Nearly seven decades later, we’ve got the first version that’s faithful, in spirit and plot, to Patricia Highsmith’s first Ripley novel—and we’re in a special position, decades later, to “get” him.
I love this post. I have always noticed how male sociopaths/psychopaths are frequently portrayed and presented as charming ...was Ted Bundy really charming or was that just the cultural lie of the time? Women are generally portrayed as either vengeful victims or just crazy. It seems as if, culturally, we live in a time that condones horrible humans. Or maybe it's only that they've always been horrible and it's only now, evolution-wise, that many of us are taking notice.
Wow, this is SUCH a great review. I've been waiting to watch Ripley, wanting to savor it because I love Highsmith's novels so much, and now I'm glad I did. How exciting to see a version that remains true to her work. Also, I love your comparison to our current "ripley" because it too is spot on.
I’ve archived this, not just for reading, but to crib from later. I’ve been nursing a Highsmith essay for many months, and I read enough of yours to agree that the “charming” thing has been projected on these novels. I’ve read the first three, and I’m a fan of the Wenders adaption of Ripley’s Game. It’s weird how I watch that film and get caught up in what feels like friendship, even though it’s all based on a sick and petty act that’s far from charming. I definitely think our psychological relationship with appearance affects our ability to rationally evaluate this character. I do perversely enjoy the fact that I’m aware of this, yet powerless to stop it.
Now I’m ready for Ripley—and a return to at least one previous incarnation. Then the deeply researched and thoughtful piece will be even more meaningful. The best time for film and TV criticism is after the viewing.
Susan, this is another great review from you, one that made me ponder my own mixed feelings about Highsmith’s novels. I’m now considering a Ripley post myself, because I forged my way through the first three of those novels a couple of years ago. I’ve begun watching the latest “Ripley” adaptation on Netflix, and you are right about how faithful it is to Highsmith’s version, including the wonderful detailing of early 1960s NYC and Europe, that exacting black-and-white cinematography. And Scott’s performance is both terrific and eerily empty.
It’s almost enough to keep me with it, but I feel the same internal squirminess I did in reading the novels. So, I’m not sure I will watch beyond the first episode. In books and movies, I’ve never been fond of seemingly charming psychopaths or serial killers - or attempts to make them relatable. Reading the Ripley novels was a heavy lift, but the narrative ticks along, pulling the reader through - until this reader hated where she’d ended up. It took me to the limits of how much I could allow a character like Tom Ripley into my head.
I think you’re right that maybe the times have caught up to Highsmith’s attitude about the banality of evil, the artificiality of everything, the fact that truth and justice are not the point. While I liked your connection to Donald Trump, the empty con artist, I think he has one thing fictional Tom Ripley doesn’t: charisma. If anything, Ripley appears to damp himself down in his cons, and what Highsmith shows is his cool calculation.
I was genuinely surprised at the end of this review when the spectre of the orange clown wafted in! But it did give me something to think about. I resist the comparison because I'm fascinated by Ripley, like many, and don't feel at all fascinated by T -- just repulsed, horrified and worried. Clearly Highsmith was fascinated by her character -- what a great detail you found in how she sometimes signed her letters "Tom/Pat." Would Patricia Highsmith she be fascinated by the orange clown? I agree wholeheartedly with this review in its admiration for Scott's performance. It helped to read snippets here of Scott's preparation for the role--to not diagnose, to just get totally inside. The subtleties, the facial expressions, the posture, the walk--it was all so nuanced, I found myself studying him the way he studied Dickie. As for the murder in the boat--as expected as it was (having seen and enjoyed The Talented Mr. Ripley version with Matt Damon)--I felt like I was seeing something new in cinema. I'm not sure exactly why--we have so many detailed explorations of the work of serial killers, we have so many elaborate action sequences in films and special effects--this was so gripping and so.....strange.....everything from the way Ripley washed the items to the slow, laborious placements of rocks in the boat later...this review really got it right about Ripley's experience of the "other" as impediment...note the casual, almost disgusted look on Scott's face when he finally gets Dickie over the side. I've actually watched the scene twice. I'm glad you mentioned the frequency of shots with stairs. What's that all about? I know it expresses differences, as you said, in the characters' energy, etc., but I keep feeling I'm missing something. Something about the constant arduousness of getting from one place to another. Becoming someone else altogether -- arduous, one step at a time? This review was great.
