The Anthony Minghella film "The Talented Mr. Ripley", is possibly going to be the most awkward Hollywood film of 1999. It will not be easily placed in any specific genre. It harkens back to a filming style of the late 50's early 60's Hollywood Technicolor period. Using a "La Dolce Vita" look to the scenery, but even more Hollywood lush. One can be easily seduced into the sexy hot Italian landscapes, where the sun bakes down upon its characters. It works as Italy's biggest travelogue in years. The not so easily adaptable story by Patricia Highsmith, follows the story of a young, introverted American Thomas Ripley, who is sent to retrieve the son of a millionaire shipping tycoon. The millionaire tiring of his son's carefree spending, and bohemian lifestyle, sends Tom to bring him home to his ailing mother. Ripley who's had no real purpose in his failing non-existent life, takes up the oppertunity to add some sense of mission and purpose. His character will remind one of a socciopathic Holden Caufield type. Where behind the virgin and innocent exterior of a boy, lays a more sinister and manipulative man. Everything that Ripley does that is amoral and murderous is easily shrugged off as a nessasary solution to the arising situation. He easily justifies his means to an end, which usually concerns money and status. With this in mind, the movie fails the book, but stands as it's own masterpiece. The movie will continue to flesh out areas that the book didn't, with additional emphasis on newer (written in) characters, the theme of jazz, and homosexual innuendos being more in your face and less hidden. The problem here with extra character development can be that you begin to sympathize too much with the individuals that will soon turn to victims. This can cloud our viewing and distract us (the audience) from getting on with the story. When Dickie Greenleaf (the millionaire 's son) is disposed of by Tom Ripley, you spend the next 20 minutes mourning the loss of his presence. Which I'm sure was inteded by Anthony. Where in the book, you are able to move on and focus on current predictiments. It's what gives the book fluidity, and motion. This is where the movie becomes stunted. The power of loss and shock is too great. And in my opinion is distracting. The individuals in the book are as cold as the calculated mind of Ripley. Cinematically speaking it is these larger brush strokes that warm (like the Italian sun) the viewer, and seduce us with characters that we care about. Such an accomplishment on Jude Law's part, that his role as Dickie Greenleaf wins over the viewer and nearly scenery chews himself into the main role of the film (and a best supporting actor, Oscar nomination). The additional characters that were written into the script, while well acted by Jack Davenport, and Cate Blanchet, are unnecessary and clutter the script. Making it seem clastrophobic, while the book maintained a feeling of isolation and lonliness. Where Patricia Highsmith's Ripley was calculated and amoral. Mingella's Ripley is an accident prone nerd. Though Matt Damon does a great job, I still find him terribly miscast. His Ripley is made out to be a jittery Anthony Perkins type (ie: "Psycho"). Where the Ripley of the novel was calm and collected (Is it me, or does bits of Gabriel Yared's score remind one of Bernard Herman's "Psycho" theme?) Speaking of score, the additional jazz element to the theme, was at one point brilliant, but another point blasphemy to the book. The jazz element meant to represent the wild and carefree aspects of Dickie (a supposed jazz head). While classical music is meant to represent Ripley's (a classically trained pianist) boring and conservative life. Though classical is to represent conservative stylization in the film, true musicians know it to be the original musical improvisation. Thus making Ripley a true improvisor, while Dickie is actually more conservative with his life and emotions. Clever. But the idea in the book of Dickie being a painter is also brilliant, making Ripley the true open canvas, which alows him to use his ingenous brush strokes to create the person he needs to be in a quick (chameleon like) manner. It's what makes him so talented (hence the title). It's the artist in him, which makes you root for him, not his accidental good luck. I can understand the director wanting the characters to suffer emotionally, for their crimes, but I don't know about if the viewer should. The biggest problem I have of all is the homosexual tendencies of Ripley and the angle on which the movie exploits this from the manner of the book's vision. In the book Ripley was more asexual (almost virginal), with a sort of worship for Dickie (but probably more his lifestyle, rather than who he actually was). And with the inclusion of the homosexual character Peter (Jack Davenport, whom Ripley seems to fall into an emotional nest with) acts as a sort of a coming out for Ripley from his homosexual closet. The Ripley from the book was far too insular, to let himself be open to this. And like all heroes of the crime and spy novels. It's this sort of insular, anti-hero (or in Ripley's case..."killer") that makes you thrill to their private hells, and successes. Though I may have been overly critical with this film versus the book. I really cannot recommend this film enough. It's beautifully shot with an amazing musical score. The acting is top notch all the way, especially that of Jude Law, who steals the film from just about everyone. Phillip Seymour Hoffman is wonderful as Freddy Miles, and Gwyneth Paltrow is good as the happy-go-lucky turns to upset and edgy Marge. This film is really a nineties masterpiece, even though it takes some unnecessary liberties with the book. Still a great film through and through. Highly recommended!
Review of The Talented Mr. Ripley
