Ripley vs Ripley vs Ripley

We’re talking today about a longform essay on the Ripley film vs the Ripley recent series. The essay is authored on her newsletter Velluto by Raffaella Silvestri, a writer/journalist from Milan whom I respect. So, pardon my Italian. English version will be found later on.

In origine c’è il film del 1999. No, in origine c’è il libro di Patricia Highsmith, che non ho letto, [ma ciò non ci interessa qui, my note] perché questo discorso si basa tutto sull’immagine, le parole non ci interessano, addio Patricia.

Cara Raffaella,

È la prima volta che ti scrivo (ma parecchio che ti seguo) e devo subito dire che il tuo essay longform su Velluto  [access by subscription] mi è piaciuto molto e mi ci sono divertito. Proprio per questo voglio ribattere a due o tre cose che hai scritto e pensato. E anche ad un’altra che non hai detto. E lo faccio da qua, a casa mia, cioè sul mio blog. Quindi passo al’inglese, comme d’abitude.

We’re talking of course of The Talented Mr. Ripley and the film/video versions that came out in different epochs. Here’s a list of items I’ll be talking about:

1. Film is full of words, dialogues, scripting, but shall we do as it were just images?
2. Dickie Greenleaf as portrayed by Jude Law vs the other unknown
3. The invisible elephant in the room
4. “Marge. Bellissima. Bianchissima, biondissima”. The “most gorgeous, whitest, blondest”, was Gwyneth Paltrow. On the other hand, the newcomer, Dakota Fanning, is “avid”, “girlbossy”?
5. Mr. Ripley –“poi a guardarlo bene è così bello”, “Ripley, quello che prima era Matt Damon, the guy who was first Matt Damon, oggi è Andrew Scott, quello che faceva il prete in Fleabag” or, the guy who did the priest in Fleabag.
6. Il film del 1999: “è più bello più estetico e più facilone”, more aesthetic and facile.
7. The series: “It’s all about aesthetics… È tutta estetica: un’estetica non bella, ma di atmosfera. È il vibe a fare da padrone”, vibe is all-important.

I’ll drop item #1, because we do want to talk images, here, including the very definition of beauty. Also, we want to talk about persons and not necessarily mannequins, as Raffaella points out about the series. So Jude Law it is. But first, for clarity: we’re talking about the Ripley film of 1999 (The Talented Mr. Ripley) and the series of 2024 (Ripley). I like her female gaze view on men and their beauty for her pleasure and fun. Law is beau, like a “rowing team” member. The actor impersonating Dickie in the 2024 series is completely unknown, and possibly not that beau. Of course, we can’t really compare the two, since the simple act of thinking of Law reminds us the number of films we loved and enjoyed with him. However, I do agree that the 1999 film (at the onset of the new millennium) is fully “on”, extreme, including the plot and the characters’ beauty. And that the film is more “beautiful, aesthetic and facile”. But the series is so interesting in its contriteness, it shines in austere repentance. The black and white is not bright (but high-contrast) and gives not a light full of color or hot, like the 1999 film. But precisely for that, for the repentance, it shines. Moreover, Ripley/Scott’s fixation on Caravaggio, is it just a way to show the stem of a perilous relation forming–attraction and death? Or, what about the penitence-driven up and down climbing on lots of stairs? That is an addition I enjoyed much.

1999 was a gross simplification of what we felt. Watching it now is suffocating. But 2024 is: ‘when in doubt, let’s not talk about real people, let’s talk about puppets and put them in a nice atmosphere.’

I tend to agree on this view, but Raffaella goes too strong against the series: Atmosphere and vibe, the series is all about that, true. But I don’t feel the characters as puppets, au contraire I feel Dickie much more present in 2024 than 1999, the unknown actor wins over Jude Law in colors with a full grade in acting (uncompassionate, cold, distant, false). Same (sorry) with the Marge. Here of course my own male gaze enters the arena and I find Dakota Fanning much much more beautiful and interesting, that the insipid, immobile-faced, rigid Gwyneth Paltrow. The Dakota character “avid” and “girlbossy”? No! Instead, she is offended and sad.

And then there’s Matt Damon, the ultra-beau.

“Then if you look at him carefully he’s so handsome”, “Ripley, the one who used to be Matt Damon, is now Andrew Scott, the one who played the priest in Fleabag”.

Indeed. I’m not going over the beauty, except to me, Matt is the one most ironic about himself and his beauty. Scott, he takes himself too seriously, and that may be because he’s portrayed as a chauvinist narcissist, even a bit gender-fluid. Because the sexual attraction between Dickie and Ripley is evident in the series, perhaps not so in the 1999 movie. But again Raffaella is right, the movie was crystal clear about a representation of an epoch, no space for sexual meandering.

And now, let’s introduce the missing elephant, even though he is so strongly present in her article. His name is Alain Delon. The film was Plein Soleil (Purple Noon, 1960).

During my reading of Raffaella’s post, I kept asking myself: When is she going to talk about Alain Delon? I mean, if we’re having fun contemplating human faces and bodies, let’s embrace Alain’s too. You know, in terms of male beauty he defies Matt Damon and Andrew Scott one-handedly. But also with his innate unsympathetic face. Totally. Last, his beauty is 100% non americano, which helps in this case.

Watch this comparison:

I rest my case. The question however remains: Why did Raffaella ignore Alain and his film, the very first movie from the Ripley novel? We shall not know. She doesn’t say, but she may want to give a reply here. Or not.

—postscriptum

Originally there is the 1999 film. No, originally there is the book by Patricia Highsmith, which I have not read, [that does not interest us here, my note] because this discussion is all based on images, words do not interest us, goodbye Patricia.

Well yes, it is the first time I write to you (but I have been following you for a long time) and I must immediately say that I really liked your longform essay on Velluto [newsletter–access by subscription]. Precisely for this reason I want to respond to two or three things that you wrote and thought. And also to another that you did not say (but certainly thought). And I do it from here, my home, that is, on my blog. And so I switch to English, comme d’abitude. [Some Google Translate AI helped].