Wenders' film is one of my favorites, and I am also a deep reader and fan of the Ripley books. One can admire both, but I acknowledge that Wenders'/Hopper's is a very stylized interpretation of the role. It's very much a product of its age. The Cavani film purposely uproots the sense of period, which is one key to its effectiveness. I love Purple Noon, but dislike the Minghella film. In my opinion Matt Damon's (and the director/writers') interpretation of the Ripley character is as stylized as Hopper's, but far less true to Highsmith's creation, emphasizing only very minor facets of his character's complex personality. There is a steely core to Ripley which Malkovich and even Hopper bring out, whereas Damon, though talented and interesting, makes Ripley hollow and craven at the center. It could be chalked up to his character's supposed youth, but I think it's an unwise course for the film to have taken. I found the cinematography inappropriate to the subject matter as well, or more precisely, irrelevant.
In the Wenders film Bruno Ganz is a remarkable Trevanny (called Zimmerman there), and no matter what you may think of the film, his performance is frequently staggering. Again, he thoughtfully defines the character in the language of the period and place. Remember that Wenders' concept revolves around the American vs. the European frame of reference - a subject of much of his work. His film is called "The American Friend" for that reason.
One thing that I think all who love Ms. Highsmith's novels can agree on is that John Malkovich completely fills the dimensions of the Ripley character. I feel that his ability to capture the Ripley worldview expresses the magnitude of his talent. This is a wonderful film.
reply
share
Yinky
14 years ago
Very thoughtful take, Mulciber, thanks. Though I didn't see any steely core in Hopper's performance....maybe I missed something. He just seemed like a sort of drunken idiot to me; as if he didn't think before he did anything, he just...did whatever came to mind. It's funny, but I think I liked everything about the movie EXCEPT Hopper's performance.
I wasn't crazy about Damon, either, but I think what really bothered me was the Hollywoodization of the script. Particularly Marge's suspicion (well, the whole Gwenyth Marge was just....wrong) and the overt homosexuality of Ripley (I like the ambiguous sexuality of Ripley in the novels).
I think they should have switched Jude & Matt's roles. Jude would have kicked ass. He's kind of a Ripleyesque dude himself. (Or at least, he seems like one to me.)
reply
share