BOOK VS. MOVIE
For as long as I can remember, there has been the debate as to whether a movie was better than the book from which it was made or vice versa. The literary purist will always be on the side of the book, praising an author’s descriptions and handling of the plot. Those who prefer their entertainment in a visual form will admire how the film was made and have little regard for any differences from the original text. As a writer who also studied filmmaking and screenwriting, I have come to realize they are two separate entities that have to be reviewed and accepted on their own merits.
I recently re-read Patricia Highsmith’s masterful psychological thriller “The Talented Mr. Ripley”, the version of which was a tie-in to the 1999 film, with Matt Damon, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Jude Law on the cover. Naturally, this begs a comparison.
The homoerotic aspects of the film are far more enhanced than the minimal reference to “queerness” in the novel. This could be due to the time period in which is was written (1955) versus the year the movie came out (1999). That being said, it did not play as significant a part in the book. Tom Ripley is clearly enamored of Dickie Greenleaf and tries desperately to share the lifestyle, presumably with Dickie. The movie indicates a love aspect on Tom’s part several times, both in his dressing down of Dickie for having sex with Marge on the boat and showing no responsibility for getting a local girl pregnant.
Dickie and Freddie Miles seem to be impediments in Tom’s intent to maintain a desired lifestyle in the book. He kills Dickie because, well, he can. He doesn’t really want to kill Freddie but, oh well, he has to. In the movie, Jude Law plays Dickie as pretentious and selfish. Philip Seymour Hoffman’s Freddie is uncouth. We cringe at their deaths in the book but almost half expect it in the movie.
Tom’s ultimate goal is a life of leisure, adventure, and intellect that he will find throughout Europe. He winds up with the resources to do just that. The only cost is a lingering paranoia. The movie Ripley has both homoerotic fantasies and desires but is able to present a charming partner to Cate Blanchett’s Meredith. Whether the movie Tom is capable of consummating the relationship is uncertain. His primary desire is summed up in the line: I always thought it would be better to be a fake somebody than a real nobody. (This line does not appear in the novel.) Again, however, the only cost is a lingering paranoia.
The movie is exquisitely produced. Costume and production design are impressive. The cast features Academy Award winners and nominees. The director was the renowned writer-director Anthony Minghella, himself an Academy Award winner. There is no way to not enjoy this production.
If, however, you compare it to the novel, you might question the choices made, such as the inclusion of Meredith Logue (simply done because Minghella was impressed with Cate Blanchett and wanted to write a role for her) or the pregnancy of the local girl. Paltrow’s Marge comes across as a girl uncertain of her relationship with Dickie who flies off the handle at the thought that Ripley may have murdered him. In the novel, she is simply an annoyance to Tom, perhaps disgusted for her reference to his “queerness” he had discovered after the fact.
Matt Damon, fresh off “Good Will Hunting” comes across as banal (by intention) but cunning, capable of impersonations and forgery, which he brags about gleefully. His emotions are bottled up, until he explodes in a rage against Dickie and Freddie. The scary thing about the book is that you are on edge at every occasion where Tom may be caught in his treachery. To root for a very smart sociopath is the skill that Highsmith possesses.
At this point, I am not going to set myself down and watch the movie after recently finishing the book. I want to allow that experience to linger. I want to enjoy the writing and consider who it is I have just followed and try to determine what there is or isn’t to like about Mr. Ripley’s talents.
