Ripley - starts today on Netflix. Anyone fancy a discussion thread?

[Netaporter]

Based upon the book ‘The talented mr ripley’ by Patricia Highsmith Andrew Scott stars in this adaptation. It is filmed in B&W so interested to see how this differs from the glorious film starring Gwyneth, Jude and Matt Damon.

Going to start episode 1 later this morning.

I'm not quite sure I'd say that the film was 'panned' as it was nominated for several Oscars, including one for Jude Law. But you're right in saying it wasn't as highly regarded then as it is now. A bit like 'The Shawshank Redemption'. It flopped in the cinema but has since become a 'cult classic'.

The art will make sense in a zequal to this series.

I've only read up to page 3 of this thread, I only came on to see what others thought of it because I'd only heard good things in the media so couldn't understand why I couldn't get into it and wondered if it was just me. After watching episode 1 I thought it was a load of old wank and bloody awful compared to the film. I agree with all the comments previous made about how badly it compares to the film.

Film: casting perfect, bright young things, reminded me of an F Scott Fitzgerald setting - a perfect little bubble with just the smallest hint of something going awry, gorgeous scenery IN COLOUR (as it should be for that part of the world, we're supposed to understand the reason that Dickie remains there, after all).

TV show: actors are too old, Dickie and Marge have no chemistry. The black and white makes me actually angry, there is no reason for it to be in black and white, it's just so up itself. I want to see the beautiful coast, I want to understand the reason Dickie and Marge don't want to leave.

It's fucking slow generally. The slow bits in the film helped giving an air of lazy privilege whereas in this black and white it just makes their life seem dreary and boring.

Sorry but I don't like Andrew Scott in this. I love him in other stuff I've seen.

I've given up after watching one and a half episodes. DH is continuing but only because he's a stubborn bastard and is seeing it as a "i've started so I'll finish" challenge.

Not for me.

@CurlyhairedAssassin I agree that there's no chemistry between Dickie and Marge, but actually I thought that was intentional! Every bit of Dickie's life is failure, in a way. He's ended up in a life where he's trying to be a writer, trying to be an artist - juxtaposed with an actual writer and all the actual art - but he's just a rich nobody who's pretty depressed with himself. Marge seems to be just kind of there. I know this interpretation of their relationship has none of the glamour of the film but I kind of loved it.

I think I just don't get Andrew Scott to be honest. First became aware of him in Sherlock, followed him through to Fleabag and Vanya. He acts like a first year drama degree student. Lots of blinking, wide eyes and smelling the fart acting. Ruffling his hair. Cracking his knuckles. I gather he's a rather interesting character off screen, and is widely beloved by his co workers, so he's probably kind, charismatic and all the things I wish he was on screen, just, er, off it.

I'm so excited for new White Lotus. I need something genuinely original and funny and dark to retain my faith in tv.

I have just read the book and there’s no chemistry between Dickie and Marge there either; they just hang out because they are the only Americans in the town and she is keener on him than he is on her.
Of course it’s Ripley’s pov so he could be in denial about it, but it’s certainly a valid reading.
The book made me love Scott’s portrayal of Ripley and indeed the whole production even more; it’s so true to the spirit of the book.
The sumptuous gilded technicolour film is glorious in its own right but it’s not really Highsmith.

Absolutely@TheCountessofFitzdotterel. This is it, exactly!

Interesting to read thoughts from people who have read the books, which I haven't. I started out dismayed at the lack of charisma in both Dickie and Tom despite the very charming actors playing them. Tom seems so obviously creepy and unsettling that I couldn't understand how anyone would let him into their house let alone grant him the sort of trust that Dickie does. Dickie lacks any sort of appeal and seemed a bored and boring kind of man.

Like other posters I missed the glamour of the film and wondered why there was no spark between any of them.

I persevered, though, and started to enjoy the series for its good / great points: the wonderful tension, the very beautiful cinematography. The fantastic supporting cast of Italians. You could freeze frame at almost any point and be delighted by the lighting and composition. The slow burn horror of Ripley as a remorseless sociopath.

I think he's wonderfully portrayed now I have seen the whole series. It still begs the question why do people trust him? I think, though, we see almost everyone treat him with some level of mistrust - they all know to some extent something is not right. The only exception is Dickie (at first) and I wonder if that's part of Dickie's characterisation here. As others have said, he's hopeless, talentless, bored and without ambition. He's not that into his relationship with Marge. He only seems to have one other friend, and it's Freddie. Tom is someone new to amuse him. Perhaps a friendship with someone who dresses up in his clothes and steals from him, initially seems better than an endless life of bored luxury and failed art?

