Out of curiosity, I decided to watch Anthony Minghella's adaptation of The Talented Mr. Ripley. I think Professor Lukin's assessment of it was quite spot on. Visually it was wonderful and the acting was superb, however it was definitely lacking the depth of of the novel. Minghella changed the characters in ways that took away the ambiguity of the novel.
More specifically, he took the psychopath out of Tom Ripley. For example, when he killed Dickie, I didn't care at all. In the novel, I was rather affected by the murder of Dickie because of Tom's sort of nihilistic attitude toward it. However in the film, Minghella made Dickie such a mean, unlikable character, I was happy to see him die. I mean this guy was simply an asshole (pardon my crudeness). He was so mean to Marge, cheated on her, got another woman pregnant who then killed herself, and then insulted Tom to his core. I couldn't blame Tom for whacking him with that oar. However, in Highsmith's novel, I didn't see Tom having a reason for killing Dickie other than his own insanity, which made the murder much more powerful. Same goes with Freddie. Philip Seymour Hoffman was brilliant in the role, but Freddie was similar to Dickie in his un-likability, I thought "good for you" when Tom smashed him in the back of the head.
Minghella made a valiant effort in adapting this classic, however I do think he missed the key components that made the novel so great. Like I said, he took the psychopath out of Tom, in my opinion, that takes the life out of the story. As a stand alone movie, however, I would say it is pretty solid.
I haven't watched the entire movie, but I did manage to watch a decent chunk of it. I definitely agree with you, especially with your analysis of Dickie and Freddie. It's interesting that Mingella felt the need to make them unlikable to "justify" Tom's murders. It made it easier to sympathize with Tom, but that's not what I want to sympathize with Tom about. "Taking the psychopath out of Tom" definitely takes away from the character more than I thought it would.
ReplyDeleteI only watched a little bit of the film, but from what I saw, I also really disliked the depiction of Tom. In the book, there’s some mystery surrounding Tom. You’re not sure what makes him tick, what drives him to kill Dickie or what he may do next. In the movie, he’s more of a socially awkward oddball, than a mysterious sociopathic killer. And the addition of the pregnant woman that killed herself because of Dickie felt really unnecessary. The film had so much potential, but the manipulation of character details ruined it for me.
ReplyDeleteYeah, Freddie definitely had it coming and I really didn't like Dickie 's character in the film and his needing to "tend to Marge business" made me angry in the film. The film definitely seemed a lot different from the novel, and Tom seemed to only kill Dickie in the novel after he made remarks about his homosexuality. I feel like Tom pretty much assumed that Dickie and Marge were going to de-friend him soon enough.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your opinion that both the movie and the book are both good although there are definitely some significant differences between the two. I saw the movie years ago, before reading the book, and I remember not being nearly as disturbed by Tom's personality as I was while reading Highsmith's novel. The movie definitely allows for more feelings of sympathy for Tom rather than in the novel when you see a more sociopathic side of his personality. Specifically, when Tom murders Dickie in the movie it is depicted more as a crime of passion, with Dickie berating Tom, essentially telling him he is disgusted by his existence. In the novel, Tom decided that he is going to murder Dickie before they take the boat out. The two seem to actually be getting along quite well, and even plan to go for a swim when Tom decides to strike Dickie with the oar.
ReplyDeleteAgreed on the movie being a solid piece by itself; compared to the novel, however, it is definitely lacking depth. Like some people said above, I just didn't grow as attached to the characters as I did in the novel. Sure, it's a star cast, but the characterizations are so off that I didn't get any of the same reactions from the movie as I did the book. Ripley, for example, is 10x creepier than Matt Damon lets on. Sure, he's awkward, but other than his dogging of Dickie, he didn't exactly seem like a psychopath. It wasn't until he killed Dickie that I really felt something was wrong with him. As a contrast, though, I knew Ripley was off as soon as I opened the book; maybe it's because we can actually get inside the heads of characters in books, but the fact remains that I didn't connect nearly as well with the characters in the movie as I did in the book.
ReplyDelete