criterionforum.org

untitled wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2024 3:54 pm

The Curious Sofa wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2024 8:52 am Glad you enjoyed the show, unfortunately, it looks like not enough people are watching this for it to get more seasons:

It's a little odd. It keeps popping up in my socials (probably algo-driven as I read every article I see) so it seems like it's everywhere but I've mentioned to a number of people who I'm surprised haven't even heard of it--people I think would have.

WRT Ripley's age, I had thought starting with an older actor might make sense if there was a plan to film the subsequent novels as he ages as they progress. 5 novels over ~35 years vs a 5-season limited series over 6 or 7.

It's not always clear exactly how much time progresses between the novels. Ripley's 25 years old in TALENTED MR, does that mean he's 60 years old in RIPLEY UNDER WATER?

untitled wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2024 3:54 pm

WRT Ripley's age, I had thought starting with an older actor might make sense if there was a plan to film the subsequent novels as he ages as they progress. 5 novels over ~35 years vs a 5-season limited series over 6 or 7.

That is what I thought regarding casting an older actor and when this was still at Showtime the plan was to adapt all the books. Since it moved to Netflix it became a limited series, though if something is a success Netflix will always be happy to do more.

Roscoe wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2024 4:25 pm
It's not always clear exactly how much time progresses between the novels. Ripley's 25 years old in TALENTED MR, does that mean he's 60 years old in RIPLEY UNDER WATER?

It's been a long time since I read the last three so I'd had to google which told me he ages from 25 to early 40s across the five books. If that's accurate I suppose you could use a younger actor just as easily. Still, I figured if I'm going to get worked up about how the adaptations vary from the novel, TR's age is way down the list, esp when compared to the plot changes in the Minghella movie.

FWIW, in an odd coincidence, I was scrolling for something to watch last night and stumbled across "The Two Faces of January." Preview said something along the lines of "From the author of TMR..." So I gave it a shot. Pretty decent thriller, really. Viggo M, Oscar Isaac, Kirsten Dunst. A couple surprises: A scene where Viggo is carrying a body down a hall mirrors Ripley carrying Freddie and later, Viggo protecting his suitcases while sleeping on an outdoor bench recalls Ripley at the bus stop. Then, I saw Max Minghella was a producer as the credits rolled.

It may be that this is just really up my alley. But I found this to be of the dopest things I've seen in some time. Maybe ever. The consistency in tone and precision is baffling in thay they kept it up for such a long runtime. I really recommend anyone who hasn't seen this show to give it a check. For some reason I thought it would be a bit more slow and drawn out, when in fact it moves rather quickly. If this were a film I'd be swearing up and down it's the best of the year. I doubt it will be an awards hit, but goddamn, I don't think anyone is doing stuff like this on TV.

It’s a masterpiece.

This is objectively well made in a variety of respects, but I just couldn't connect with what Zaillian was doing. The film never achieves a strong sense of noir to justify its strong aesthetic choices clearly defining it that way

I didn't read the visual style as "noir" - for me, it was more redolent of a Life magazine photo spread from the era, and worked brilliantly in that context.

Incidentally, for those with the necessary equipment, this is 4K UHD HDR demo material, and unlike pretty much any other made-for-TV series I can think of, it demands the biggest screen possible. I'd love there to be a physical release, but sadly I'm a realist.

MichaelB wrote: Mon Jul 15, 2024 7:27 am I didn't read the visual style as "noir" - for me, it was more redolent of a Life magazine photo spread from the era, and worked brilliantly in that context.

I like your reading better, even if Zaillian seems to bring it back to noir inspirations in his interviews

You guys were right, this is really good. I wasn't planning to watch it--I have no attachment to the Ripley character, and having already seen the Minghella film, I was not excited to see the exact same plot played out at length. Actually, the main reason I saw it is one of the reasons I initially avoided it: Andrew Scott. I only knew him from the execrable Sherlock, where I thought he gave an irritating, uncontrolled performance, and the thought of him doing another psychopath over 8 hours was unappealing. Except I happened to finally watch Fleabag, and he was so good in it, that I honestly just wanted more Andrew Scott. And he's great in this, too: pathetic, menacing, kinda sad, utterly cold.

I wasn't expecting how paranoid the show was. That's what stood out the most--from the first episode, people just look at Ripley differently. They seem to study him warily, and in conversation with him edge from chit chat into interrogation. Every train Ripley gets off of, the police are just there, hanging about. Even the camera participates, filming Ripley at odd angles and through or around various objects.