Another question for me is why does Marge seem to suddenly warm to Tom when she comes to Venice? I didn't understand the change in their relationship at all.

I also wondered if Mr Greenleaf had been initially looking for a different Tom Ripley to help him? And Tom just took the opportunity offered?

I'm glad I persevered; I enjoyed it very much once I stopped comparing it to the film and accepted it as a new entity.

Yesss bring it on !

Agree about Andrew Scott, he's charismatic but a little wooden

I am glad I watched it all the way through, it definitely improved over time. Tom would be unlikely to get away with things in modern times with our vastly improved communications and forensics, but at the time he was probably perfectly plausible.

I agree. He has real screen presence but isn't a great actor.

Have you seen All of us Strangers?

I find I'm returning more and more to this post of yours, @AmaryllisChorus

The part about the laziness of psychopaths is especially chilling.

Wrt the steps, I saw it as a metaphor for Ripley's attempts at social climbing. This seemed to be accentuated when he was sent downstairs to the very small basic room in Palermo.

Yes, I thought it was that too. But I loved how pissed off he was at having to make the effort all the time. He just wanted to be there, not have to work or fight for it.

Such an excellent point about the steps and the laziness. It goes well with another observation I had about the book compared to the film: in the book everyone is lonelier and less charismatic than the film and Ripley is motivated by the comfort of the wealthy life rather than dazzled by how beautiful and gilded they are. The tv version tries to get this across by showing us how grim his life is in New York, with the drains backing up into the shower.

I didn't see it as laziness at all, how could all those steps not be a PITA? Ripley is the busiest man.That the police inspector feels the same bears this out. What the series shows is just how bloody hard the work is, after all, Ripley hasn't had to dispose of a body before, never mind two. He's on a learning curve. Think his learning Italian. And he can paint better than Dickie - no great achievement in objective terms - but still.

I love the parts where Ripley flings himself down on the sofa after getting shut of Freddie and then having yet another "fuck me" moment when he spots something else that needs doing. So funny.

I’ve just finished it and loved every second. It is so beautifully shot and I agree with the purists that photography (literally the study of light) doesn’t work in colour.

I haven't finished it yet but I will rewatch it. It is probably the most beautifully shot film that I have seen since my student days in the 90s when I was hanging out in art-house cinemas.

I loved Freddie, especially when he was visiting Ripley in Rome his acting was sublime - so clever, suffocating and unsettling.

Also Freddie being a nepo-baby feeds into the story so well. I didn't know who they were or that they were female - excellent casting!

Generally quite liked it, and felt the slow pacing worked well. But:

Ripley was a bit on the old side - not easy to believe someone so cunning would be bumming his life away in some bedsit on small time frauds.

Freddy Miles was just wrong, but possibly spoiled by the PSH incarnation of the character in the film, who couldn’t be bettered.

The wig scene required massive suspension of disbelief.

The Caravaggio analogies were a bit laboured.

Initially found the b&w production intrusive, but it grew on me.

I’ve nearly finished watching this, one episode left. I love it. Fantastic black and white cinematography, every shot so beautifully framed. The Italian cast are brilliant and the cat is an absolute star. Flynn and Ripley are probably too old in the roles but I’m going with it.

I loved the film and this series is a very different interpretation. It’s interesting to hear comments from those who have read the book as I have no idea how the characters were originally written (my OH has read the book and is really enjoying the series).

I've always loved Johnny Flynn but I only knew Andrew Scott from Sherlock and didn’t much care for him. But earlier this year we went to see All of Us Strangers and he was absolutely incredible.

It's closer to the book than the film was.

I'm a bit of a Ripley bore

• two leafs too old
• Freddie Miles totally miscast but a good actor
• the Minghella film was brilliant although not totally true to the book. The Meredith Logue character was actually an improvement imo
• new TV show not true to the book either but not so overtly
• Marge's suspicions...
• beautiful filming but slooooow

Just watched episode 5 and adoring it so far. TBF I’ve never seen the Jude Law film. But loving Andrew Scott’s dead eyed acting and it’s beautiful to look at.