I agree with your comments, mackjay2, but there are a few other factors in the later film's favor.
Strangely, the Talented Mr Ripley has a greater sense of place and period. Probably this is because Minghella set out to evoke the expat American experience in 1950s Italy, so he carefully recreates the atmosphere. No such effort was necessary in Purple Noon, which was set in its own time. Clement didn't need to recreate 1960 so there is, ironically, less period detail.
The Talented Mr Ripley is also more lushly filmed, either because of a bigger budget or technological advances. While many of the scenes in Purple Noon are gorgeous, most of them lack the richness and depth of color seen in TMR.
For example, consider the nightclub scene in TMR, where Greenleaf and Ripley sing along with the band. Not only is it incredibly evocative of time and place, the filming is dark, lush and almost dreamlike.
Finally, the three principal characters in TMR seem authentically American, probably because two of the actors actually are Americans and the other English. While the acting in PN is excellent, especially Alain Delon, none of the three characters seem anything other than French. This was not helped by giving Greenleaf the unlikely (for an American) name Philippe. I guess "Dickie" would have been difficult to use in French, but why not name him Philip, even if they pronounced it in the French way? (Although an American of that name and age would almost inevitably be called Phil, so I guess that wouldn't have helped much after all.)
Anyway, both are excellent films and stand on their own. There's no reason to watch one and not the other or to watch them in any particular order. I've never seen them back-to-back, but it would probably be interesting to do so.
reply
share
mackjay2
9 years ago
Yes essex9999, I agree with your points. I was astonished to hear how many people disliked TMR when it was released. This was during a period when a lot was made about people asking for refunds if they walked out of a movie. How anyone could walk out on this intriguing and beautiful film was beyond me.
reply
share
gortx
9 years ago
I agree with your comments, mackjay2, but there are a few other factors in the later film's favor.
Strangely, the Talented Mr Ripley has a greater sense of place and period. Probably this is because Minghella set out to evoke the expat American experience in 1950s Italy, so he carefully recreates the atmosphere. No such effort was necessary in Purple Noon, which was set in its own time. Clement didn't need to recreate 1960 so there is, ironically, less period detail.
Interesting comment. It kind of inadvertedly brings out the point that many period films go overboard in trying to recreate the era they are set in. Look around your house, or maybe more to the point - your parents' and grandparents' homes. You will see that most houses have cultural artifacts from
several different decades in them, not just one. And, everything doesn't look
brand new, either. Both of those "mistakes" are often made by filmmakers when trying to do a period movie - everything looks like it just walked right out of a showroom.
I'm not specifically criticizing TALENTED MR. RIPLEY (although I do prefer PURPLE NOON), but I'm just making a point that one can be too conscious of recreating a period.
reply
share
essex9999
9 years ago
It kind of inadvertedly brings out the point that many period films go overboard in trying to recreate the era they are set in. Look around your house, or maybe more to the point - your parents' and grandparents' homes. You will see that most houses have cultural artifacts from several different decades in them, not just one. And, everything doesn't look brand new, either. Both of those "mistakes" are often made by filmmakers when trying to do a period movie - everything looks like it just walked right out of a showroom.
You're right. It doesn't bother me when filmmakers do this, but it is quite common. (I complain enough about anachronisms. It would be too cranky even for me if I were to complain about too much period-perfect detail. 😃) One reason this happens is probably that it's easier. Let's say the movie is set in 1960. It's simpler to hire a bunch of cars from the late 50s than to try to come up with an authentic distribution of cars that were actually on the road.
Also, they often want to signal the period without having to keep repeating the date - very specific detail reminds the viewers.
It is annoying when the same tactic is applied to attitude. A movie crammed with tail-finned cars and characters in line-for-line copies of 1960 clothing (although the women's hair is almost always wrong, regardless of the period in question) is one thing, but when you're hit over the head with now-"shocking" attitudes and ideas that were more common at the given time but were not universal or even really acceptable, it's false history. The only thing many people know about history - especially social history - is what they see in period films, so I wish filmmakers wouldn't make things worse by exaggerating the flaws OR the virtues of the past.
reply
share
gortx
9 years ago
It is annoying when the same tactic is applied to attitude. A movie crammed with tail-finned cars and characters in line-for-line copies of 1960 clothing (although the women's hair is almost always wrong, regardless of the period in question) is one thing, but when you're hit over the head with now-"shocking" attitudes and ideas that were more common at the given time but were not universal or even really acceptable, it's false history.
My favorite 'Period Detail' cliche is that whenever a character hears a song on the radio it's always one of the top 10 most iconic songs of that era.
NOBODY ever flicks on their hi-fi and the #36 chart hit of that week is heard - it's always a hit!
reply
share
essex9999
9 years ago
NOBODY ever flicks on their hi-fi and the #36 chart hit of that week is heard - it's always a hit!
Often the same hits! If you watch a movie set in the early 60s, I can almost guarantee you'll hear "The Twist" and "Stranger on the Shore."
reply
share