Ripley (TV Series)
Background: It's been decades, but I actually did read the Ripley novels. I am also familiar with the two previous adaptations of the first one (i.e. Purple Noon/En Plain Soleil, the 1960s French one, starring Alain Delon as Ripley, and the 1990s The Talented Mr. Ripley directed by Anthony Minghella and with Matt Damon as Ripley, and with the two film versions of the third novel, Ripley's Game, one of which was retitled The American Friend, directed by Wim Wenders, starring Dennis Hopper as Ripley and Bruno Ganz as that story's object of Ripley's attentions, and the other one. directed by Liliana Cavani, had John Malkovich as Ripley and Dougray Scott in the Bruno Ganz role. Now that Andrew Scott has thrown his hat in the ring, I think we're soon having as many Ripleys as there are James Bonds? There are basis for comparisons, is what I'm saying.
So, the new miniseries, based on the first novel. Without beating around the bush: acting wise, Andrew Scott is superb, but he's also too old. His age would not matter in any of the other Ripley stories, but the first one is the story of a young man in his 20s. Not least because he and Dickie Greenleaf need to be at least roughly of the same age for the later part of the plot to work, and even American millionaires would presumably not send someone after their wayward expat son if the guy is already in his 40s. Now the miniseries doesn't name the exact age of either Tom or Dickie, but at one point they're described as "maybe 30", and sorry, but no. All this being said, I can see why the production people and the director went with Andrew Scott anyway, since he is very very good in the part. (Self and Andrew Scott: I thought his Moriarty in Sherlock was like chalk on a drawing board, and then I saw him in a completely different role as one of the characters in the movie Pride and thought, wow, I take it all back, you're a superb actor, Scott.) You can see his version of Ripley turn into the one from the later novels in a way which isn't true for either Delon or Damon. ( In fact, I do wish the miniseries had adapted one of the later novels, then I wouldn't have been jolted out of my suspension of disbelief every now and then due to the age factor.)
Looks-wise, this is a very stylish adaptation, shot in black and white, and completely in love iwth stairs. You could subtitle it "Tom Ripley vs Italian Stairs" and be correct. It's something of a running gag on the one hand that there are so many (and no or no working elevators), but the cinematogrpahy also milks the resulting shadows for all they're worth. It's very consciously film noir as a tv miniseries. With the coldest depiction of Italy you've seen in a long while as a result, not just because it's black and white but because the streets and squares and buldings are so empty that I wondered whether they shot this under Covid lockdown conditions. I mean, it works with other people being not quite real to Ripley - in one episode we hear a lot of chatter in the background, but we don't see anyone, so I do suspect this was an intentional effect.
Now, while the miniseries sticks closer to Highsmith's novel than the previous two aadaptations, not least because it has far more screen time to do so, it does what the others did and adds something als well. Purple Noon had all the heavy homoerotic subtext from the book but presumably because it was still of its time felt the need to let Ripley be sexually interested in Marge and vice versa, which, no, really not, from neither side. Also, of course, the changed ending. The Talented Mr. Ripley added the entire Peter subplot and also a changed ending. Both serving the same need.As is evident from the fact there are subsequent novels, Ripley gets away with it in the book. The French film has him nearly getting away with it but in the final scene just as he's sunning himself in the assurance he did get away with it, elsewhere Dickie's body is found. Minghella's film has Ripley getting away with it in the worst possible way for Ripley, because he can achieve this only by killing his newfound love and the one man who loved him as Tom Ripley, not Dickie Greenleafe. Again, the Peter subplot doesn't exist in the novel, and there is no "fake someone or real no one" theme. This miniseries has Ripley getting away with it, but in the very last scene has Inspector Carvini getting a copy of Marge's book, which includes a photo of Dickie on the title page, and thus finally realising the man he thought was Dickie Greenleaf was Tom Ripley, with all the implications. Since the book presumably is published at least half a year after the previous scene, it doesn't necessarily mean Ripley is still in Italy to be arrested, but in all three cases, evidently there was the need to inflict at least some type of narrative punishment on Tom Ripley.In addition to offering a slightly changed ending of its own, the miniseries also offers us scenes not in Ripley's pov - which the entire novel is - involving Inspector Carvini trying to solve the murders, developing the Inspector into a worthy antagonist, and some more fleshing out Marge, so much so that I thought in the last episodeshe showed up as part of a cunning plan and this would be the altered ending, but no. The other thing it adds is Ripley developing not just a fascination with Dickie Greenleaf's life but with Caravaggio, so much so that he visits Caravaggio paintings in the various Italian cities the series offers as locations, and that the last episode offers actual in costume Caravaggio flashbacks as the culmination of its Ripley/Caravaggio parallels. Given Tom Ripley's main source of income in the later novels is connected to the art forgery business, good choice. It also means John Malkovich (that was him, right?) can cameo as a character from the later novels for the finale. (Since Malkovich was the most recent screen Ripley - the adaptation of Ripley's Game starring him is from 2002 - it's a nice nod.)
