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.
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.
It’s really good; as always it’s a departure from Highsmith in some ways. Dennis Hopper with a cowboy hat is a weird take on Ripley. But judged on its own, I think it’s good. There’s a murder on a train where I like the film version better than the Pat version.
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.
Thanks so much!! I enjoyed working on this so much, I could have kept going with other Ripley films/noels, and more on Highsmith. Such a fascinating person. And great writer. But I had to stop—for now.
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.
Thanks so much for your generous comments—again. You’re the greatest. I have to say that as much as I admire the series, it’s not one I’d want to watch a third time (and only watched the second time because I was writing about it.) It’s visually gorgeous, and I do think nails Ripley. But my pleasure, now that I think about it (inspired by your comment) was mostly intellectual. Re. Trump, I don’t actually think he has charisma. I won’t go into my theories about him right now—I’m really sick of all the words devoted to him, including my own!! I almost didn’t add that little “postscript” because of that—just saying I don’t think it’s charisma. Will explain more another time. Hugs!!
Susan, I look forward to hearing more re: your thoughts about the Orange One (you're right, he gets too much media traction to name him), and I do think it's possible there is an essential emptiness at his core, like Ripley's. I have more to say about this, too, but maybe I'll just do my own post, connecting some of these themes via another lens: the way AI-generated content turns the self so chameleon-like in writing. It's as if it's pushing us all to be a collection of personas for different situations, like Ripley trying out his Ivy League smile and glasses by smiling at his latest self in a mirror.
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.
Thanks for this engaged comment! I love when conversations get started here, and I encourage others to respond to your reflections here, too. My interpretation re. What you ask about the stairs. I see it as relating to why the boat scene is different from all the drawn-out sequences we’re familiar with in depictions of serial killers. The usual depictions are done for gruesome effect and illustrate the deranged mind of the killer (and the presumption that viewers enjoy cringing at the details.) But Tom doesn’t enjoy killing—he does it out of necessity, as Highsmith says various places—but he also has no remorse. Dealing with the bodies—like walking up those flights of starts—is just a set of obstacles that have to be endured. And it’s hard—the material world (and for him, the dead bodies become just a part of that) doesn’t yield obligingly to us. You know, sort of like putting together a piece of IKEA furniture. You hate it, you mutter to yourself, you make mistakes that drive you nuts, but you just keep at it if you want that bookshelf. Highsmith and this new version wants us to see how divested of emotion (although very frustrating) the business of murder and its aftermath is for Tom. And the film adds (it’s not in the novel) the stairs as a reminder—which most films magically ignore—that the world, even if we aren’t killers, as full of these frustrating challenges when objects just won’t yield to us. Of course, if you’re one of the privileged—like Dickie and Marge—it’s all so much easier. They skip up those stairs like all the fictional characters in other movies always do. For ordinary mortals, life is more laborious. So there are several layers of meaning, I think: the class-difference, the matter-of-fact mind of this particular killer, the hard, “material “ realities—whether disposing of bodies or climbing stairs) that film fantasy obscures. Thanks so much for giving me a reason to think this out more!! I loved your comment.
ha ha - your comment about putting together IKEA furniture; the dreary tedium of daily life and minutiae.. But we have our goals, generous or vindictive, and we cling to them. I'm still thinking about the stairs. Maybe a sort of Jacob's Ladder/Biblical evocation - down low, climb up, how to get to salvation.....repetition....or rolling the boulder (like the rocks in the boat) up the mountain endlessly. "The term Sisyphean describes a task that is impossible to complete. It refers to the punishment that Sisyphus receives in the underworld, where he is forced to roll a boulder up a hill repeatedly for eternity" (I had to look it up!)
Brilliant, Susan—both your meticulous comparison of the three films to one another and to Highsmith’s novel, and your anchoring of the series in the present alarming historical moment of capture by a con man with no center. We finished watching the series last night and were riveted by this gorgeous, rightly ambiguous feat of storytelling that defies the usual rules. What holds our attention about Ripley is not charm (he has next to none) but the cunning of an underdog who lusts after the sheen of money and privilege. We don’t exactly sympathize but we can identify. Dickie and Freddy (what a performance!) are pretty awful people and not very smart. Of course Ripley doesn’t evolve. The suspense lies in how he’ll get out of his latest jam.
I haven’t read the novel in years but am revisiting Highsmith’s fine book on writing suspense fiction, which complements your essay.
Is Caravaggio in the novel? These sequences, while stunning, perplexed me a bit because Caravaggio was driven by passions he couldn’t control, while Ripley knows nothing of passion. Maybe what appeals to him is the perceived glamor of the badass painter? I’m not sure it works, but that’s a minor quibble. Bottom line: We loved it.
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.
So, so true. The only lovable female psychopath, so far, has been Villanelle. It’s one of the main reasons I love that series. https://open.substack.com/pub/susanbordo/p/weekend-binge-recommendation-killing?r=384ha&utm_medium=ios
Oh, yes. A brilliant show! And female portrayals. So well written and acted.
