FILM STYLIZATION: The Talented Mr. Ripley Makes Use of Italian Fantasy and Character Reimagination

   

**HEY! There are spoilers for this movie in this article... like serious ones. Don't read this issue of my blog if you haven't given this movie a watch! 

 I have always wanted to go to Italy. I mean, there's so much to see, so much culture to try and immerse yourself in. Italy, unlike the United States, has such vast history and stories connected to it, that not being able to go and experience it for yourself would not do it justice.

I have no idea if Tom Ripley felt the same way, but I sure as hell know he needed to get the hell out of New York and upgrade his life.

The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999), I think, is often overlooked. On the surface, it's a great story, with stunning performances (Damon, Law, Blanchett and Paltrow are all stunning in their respective roles), and a good rhythm to it. Why is it so overlooked? Well, frankly, it's a remake adaptation (Purple Noon with Alain Delon was the original adaptation of Patricia Highsmith's novel) that was only made three years after the first movie. And granted, this adaptation is far less accurate to the book than Purple Noon.

So then why are we talking about here? 

Because, like I said last month in my article about The Outsiders, we can still learn and grow and sentimentalize this movie. Just because it is not the most amazing piece or adaptation of filmmaking, doesn't mean it doesn't have lessons and techniques to offer. So listen up.

Minghella stylizes this movie so that the playing ground for characters is not as even as the book. Highsmith tells this story from the perspective of Tom, yes, however she acknowledges and feeds into the audience's initial reactions towards the subjects of murder, homosexuality (at the time of the 1950s when this book was published), and so on and so forth. She makes Tom a pompous ass sometimes, full of himself and superior to Dickie and Marge (major Leo energy), and with the confidence and anger to drive him to pulling all his schemes off. She makes the playing field as even as possible when it comes to all the characters and all the events; the writing is not subjective to one character over the other.

Minghella and Damon, however, make the audience fall in love with Tom. They introduce him as a beam of genius and youth in a disgusting, undeveloped New York City backdrop. From the moment we see his potential playing the piano in the opening credits, we want to root for him. At first glance, he's the classic guy next door. And once we see him in his New York City apartment, it is apparent he doesn't fit in his environment. He is working hard to learn jazz music while his background is decaying and old and his neighbors scream at the top of their lungs over alcohol. His colors (physical and mental) and his demeanor don't match his surrounding until he is in Italy. And even then, he isn't quite there. He's pasty and white, nervous and unsure, while the others in Italy are tan and suave and cool. Over time, Minghella fits Tom together with Italy like a puzzle piece snuggly finishing the overall picture. It's at the inciting murder of Dickie when Tom is able to fully grow into his own (not only as Dickie Greenleaf but as Tom as well). Italy is the safe haven; Italy is where Tom has his power to manipulate and bounce through all these different obstacles. That's why the threat of going back to New York is so crucial; not only does Tom not want to go back (and we empathize and agree with him as an audience) but mechanically, Minghella wants us to know that Italy is where it all can happen, spiritually and logistically. Italy is a character, and that's the brilliance of this certain avenue of stylization. 

Because this is an adaptation, there are other kinds of stylizations that are open to the creatives that aren't always there for original movies. Let's take a look at Tom's character a little bit more for a second: as an audience, we empathize with what we want. We empathize with Tom because he is portrayed as the underdog, someone who is growing into his own. He's the representation of how we want our lives to be: an exciting incident that brings us where we've always wanted to be so that we can fully become what we want to be. Isn't that the basis of Tom's character journey? Granted, there are bumps along the way, but you get the picture.

Damon also plays Ripley as more human. In both the book and Purple Noon, Tom is seen as this genius of sly, destructive nature. He doesn't feel deeply; he actually pushes emotion away. He doesn't even act instinctively. For example, in the book, Tom plans out at the beginning of the respective chapter that he is going to kill Dickie. That's why he brings Dickie on the boat in the middle of nowhere; Tom already has his plan of imitating and taking over Dickie's life in place. However, Minghella directs the scene so that Tom is just out with Dickie (but slowly falling in love with him.. something that is mentioned far later in the book and shut down as a possibility in all avenue, unlike this movie adaptation that actually feeds into the possibility of Tom's homosexuality narratively). Tom kills Dickie as an act of anger and self defense once his insecurities are preyed upon. It's very Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde-y. Then, after the killing has happened, Tom realizes what he has done, sobs and cuddles with Dickie's dead body (see I told you they play into the whole gay thing a lot more).*

*On another note, this is one of my favorite film scenes of all time, so you should definitely check it out. All aspects of this scene are really well done, and I think this scene should be studied in film school, point blank period. 

Now, was this interpretation of Tom a choice? Yes of course. And it was run with and executed really well. Is it the right choice? Well, if we were going off of what I talked about in last months blog, probably not. Minghella's adaptation does not ring true to Highsmith's source material. It does not accurately portray what she has written. Liberties are taken, and stories are warped. But it's Minghella and Damon's stylization. THAT is how they saw this story. That is the stylized choice they made when re-telling this story. And sometimes as a filmmaker, depending on the looseness of your source material, it's good to go outside the box. It changed the story, but it made it much more engaging and enjoyable for the audience than Highsmith's novel probably would have been. 

Now, we could go on and on about other specific style choices used in this movie (the symbolic moments of cinematography mixed in with the real action is a big one) but the two I just mentioned really get down into the nitty-gritty of the story and it's success. This lesson brought about a learning curve, showing us the use of scenery and location in crucial storytelling (whether it be adaptation or not) and how the interpretation and execution of characters can warp not only the audience perception, but the actual story.  

I'm sure there are many other examples of this kind of stylization, but none that I've come across as relevant and well executed as this. This movie is a great guilty pleasure and with a story like no other.

Plus, it really fed into my serious desire to go to Italy. If only Mongibello was a real place...