The series has some neat dark humor - I already mentioned the stairs, but there's also the cat of Ripley's Roman land lady, and lots of unimpressed people working in the bank -, and while moving slowly and leisurely really brings the suspense all those times Ripley is in danger of being found out. Other than Scott, the most impressive actor for me was Maurizio Lombardi as Inspector Ravini. Both Johnny Flynn as Dickie Greenleaf and Eliot Summer as Freddie Miles had the misfortune of being overshadowed by peak performances from previous actors in my mind. In fairness to Johnny Flynn, it's also that Dickie in this tv series is made nicer and blander. The trick to pull off with Dickie Greenleaf is that on the one hand, he's the embodiment of arrogant privilege, and on the other hand, it needs to be plausible his friends are crazy about him beyond his money, and that young Tom Ripley is torn between wanting to be him and wanting him. Late 1990s Jude Law was that. (In fact, since I loathed Dickie when first reading the book and in his incarnation as Philippe in the French movie, he was the first to make me realize what everyone saw in Dickie.) And Freddie Miles was played by Philip Seymour Hoffmann. Enough said. Woe to thee, oh actor, if you have to follow up PSH. Dakota Fanning as Marge is good, as was Gwynneth Paltrow, but while her Marge had more screen time, Marge still is something of a frustrating partnarratively, her main function is the be a thorn in Tom's side, but never on a worthy adversary level, and in the last epsisode I thought the minseries would go there but it did not, so I was somewhat irked. (Despite knowing how the plot would have to proceed.)
All in all: I liked but didn't love it. (And could have done with a few less stairs, but then, so could Tom Ripley.)
So, the new miniseries, based on the first novel. Without beating around the bush: acting wise, Andrew Scott is superb, but he's also too old. His age would not matter in any of the other Ripley stories, but the first one is the story of a young man in his 20s. Not least because he and Dickie Greenleaf need to be at least roughly of the same age for the later part of the plot to work, and even American millionaires would presumably not send someone after their wayward expat son if the guy is already in his 40s. Now the miniseries doesn't name the exact age of either Tom or Dickie, but at one point they're described as "maybe 30", and sorry, but no. All this being said, I can see why the production people and the director went with Andrew Scott anyway, since he is very very good in the part. (Self and Andrew Scott: I thought his Moriarty in Sherlock was like chalk on a drawing board, and then I saw him in a completely different role as one of the characters in the movie Pride and thought, wow, I take it all back, you're a superb actor, Scott.) You can see his version of Ripley turn into the one from the later novels in a way which isn't true for either Delon or Damon. ( In fact, I do wish the miniseries had adapted one of the later novels, then I wouldn't have been jolted out of my suspension of disbelief every now and then due to the age factor.)
Looks-wise, this is a very stylish adaptation, shot in black and white, and completely in love iwth stairs. You could subtitle it "Tom Ripley vs Italian Stairs" and be correct. It's something of a running gag on the one hand that there are so many (and no or no working elevators), but the cinematogrpahy also milks the resulting shadows for all they're worth. It's very consciously film noir as a tv miniseries. With the coldest depiction of Italy you've seen in a long while as a result, not just because it's black and white but because the streets and squares and buldings are so empty that I wondered whether they shot this under Covid lockdown conditions. I mean, it works with other people being not quite real to Ripley - in one episode we hear a lot of chatter in the background, but we don't see anyone, so I do suspect this was an intentional effect.
