Ripley (TV Review)

It's always a risk to make another version of a well-loved story. Patricia Highsmith's The Talented Mr. Ripley was a hit upon its publication and has remained one since, and the 1999 film adaptation is well-regarded in its own right. When Netflix announced Ripley, both anticipation and trepidation emerged in equal measure. Would it live up to its predecessors, or become just another remake that gets lost in the neverending river of regurgitated IP that seems to dominate both the big and small screens?

The show looked promising. A stellar cast, a characterful black-and-white style and, of course, a good story. It had all the makings of a mega-hit — but the sum of its parts doesn't add up to much at all.

One of Ripley's biggest problems is that it gets lost in its own style. The aesthetically engaged production and indulgent architectural shots, initially striking and unusual, lose their charm by the final episode, and seem to be favoured above movement of plot or character development from about halfway through. This isn't helped by the several pacing issues that make some episodes seem interminable and others' timeframes difficult to follow. There's a tendency among some recent shows to try to exploit the watch-on-demand format to make what is essentially an eight-plus hour film chopped into 60-minute segments rather than consider the actual enjoyability of the watching experience; Ripley, sadly, teeters on the edge of this flaw.

When it comes to the story itself, despite the strength of the original narrative Ripley decides to put its own spin on the tale. Art plays a prominent role in this interpretation of Highsmith's novel, with Tom besotted with an original Picasso hanging in Dickie's (Johnny Flynn) Atrani villa and, later, by an obsession with Cavarggio. The tie between the two characters is tenuous at best, and the nuance of the first few episodes is completely lost by the oblique signposts to the ‘parallels' in their stories later on. Particularly egregious is the inclusion of a hammy flashback sequence to a murder Caravaggio supposedly committed in 1606. Not only is this entirely unnecessary, it's inconsistent with the tone of the rest of the series and obliterates the narrative's tension.

A similar diversion from the original plot sees Tom meeting a fellow career criminal (John Malkovich in a nudge-nudge wink-wink cameo), the two recognising each other's nature based on some psychic criminal connection. This too is unnecessary, and is used as something of a deus ex machina to give this story a more conclusive ending than Highsmith's.

Andrew Scott, true to form, is excellent as the titular Tom Ripley. He plays the sociopathic social-climbing con man with an intriguing complexity, weaving humour and complexity into what could be a cliche, surface-level psycho. That complexity is limited, though, as the show never allows us to understand Tom's motivations, either overtly or subtextually. Despite being a textbook homoerotic tale, his relationship with Dickie has no sense of romance or lust to it. It comes across that his interest in him is purely financial, a desire for material goods and social status pushing him towards murder.

Although the majority of the show features strong, compelling performances, casting choices don't quite ring true. When the first promotional photos of Scott as Ripley were released, although there was inevitable excitement, there were also concerns that he had been miscast when it came to age. In presenting Tom and Dickie as significantly older than Highsmith's original characters, the glow and beauty of youth is a theme entirely removed from the narrative. Their actions feel less like the impulsive decisions of young men and more like those of established adults, who understand (in their own ways) how the world works.

This could be used as an interesting twist, but no further changes are made to the story to accommodate for this striking difference. The somewhat age-blind casting doesn't work, especially when we're introduced to Freddie (Eliot Sumner), who looks considerably younger than his peers. Although at first glance Ripley appears to be sleek and polished, just like its titular antihero, it can never quite be what it wants to be. By forgoing a compelling narrative in lieu of incomplete thematic ideas and a focus on aesthetic charm, and in spite of Scott's undeniable prowess, the show never gets its claws into you.

Ripley is available on Netflix now.