The Talented Mr. Ripley

viewed January 18, 1999 on Century Plaza 10

For full information about this film, click here

If you read the reviews by the surprising number of detractors of this film (some of whom I have listed below), you'll notice that they mostly harp on three things:  Minghella's turning a trashy pulp novel into a glamorous epic; turning the lead character from a psychopath to a sympathetic character; and the casting of Matt Damon in the lead.  All of these were choices Minghella made under contemporary and commercial considerations -- he wanted to make a mainstream, A-grade picture out of a trash novel, seekig both box office and Oscar gold.  He knows where the scene is; more power to him.  

They harp on Minghella for taking liberties with the original story; however, their opinions aren't unified in how to make it better or suitable to '90s tastes.  I don't mind Minghella's treatment of the story because it makes for good scenes and is pleasurable to watch, if the overall effect is slight.  It knows what it wants and for the most part accomplishes it.  In fact, he has made some improvements to the film, giving the women more significance (Cate Blanchett's character wasn't even in the novel but in the film she offers Tom Ripley the perfect unwitting accomplice for his schemes).  The Gwyneth Paltrow character serves as mostly window-dressing but at least she's agreeable to the ugly, mysogynistic image of woman in Highsmith's original.  However, one could argue that misogyny was Highsmith's point: Tom Ripley was an incorrigible woman-hater, and if the film was to be true to showing the world through his eyes as Minghella is intent to do, they may as well have been depicted as burdensome trifles.

But Minghella chooses to center Ripley's and our disdain on Dickie Greenleaf (Jude Law), embellishing on the original character's flaws and heightening his negligent, insensitive treatment of others.  In that way, when Ripley kills him, we feel he is justified, since Dickie was a real jerk.  That is the strategy Minghella takes for bringing us on Ripley's side throughout the movie: make him a sympathetic figure, a poor but ambitious, innocent but unfourtunate soul, and have us feel that he has no other recourse but to do terrible things.  This is the '90s defense attorney approach to character development, and for the most part it works.  It's just that by the end we feel we've heard this story before: in the tabloids, with the headline featuring the name Andrew Cunanan.

Despite what some have said, I think Matt Damon holds his own as Ripley -- again doing everything expected of the role.  He has the ambitious eyes, the awkward, boyish charm, and the inner silence that enables malice. Jude Law fits the image of the la dolce vita poster boy Dickie, living the sweet life on his father's money, reckless and robust, with no ill consequences to be seen.  I have heard the suggestion that the two ought to have played roles.  As it stands they are cast as one would expect (due in part to Damon's greater fame), but the idea of Law as Ripley and Damon as Greenleaf lends itself to much intrigue.  Law looks so much like a golden boy that one would never suspect he wasn't -- and he would be far more insidious and seductive than the luckless whelp Damon. It would have possibly been a far more sophisticated story, relying less on apologetics and more on a sense of guilty sinister pleasure on the part of the audience watching Law ooze charm among the privileged.

However, I must say that there is another person waiting in the backdrop who could have played either role.  He is Philip Seymour Hoffman, who has a real ball as Greenleaf's buddy Freddy.  Hoffman is an actor who exudes more energy than his pudgy frame would suggest, and he clearly has more fun with his role than anyone else (Blanchett, who sports a flawless Manhattan accent, comes second).  He hams up the young fat cat role for all it's worth -- and he could have taken on Ripley or Greenleaf with equal aplomb.  Here's hoping that he gets more starring roles in the years to come. 

Another criticism I've heard is that the film riffs poorly on Hitchcock.  It definitely uses the look of films like To Catch a Thief as a source of inspiration -- but that's as far as the similarities go.  This film is not so much a thriller as a character study, and a rather generic one at that, set in motion by an inventive plot and an attractive young cast who are just good to look at, especially in such touristy surroundings.  As mass entertainment, it's impeccably done, with an injection of homoeroticism being its most daring move.  But as cinema, even that element seems shallow.

Home