Now, while the miniseries sticks closer to Highsmith's novel than the previous two aadaptations, not least because it has far more screen time to do so, it does what the others did and adds something als well. Purple Noon had all the heavy homoerotic subtext from the book but presumably because it was still of its time felt the need to let Ripley be sexually interested in Marge and vice versa, which, no, really not, from neither side. Also, of course, the changed ending. The Talented Mr. Ripley added the entire Peter subplot and also a changed ending. Both serving the same need.As is evident from the fact there are subsequent novels, Ripley gets away with it in the book. The French film has him nearly getting away with it but in the final scene just as he's sunning himself in the assurance he did get away with it, elsewhere Dickie's body is found. Minghella's film has Ripley getting away with it in the worst possible way for Ripley, because he can achieve this only by killing his newfound love and the one man who loved him as Tom Ripley, not Dickie Greenleafe. Again, the Peter subplot doesn't exist in the novel, and there is no "fake someone or real no one" theme. This miniseries has Ripley getting away with it, but in the very last scene has Inspector Carvini getting a copy of Marge's book, which includes a photo of Dickie on the title page, and thus finally realising the man he thought was Dickie Greenleaf was Tom Ripley, with all the implications. Since the book presumably is published at least half a year after the previous scene, it doesn't necessarily mean Ripley is still in Italy to be arrested, but in all three cases, evidently there was the need to inflict at least some type of narrative punishment on Tom Ripley.In addition to offering a slightly changed ending of its own, the miniseries also offers us scenes not in Ripley's pov - which the entire novel is - involving Inspector Carvini trying to solve the murders, developing the Inspector into a worthy antagonist, and some more fleshing out Marge, so much so that I thought in the last episodeshe showed up as part of a cunning plan and this would be the altered ending, but no. The other thing it adds is Ripley developing not just a fascination with Dickie Greenleaf's life but with Caravaggio, so much so that he visits Caravaggio paintings in the various Italian cities the series offers as locations, and that the last episode offers actual in costume Caravaggio flashbacks as the culmination of its Ripley/Caravaggio parallels. Given Tom Ripley's main source of income in the later novels is connected to the art forgery business, good choice. It also means John Malkovich (that was him, right?) can cameo as a character from the later novels for the finale. (Since Malkovich was the most recent screen Ripley - the adaptation of Ripley's Game starring him is from 2002 - it's a nice nod.)
The series has some neat dark humor - I already mentioned the stairs, but there's also the cat of Ripley's Roman land lady, and lots of unimpressed people working in the bank -, and while moving slowly and leisurely really brings the suspense all those times Ripley is in danger of being found out. Other than Scott, the most impressive actor for me was Maurizio Lombardi as Inspector Ravini. Both Johnny Flynn as Dickie Greenleaf and Eliot Summer as Freddie Miles had the misfortune of being overshadowed by peak performances from previous actors in my mind. In fairness to Johnny Flynn, it's also that Dickie in this tv series is made nicer and blander. The trick to pull off with Dickie Greenleaf is that on the one hand, he's the embodiment of arrogant privilege, and on the other hand, it needs to be plausible his friends are crazy about him beyond his money, and that young Tom Ripley is torn between wanting to be him and wanting him. Late 1990s Jude Law was that. (In fact, since I loathed Dickie when first reading the book and in his incarnation as Philippe in the French movie, he was the first to make me realize what everyone saw in Dickie.) And Freddie Miles was played by Philip Seymour Hoffmann. Enough said. Woe to thee, oh actor, if you have to follow up PSH. Dakota Fanning as Marge is good, as was Gwynneth Paltrow, but while her Marge had more screen time, Marge still is something of a frustrating partnarratively, her main function is the be a thorn in Tom's side, but never on a worthy adversary level, and in the last epsisode I thought the minseries would go there but it did not, so I was somewhat irked. (Despite knowing how the plot would have to proceed.)
All in all: I liked but didn't love it. (And could have done with a few less stairs, but then, so could Tom Ripley.)