I love this post. I have always noticed how male sociopaths/psychopaths are frequently portrayed and presented as charming ...was Ted Bundy really charming or was that just the cultural lie of the time? Women are generally portrayed as either vengeful victims or just crazy. It seems as if, culturally, we live in a time that condones horrible humans. Or maybe it's only that they've always been horrible and it's only now, evolution-wise, that many of us are taking notice.
Wow, this is SUCH a great review. I've been waiting to watch Ripley, wanting to savor it because I love Highsmith's novels so much, and now I'm glad I did. How exciting to see a version that remains true to her work. Also, I love your comparison to our current "ripley" because it too is spot on.
I’ve archived this, not just for reading, but to crib from later. I’ve been nursing a Highsmith essay for many months, and I read enough of yours to agree that the “charming” thing has been projected on these novels. I’ve read the first three, and I’m a fan of the Wenders adaption of Ripley’s Game. It’s weird how I watch that film and get caught up in what feels like friendship, even though it’s all based on a sick and petty act that’s far from charming. I definitely think our psychological relationship with appearance affects our ability to rationally evaluate this character. I do perversely enjoy the fact that I’m aware of this, yet powerless to stop it.
Absolutely riveting. Just like Tom in the new series Ripley. Thank you
Now I’m ready for Ripley—and a return to at least one previous incarnation. Then the deeply researched and thoughtful piece will be even more meaningful. The best time for film and TV criticism is after the viewing.
Susan, this is another great review from you, one that made me ponder my own mixed feelings about Highsmith’s novels. I’m now considering a Ripley post myself, because I forged my way through the first three of those novels a couple of years ago. I’ve begun watching the latest “Ripley” adaptation on Netflix, and you are right about how faithful it is to Highsmith’s version, including the wonderful detailing of early 1960s NYC and Europe, that exacting black-and-white cinematography. And Scott’s performance is both terrific and eerily empty.
It’s almost enough to keep me with it, but I feel the same internal squirminess I did in reading the novels. So, I’m not sure I will watch beyond the first episode. In books and movies, I’ve never been fond of seemingly charming psychopaths or serial killers - or attempts to make them relatable. Reading the Ripley novels was a heavy lift, but the narrative ticks along, pulling the reader through - until this reader hated where she’d ended up. It took me to the limits of how much I could allow a character like Tom Ripley into my head.
I think you’re right that maybe the times have caught up to Highsmith’s attitude about the banality of evil, the artificiality of everything, the fact that truth and justice are not the point. While I liked your connection to Donald Trump, the empty con artist, I think he has one thing fictional Tom Ripley doesn’t: charisma. If anything, Ripley appears to damp himself down in his cons, and what Highsmith shows is his cool calculation.
I was genuinely surprised at the end of this review when the spectre of the orange clown wafted in! But it did give me something to think about. I resist the comparison because I'm fascinated by Ripley, like many, and don't feel at all fascinated by T -- just repulsed, horrified and worried. Clearly Highsmith was fascinated by her character -- what a great detail you found in how she sometimes signed her letters "Tom/Pat." Would Patricia Highsmith she be fascinated by the orange clown? I agree wholeheartedly with this review in its admiration for Scott's performance. It helped to read snippets here of Scott's preparation for the role--to not diagnose, to just get totally inside. The subtleties, the facial expressions, the posture, the walk--it was all so nuanced, I found myself studying him the way he studied Dickie. As for the murder in the boat--as expected as it was (having seen and enjoyed The Talented Mr. Ripley version with Matt Damon)--I felt like I was seeing something new in cinema. I'm not sure exactly why--we have so many detailed explorations of the work of serial killers, we have so many elaborate action sequences in films and special effects--this was so gripping and so.....strange.....everything from the way Ripley washed the items to the slow, laborious placements of rocks in the boat later...this review really got it right about Ripley's experience of the "other" as impediment...note the casual, almost disgusted look on Scott's face when he finally gets Dickie over the side. I've actually watched the scene twice. I'm glad you mentioned the frequency of shots with stairs. What's that all about? I know it expresses differences, as you said, in the characters' energy, etc., but I keep feeling I'm missing something. Something about the constant arduousness of getting from one place to another. Becoming someone else altogether -- arduous, one step at a time? This review was great.
I almost didn't make it past episode 2, but I stuck with it and I'm glad I did. Your review is spot-on.