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.
I haven’t seen the Wenders yet. Guess that’s next on my Ripley list.
It’s really good; as always it’s a departure from Highsmith in some ways. Dennis Hopper with a cowboy hat is a weird take on Ripley. But judged on its own, I think it’s good. There’s a murder on a train where I like the film version better than the Pat version.
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.
Thanks so much!! I enjoyed working on this so much, I could have kept going with other Ripley films/noels, and more on Highsmith. Such a fascinating person. And great writer. But I had to stop—for now.
Absolutely riveting. Just like Tom in the new series Ripley. Thank you
Thanks so much. I love to rivet!
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.
Thanks so much for your generous comments—again. You’re the greatest. I have to say that as much as I admire the series, it’s not one I’d want to watch a third time (and only watched the second time because I was writing about it.) It’s visually gorgeous, and I do think nails Ripley. But my pleasure, now that I think about it (inspired by your comment) was mostly intellectual. Re. Trump, I don’t actually think he has charisma. I won’t go into my theories about him right now—I’m really sick of all the words devoted to him, including my own!! I almost didn’t add that little “postscript” because of that—just saying I don’t think it’s charisma. Will explain more another time. Hugs!!
Susan, I look forward to hearing more re: your thoughts about the Orange One (you're right, he gets too much media traction to name him), and I do think it's possible there is an essential emptiness at his core, like Ripley's. I have more to say about this, too, but maybe I'll just do my own post, connecting some of these themes via another lens: the way AI-generated content turns the self so chameleon-like in writing. It's as if it's pushing us all to be a collection of personas for different situations, like Ripley trying out his Ivy League smile and glasses by smiling at his latest self in a mirror.
That sounds like a great idea for a post!
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.
Thanks for this engaged comment! I love when conversations get started here, and I encourage others to respond to your reflections here, too. My interpretation re. What you ask about the stairs. I see it as relating to why the boat scene is different from all the drawn-out sequences we’re familiar with in depictions of serial killers. The usual depictions are done for gruesome effect and illustrate the deranged mind of the killer (and the presumption that viewers enjoy cringing at the details.) But Tom doesn’t enjoy killing—he does it out of necessity, as Highsmith says various places—but he also has no remorse. Dealing with the bodies—like walking up those flights of starts—is just a set of obstacles that have to be endured. And it’s hard—the material world (and for him, the dead bodies become just a part of that) doesn’t yield obligingly to us. You know, sort of like putting together a piece of IKEA furniture. You hate it, you mutter to yourself, you make mistakes that drive you nuts, but you just keep at it if you want that bookshelf. Highsmith and this new version wants us to see how divested of emotion (although very frustrating) the business of murder and its aftermath is for Tom. And the film adds (it’s not in the novel) the stairs as a reminder—which most films magically ignore—that the world, even if we aren’t killers, as full of these frustrating challenges when objects just won’t yield to us. Of course, if you’re one of the privileged—like Dickie and Marge—it’s all so much easier. They skip up those stairs like all the fictional characters in other movies always do. For ordinary mortals, life is more laborious. So there are several layers of meaning, I think: the class-difference, the matter-of-fact mind of this particular killer, the hard, “material “ realities—whether disposing of bodies or climbing stairs) that film fantasy obscures. Thanks so much for giving me a reason to think this out more!! I loved your comment.
ha ha - your comment about putting together IKEA furniture; the dreary tedium of daily life and minutiae.. But we have our goals, generous or vindictive, and we cling to them. I'm still thinking about the stairs. Maybe a sort of Jacob's Ladder/Biblical evocation - down low, climb up, how to get to salvation.....repetition....or rolling the boulder (like the rocks in the boat) up the mountain endlessly. "The term Sisyphean describes a task that is impossible to complete. It refers to the punishment that Sisyphus receives in the underworld, where he is forced to roll a boulder up a hill repeatedly for eternity" (I had to look it up!)
Brilliant, Susan—both your meticulous comparison of the three films to one another and to Highsmith’s novel, and your anchoring of the series in the present alarming historical moment of capture by a con man with no center. We finished watching the series last night and were riveted by this gorgeous, rightly ambiguous feat of storytelling that defies the usual rules. What holds our attention about Ripley is not charm (he has next to none) but the cunning of an underdog who lusts after the sheen of money and privilege. We don’t exactly sympathize but we can identify. Dickie and Freddy (what a performance!) are pretty awful people and not very smart. Of course Ripley doesn’t evolve. The suspense lies in how he’ll get out of his latest jam.
I haven’t read the novel in years but am revisiting Highsmith’s fine book on writing suspense fiction, which complements your essay.
Is Caravaggio in the novel? These sequences, while stunning, perplexed me a bit because Caravaggio was driven by passions he couldn’t control, while Ripley knows nothing of passion. Maybe what appeals to him is the perceived glamor of the badass painter? I’m not sure it works, but that’s a minor quibble. Bottom line: We loved it.
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.
Thank you!