There’s a trailer!
This came up in the Fleabag thread because of Andrew Scott. It was made by Showtime, but then sold off to Netflix and is coming out April 4.
It seems like it’s retelling the Talented Mr. Ripley story again. I don’t know anything about the books, but I was sort of hoping it was taking on a different chapter of Ripley’s story. Also… it looks kind of boring? Hope I’m wrong!
Ah, right, I’d totally forgotten about this! In fact, I’d forgotten about it so much, I actually clicked on the thread wondering if it was an Alien tie-in.
I haven’t watched the trailer – black-wand-white??? – and I’ll be ducking out off the thread until I’ve watched this, but I don’t mind if it’s kind of boring, since I’m here for the Andrew Scott. See you guys again sometime around April 4th!
You may like Ripley’s Game if you haven’t caught it yet. John Malkovitch plays a much older and less debonair, yet still amoral, Ripley. Some people, not me, prefer it to The Talented Mr. Ripley.
Believe it or not.
This is what I was thinking (hoping) as well. What a let down.
The Ripley series spans 5 books (the Ripliad) and were written by Patricia Highsmith, a great noir writer from the 50’s, whose first novel you may know: Strangers on a Train. Yes, the one Hitchcock adapted in 1951. I hope the series follows Ripley through all five novels, though the appeal to the masses may not be there.
I’ve now seen six episodes out of eight, but I haven’t watched that trailer, so I’m not sure what gave you the impression it looks boring. But I bet many viewers would consider it “slow”. Which might as well be “boring” adjacent. : )
But the adjective I would use to characterize what these people are talking about – they’re not necessarily wrong – is luxurious. Every single blessed shot takes its time, whether it’s someone mailing a letter or walking down a hall or murdering a victim, and it damn well better, given how gorgeous these shots are. The astonishingly careful composition, the stark cut of the lighting, the relentless moody black-and-white, the rich attention lavished to every texture, whether skin, paper, wool, or glass. The way the light catches the cold gleam in Andrew Scott’s eyes. What fantastically tactile black-and-white imagery, and what a ballsy choice for a richly Italian period piece. I mean, who shoots a story about a character gazing longingly at Caravaggio’s paintings, but in black-and-white?
It’s almost as if the real star here isn’t Andrew Scott, but cinematographer Robert Elswit, even over and above Stephen Zaillian’s laconic direction and spare script (which feels like a faithful adaptation of something, but having never read the books, I can’t be sure of what). Elswit is known for many things, including shooting Clooney’s Good Night and Good Luck in color, and then processing it into black-and-white. Similarly Ripley’s black-and-white is such a piece of its identity, such a fundamental part of Zaillain’s adaptation, but it was actually shot that way, which I’m assuming is partly why it looks so good.
Almost as if. The real star here is Andrew Scott. His ill-at-ease and terrible-at-everything Ripley is a fascinating portrait of an inept sociopath. He has that same sheen of desperation as Jeremy Strong’s Kendall Roy, that same off-kilter confidence and need for approval. The series follows his subjective experience so closely, so doggedly, almost sympathetically.
And it’s got the talented Fanning instead of the pretty one! Yay!
I’m sad that I’ve only got two more episodes to go, but I’m loving this. Come for the Scott, stay for the Elswit!
I’d say also stay for the guy who plays the Italian detective. No idea who he is, but he’s great.
Right? He’s got a kind of Italian Jean Reno thing going, but cooler. I could watch that guy smoke a cigarette for days! I also really liked Cate Blanchett as Freddie, which was doing all kinds of confusing things to my straight male hotness meter.
Yeah, I heard a very positive NPR review, and I’m excited to watch!
When you’re done, check out that trailer and tell me if it was a good sample of what the show turned out to be.
My wife and I loved him in Sherlock. This looks like something we need to watch
The trailer presents a series of snapshots of arresting images, but in the actual series, those images linger, they stick around and let you enjoy them. Zaillian takes his time. He luxuriates in the visuals, as he should given what Elswit is giving him.
For instance, there’s a shot of Andrew Scott perfectly framed in a subway window, but the window is falling into the background. It’s at the 5-second mark in the trailer in the original post. It’s a relatively simple shot from one moving subway car into another, but it looks almost surreal, like he’s trapped in some Phantom Zone, flung into outer space. The first episode sets up the shot perfectly as part of a “chase scene” and it’s breathtaking when it happens. The series earns it. In that sense, yeah, the trailer is a great representation of what you’re going to see.
But I would say the trailer is misleading for all the quick cuts, for making the story seem snappy! : ) Which it’s not; it’s dense. This is an eight-hour movie, and unlike most of the other eight hour movies I’ve watched, I wouldn’t describe any of it as filler because it’s so visually rich (even the production design looks expensive!). If you’ve got eight hour-long episodes to fill, this is absolutely the way to do it. You hire Robert Elswit and you let him fucking go to town! And you make sure that “town” is someplace as fascinating as Italy in 1961.