It's more low key about it, but Ripley keeps the same interpretation of Ripley's sexuality as the Minghella movie, with Ripley often striking people as gay while seeming to have no real, inherent sexuality. Marge says exactly that, and she is the most perceptive character in the film outside of Miles. Minghella played that aspect loudly--he played a lot of things loudly--but Ripley keeps it to the background.

I'm not surprised this wasn't a huge hit--it's slow, quiet, very pretty but in an old fashioned way, and in black and white. That's a shame. I'd love for the series to keep going. It feels like Andrew Scott is just getting started with this character.

Maybe Netflix will let Criterion have it in 12 months or so. They already have Highsmith (via the Delon film) and Andrew Scott in the collection and The Underground Railroad has just confirmed that they're still doing TV shows.

Mr Sausage wrote: Sun Jul 21, 2024 12:43 am I'd love for the series to keep going. It feels like Andrew Scott is just getting started with this character.

Even though I wasn’t enamored with it, these are my sentiments as well. I’d love to see Scott keep developing Ripley in later stories

Mr Sausage wrote: Sun Jul 21, 2024 12:43 amI wasn't expecting how paranoid the show was. That's what stood out the most--from the first episode, people just look at Ripley differently. They seem to study him warily, and in conversation with him edge from chit chat into interrogation. Every train Ripley gets off of, the police are just there, hanging about. Even the camera participates, filming Ripley at odd angles and through or around various objects.

I've seen a great many Patricia Highsmith adaptations over the years, most of which fail to catch the pervading atmosphere of suspicion, paranoia and guilt that invariably suffuses the original - if you didn't know that Fyodor Dostoevsky was her all-time favourite novelist, it really wouldn't be hard to guess.

It was a revelation finally reading Strangers on a Train many decades after seeing the Hitchcock film, because I completely understand her criticisms - Farley Granger's milquetoast tennis player is nothing like the far more tormented and psychologically interesting equivalent in the novel, who, among other things,

Spoiler

actually goes through with the original "murder-swap" scheme by killing Bruno's father in the forlorn hope that this will finally lead Bruno to lay off him.

Although one aspect about which she was unequivocally impressed was Robert Walker's performance as the psychopathic Bruno - and it seems highly plausible that she was thinking of Walker when she created Tom Ripley a few years later, sadly when Walker was already dead. (It's because of her praise of Walker that I've never been that bothered about Ripley's age, because Walker would unavoidably have had to play him older than mid-twenties as well, had he lived and been cast in the part.)

Anyway, Ripley really stood out for me because it's just about the first Highsmith adaptation I've seen that really nails the fact that what makes her such a peculiarly gripping writer isn't so much the narrative elements as the gradual accretion of tiny but telling details, each of which is designed to ratch the protagonist's paranoia up a notch. And it does this so well that I can't help wondering what she'd have made of it, given that she disliked or detested most adaptations - although she loved Alain Delon's interpretation of Ripley, she was unimpressed by what she saw as a cop-out ending. (Although, to be fair to René Clément, he was presumably operating to the commercial cinema's late-50s moral guidelines and he does at least leave things slightly open.)

Highsmith fudged the mismatch of Ripley’s age and the years in which the books in the Ripliad are set: Ripley ages by something like 11 years between Talented and Under Water, but those books are set in 1955 and 1988 respectively, according to a chronology in the 2015 Virago edition. So if Netflix continue adapting the books, by their end we could expect Andrew Scott to be playing anything from 11 years older than his age (58) to 33 years older (80).

MichaelB wrote:Anyway, Ripley really stood out for me because it's just about the first Highsmith adaptation I've seen that really nails the fact that what makes her such a peculiarly gripping writer isn't so much the narrative elements as the gradual accretion of tiny but telling details, each of which is designed to ratch the protagonist's paranoia up a notch.

You aren't kidding. What I loved is how the camera's fixation on those incriminating details (always cutting to them or focusing on them even in moments where they aren't directly incriminating) makes Ripley's paranoia become our paranoia, like a tormenting detail we can't stop turning our heads to look at, giving it and us away. Nowhere is that more apparent than in the final episode, where we get a number of egregious shots of the briefcase under the bed even tho' it never ends up playing a role in the rest of the episode, and none of the characters seem in danger of discovering it. It would seem to violate the rule of information overload by overprivileging unimportant things, except this is entirely for the viewer's paranoia. We live in the anxiety burning in the back of Ripley's mind. So, yeah, I'm not surprised Highsmith loved Dostoevsky as you say, because that's such a Dostoevskian state to put the viewer in--Crime and Punishment is constantly trying to make us Raskolnikov's unwitting moral accomplice and sharer in guilt.