go through the whole thing I thought, but maybe because it's sometimes difficult for my wife and I to find the next series/show together. It was this or "Ricky Stanicky."
Dickie and Marge do seem oddly pale for people living in Italy for a year, don't they? I was quiet about my issues with "Ripley" until my spouse started pausing the TV and started making the same complaints I did. I can understand why Zaillian wanted to strike out in a different direction, but casting someone thin and quiet as Freddie when he's big, loud, and pushy just seems dumb. It adds yet one more affectless person to the story.
Looking for a series? You could try the new Sugar. Colin Farrell is surprisingly good as an upscale PI who has heart.
Thanks for the tip. Although I no longer have the Apple TV portal. I liked Slow Horses, though.
I agree. Somnolent is a good word for this. The noir only serves as a further contrast with the liveliness of the movie.
Eight episodes. Sigh. And Italy without color?
I have already fallen asleep a few times watching it.
Spot on analysis. I am struggling to sit through each episode but my wife and son have demanded that I share in the experience with them. They are both fans of both Highsmith and the Matt Damon film, so their assessments compare well with yours. I can't find any characters with whom I can share a para-social relationship so I can't care about them or the story. I want them all to lose. Cinematography is lush, but it is misplaced. At times, I felt I was watching outtakes from Jaws or The Deep.
i like the book, but don't think i will continue too far in the show
The book is fabulous, I've read it more than once and seen the Jude Law movie a handful of times.
I'm halfway through and yes, it's spectacularly filmed. The biggest flaw, apart from the age of the actors, is Ripley's gloom. Can't understand why Dickie keeps him around, he's boring as hell. Of course he's empty inside and can't feel a genuine emotion, but for the character to work, he has to be able to pretend... I'll stick to the end but hey, give me Shogun anytime!
The new Shogun is deep and rich and splendid. The old one wasn't bad either.
I agree about the gloom--Matt Damon is perfect in the movie, Scott is badly miscast, mis-directed or both.
Excellent points, though I am enjoying the contrast in the two styles of portraying a sociopath. Have watched only two episodes so far.
Having known a sociopath, I find the new portrayal false and unconvincing. But then none of the leads work for me, they're all vapid and uninteresting. I'm also watching the movie in alternation and it's once again hypnotic: great script, erotic, and vivid.