ripley is played by a 47-year-old actor, that's about 20 years older than matt damon was in the 1999 movie. ripley also seems to be in his 20s in the book. so why such an old actor in this tv show?
also, after 2 episodes this seems inferior to the movie to me, or does it get any better?
While I think he plays quite well in it, I do find it a bit strange. I just watched Purple Noon (1960) and I thought the lead was better as Ripley.
I only watched the first 3 episodes last night, and can't wait to continue watching. The third episode is really amazing.
That’s because it was Alain Delon and with a completely different ending. With regard to Purple Noon (Plein soleil) that is.
This Ripley is truly diabolical. The casting is different. And he is older than late 20s. It’s intentional. Both are about 35. He reminds me of Robert Blake. Delon was beautiful looking. Damon naive looking. But I think this Ripley is closer to Highsmith’s novel. And the black and white is genius. Also, Tom’s way of life in NYC compared to his life in Atrani, Rome, Palermo, Venice. Well, you can see his motivation.
This is modern day film noir (chiaroscuro) at its best. It’s breathtaking. And unapologetic.
>This Ripley is truly diabolical
He looks fucking creepy as hell. It makes what he does completely unbelievable. No one would have this weird ass creepy fucker hanging around with them. Seriously.
EXACTLY. This is what makes it work. Also has a 1940s-50s feel, so B&W is right on. Gives it quiet a mystique.
shareHe’s not old at all actually relatively young! He looks extremely young for his age! In medieval times the average lifespan was low due to high infant mortality but nowadays it is common for people to reach 100!
shareRipley is older because the actor they hired to play him is 47 years old.
shareAt least double the age he is supposed to be. Since Anthony Minghella's film is so great, why not just start the series with the second book of the series and go from there?
shareI'm thinking they are going to do seasons 2-5 with the 4 books that remain. In those later books, Ripley is older. So, maybe they started with an older actor to have his age be closer to the next novels.
Anyhow, this series was awesome besides the age thing, it was almost exactly how the novel is told. Having just read the novels, I definitely noticed all the attention to little details in the series, and it was very much appreciated!
Also, the 1999 version had Tom being a homo. Tom is NOT a homo. Moreover, the main focus in the books is about painting. The 1999 version's focus on jazz was ridiculous! This series gets it right. Tom is NOT a homo, he is interested in paintings, and MOST importantly, unlike the other 2 movies,
spoiler: he gets away with the murders too!
I see this going on with other Ripley books. Tom’s conversation with Malkovich hints that. And that might be why the aging of the casting makes sense. All three versions were great and different in tone. The French one is the only one with the alternative ending to the book. Both this series and 1999 have the same ending.
In 1999, Damon’s Ripley is in love with Dickie. In the book, Ripley’s sex life is ambiguous. In this series, Tom is in love with Dickie’s life. Dickie is definitely not interested in men but there are instances where he thinks Tom is, i.e., the “purple” robe and the “daffodils” references. The cat and mouse part of this series is very Hitchcokian (Psycho) and it is actually the best part - that’s starts after episode 3. Don’t undermine the jazz in the 1999 film. American jazz was huge in Europe. The smoky cavelike bar shown when they went to San Remo and played Tu Vuo' Fa L'Americano was one of the best scenes of that movie. Miles Davis, Charlie Parker, Chet Baker are gods. In this series, the Caravaggio additions are excellent. What a great storyline how Caravaggio’s life had elements of crime that get him in the end.
Andrew Scott is one of the best actors of our time.
It's too bad you can't appreciate him.
And calling him an old man is ridiculous - it's not like he is eighty-seven.
i just watched "all of us strangers" and scott was great in that role, but as a 20-something fresh from college he's just not very fitting. i remember having a classmate in college who was 30 and we gave him the nickname "old man" :D
share
Oh, none of them are fresh out of college.
Richard's father specifically said that Richard was too old to be doing this when he hired Tom to bring him back.
They were both 25 in the novel but are older in this adaptation. Dickie's passport says he was born in 1922, making him 36, and Ripley seems to be a few years older.
One reason they may have made the characters older is that they specifically wanted to cast Scott. The novel gives you Ripley's inner monologue, but you can't do that in film unless you use a clumsy voice-over. Without that, you have to rely on the character's facial expressions, except that Ripley's expressions were much too controlled or outright faked for the benefit of others. But Scott was able to do a remarkable job of conveying Ripley's thoughts through his eyes alone.