I also think the trailer is misleading for making it seem like Ripley is some sort of mastermind. What’s surprising to me – and I vaguely recall some of this in the Matt Damon movie? – is how he’s absolutely no such thing. Instead, he’s a small-time crook who gets caught up in something that he’s not very good at, and the series makes no bones about showing us how utterly hapless the dude is. But because he’s a sociopath, because there’s something so off-kilter about him, he’s undeterred.
It’s also got a strange structure in terms of the last few episodes. I did not expect it to end the way it ended, and I can see how it might be unsatisfying to some people? Some people might want a more traditional twist or ‘gotcha!’ at the end, and I’m guessing Zaillian decided instead to just be faithful to a book? That’s what it felt like, at any rate: a book ending, not a movie ending.
Ah, right, of course! I keep forgetting this is where I first saw him.
I rewatched Spectre recently just because Andrew Scott was the villain. That was a waste of two hours.
The sense I recall having from the movie (and maybe the book - it’s been ages since I spent time with either) was that none of this - even a lot of the con artist type stuff - was planned. He just ends up in a situation where he wants to be this guy…and have this guy…and so he does stuff that no normal person would do in pursuit of those goals and when other people have more reasonable reactions to what he’s doing, well…something’s got to be done about that. When I saw the movie I’d never heard of the book and I was caught off guard by how sociopathic Ripley proves to be, because initially he’s just this kinda nebbishy (but hot because he’s Matt Damon) dude hanging on.
I have really enjoyed previous versions of this story, sounds like I’m in for a treat with this one. And I’m glad someone gets it, because otherwise we’d be stuck with Saltburn as this generation’s Ripley. And…I mean, I like that movie but it really doesn’t trust the viewer.
Excellent analogy, @malkav11. They’re certainly of a piece, but they couldn’t be more different.
And just because he was on my mind during the last few episodes because of @Erik calling him out, there’s a wonderful moment where Inspector Ravini is perched on a desk talking to reporters while the flashbulbs pop.
After he’s done speaking, the dude strikes a pose:
And it couldn’t look more natural, because this is Italy in 1961 and everyone is just that goddamn cool. But look at that guy. And wait till you hear him. Those grave eyes, and that even graver baritone. His name is Maurizio Lombardi.
I loved Ripley unreservedly. That said, here are my reservations:
In the book and I’m pretty sure in the matt damon movie, Ripley is a natural, Zelig-like chameleon, which is a big part of how he gets away with it. I don’t remember the new show mentioning that except (maybe?) in one scene where he imitates Freddie Miles’ voice. So when he finally has a face-to-face meeting with the Italian detective as Tom instead of “Deekee”, he has to rely on a fake beard and bad lighting to make it through. Worse, though, the scene requires the detective to impersonate someone else: a credulous doof instead of the hilariously wide-eyed skeptic he’s been up until that point. It’s the one sour note in the whole eight hours, so I guess I shouldn’t complain too much more than I already have complained.
It’s been years since I read the books, but I’m pretty sure 2 or maybe even 3 of the remaining 4 are terrific. It’d be great if the same cast and crew made at least one more of them, especially since Andrew Scott is the right age for the other books. I have a feeling this isn’t going to be a monster hit, though.
Ooooh, I love to kvetch, so let me get in on this! I guess we should spoiler it, but honestly, who reads these threads before watching the whole thing? Oh, right, I guess I did. Okay, let’s be safe:
Yeah, I really hated the part you’re talking about.
“Sour note” almost feel charitable, because it was laughable. I know the idea was that he’s modeling himself after Caravaggio, but it reminded me instead of Owen Wilson dressing up in a fake beard and wig to play Bob Ross in that weird Bob Ross movie. Probably not the intended effect. And while I can imagine it working in a book, I don’t think Zaillian – or Andrew Scott! – pulled it off at all, and being coy with the “sempre lux” set-up didn’t fix it.
Similarly, it made no sense that all the press coverage of the fugitive playboy didn’t have a picture of the real Richard Greenleaf. So that finale where Ravini finally sees his picture in Marge’s book was quite the reach, simultaneously calling attention to and trying to paper over a glaring plot hole. Too much of Ripley’s success involved people conveniently not looking at pictures. : /
But the only reason these things bothered me is because I liked the show so much.
Thank you :D
I’m reading the thread! And I’ve only watched the trailer. If the show can be ruined by knowing a few facts about its plot or some screenshots, it is feeble art indeed!
I’m trying to watch this show and the main question I have is whether they deliberately picked a spectacularly creepy pair of leads for the show, or whether they don’t grasp how creepy their leads are?
It’s quite hard to believe this Ripley charming his way into anyone’s life. Any dissolute rich young couple would give him the boot at first sight. Hell, old man Greenleaf would have given him the boot.
