Talk:The Talented Mr. Ripley (film)

Chiesa della Martorana

I've written a brief article on this church and corrected the wiki link. Ta dah! :o)Iamlondon 21:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Errors

If you find so many errors on the "Talented Mr. Ripley" page, why don't you correct them with the right plot summary and differences between the movie and the book. Thank you. Dprevot 19:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to point out the errors, made I am sure in good faith. I think it a pity that my comments have been removed as it stilmulates dialog. I cannot make changes - the review is that of the original reviewer, not mine. Was it you who removed the list of errors?

I believe anyone can edit an article. Just look for the "edit this page" tab while viewing any article in the Wikipedia library. You can edit some or all of the article if you so desire, I believe that is one of the main reasons Wikipedia was established as "the free encyclopedia" so that anyone, and I do mean anyone (including you), could edit, change, correct or start a whole new article ====altogether.

New pictures?

Can someone please find some new pictures to add to this article (i.e. some non-copyrighted images of the movie itself [if they exist]). Thank you.

Mr Ripley?

Is the main character actually Tom Ripley, or is the real Tom Ripley the guy at the start that lended Matt Damon the jacket? 121.72.14.221 00:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Listen, Tom Ripley is the main character in the movie. He is actually Tom Ripley. The guy who lends Matt Damon the jacket is someone he befriended through Fran (the girl whom he claims is his fiancée in the 1999 movie).

--Actually, that's a legitimate question. It's never stated in the film that he's Tom Ripley, and Matt Damon expects that Jude Law knows him. The line comes up,

Well, I knew you, so you must have known me.

He also states that he's a piano tuner, but he appears to be dusting off people's jackets in a theater.

It's Damon's real name. The detective at the end says he found no record of a Tom Ripley at Princeton, but did find a Thomas Ripley who worked in a music house. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

No mention of his sexuality?

Ripley's gayness is a crucial component of character, and critical to the plot development: should this not be mentioned at some point?

--I'd like to agree vehemently. His homosexuality is mentioned Twice in the entire article, and they're both rather obscure.

Returning to his cabin he meets with Peter Smith-Kingsley, a very minor figure in the novel whose role is expanded for the film. Their conversation suggests that he and Ripley have become lovers, and that Smith-Kingsley has seen Ripley kiss Meredith on the deck of the ocean liner. Realizing he's now unable to reconcile the Ripley he is with Smith-Kingsley with the Greenleaf that Meredith knows, Ripley strangles his lover. He muses despondently shortly before killing Smith-Kingsley that his lies about who and what he is have left him lost and alone forever; he sobs as he commits the murder.

and

The 1999 film also explores Ripley's fascination with Greenleaf as more overtly sexual. While this is alluded to in the novel, the film expands upon Ripley's feelings of jealousy and inadequacy, and creates greater tension between the characters.

This requires serious revision, in my opinion. I was thrown for quite a loop when he was gay in the movie, after reading the section. --Nnythm 02:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Talented mr ripley.jpg

Image:Talented mr ripley.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Il film è stato girato ad Ischia!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.133.12.48 (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio

The section Filming locations appears to contain a number of sentences/phrases that were lifted directly from [1]. This section should be rewritten so that it does not appear to be a derivative work and it should be properly attributed. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 16:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I've moved this section here until it can be rewritten so that it is not a blatant copywrite violation.--J.D. (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Filming locations

The second filming of Highsmith's novel conjures up Italy of the 1950s from a patchwork of locations.

The film opens in New York, where Ripley works at the Lyceum Theatre, 149 West 45th Street between Sixth and Seventh Avenues (used in the 1947 George Cukor backstage melodrama A Double Life).

The interior of Ripley's dismal basement apartment was actually the ground floor of a tenement on Second Avenue at 26th Street in the Gramercy district, but the exterior, with the steep flight of iron steps, is the tiny passageway of Franklin Place, between White Street and Franklin Street in Tribeca.

Ripley arrives in Italy at the art deco terminal of Palermo, on the northwest coast of Sicily.

To represent the fictitious resort of Mongibello, where Greenleaf idles away his time with Marge, the movie uses the island of Ischia in the Bay of Naples.

The cobbled square where Ripley gets off the bus is Ischia Ponte, below the towering 12th century Castello Aragonese which dominates the island's northeast coast. The best way to reach Ischia Ponte is by catching a bus, about a mile east of the ferry landing at Ischia Porto.

The private beach where Ripley first discovers Greenleaf and Marge is Bagno Antonio, between Ischia Ponte and Ischia Porte.

The main shopping street and town square of Mongibello, however, can be found on Procida, a neighboring island, a little more than twenty minutes away by ferry.

The Vesuvio nightclub, supposedly in Naples, where Greenleaf takes Ripley for a night on the town, is the Caffe Latino, Via Monte Testaccio 96 in Rome, whereas the Rome opera house, where Ripley poses as Greenleaf, is the Teatro San Carlo, Via San Carlo in Naples.

The San Remo jazz festival, where Ripley begins to realize that the idyll is coming to an end, is the seafront at Anzio, on the coast about 30 miles south of Rome (the real San Remo is up at the French border).

Ripley's Roman hotel, the Grand Hotel Via Vittorio Emanuele Orlando 3, off Piazza della Repubblica, is in the Eternal City, as is the cafe where Freddie Miles turns up, on Piazza Navona opposite Bernini's Fountain of the Four Rivers.

When Ripley returns to Rome after Dickie's murder, he stays in an apartment on the fictitious 'Piazza Gioia', which is actually near the old Jewish Ghetto, on Piazza Mattei. The interior of the apartment‚ which also functioned as the Grand Hotel suite‚ is the 14th century Palazzo Taverna, Via di Monte Giordano 36.

After he moves on to Venice, Ripley stays in an apartment which is an amalgam of the abandoned Ca Sagredo and the Palazzo Mosto.

Marge, having arrived at the Santa Lucia Railway Station, at the northern end of Canal Grande, finally voices her suspicions about Greenleaf's disappearance at Venetian landmark Caffè Florian, Piazza San Marco 56-59.

The hotel where Ripley meets Greenleaf's father is the Europa e Regina, Calle Larga 22 Marzo, San Marco 2159 on the Canal Grande, facing the Chiesa della Salute.

The Venetian church where Smith-Kingsley rehearses the Stabat Mater is in fact the 14th century Chiesa della Martorana, Piazza Bellini in Palermo, Sicily.

Plot misconceptions

Rippley didn't kill Peter because he was afraid that Meredeth would find out about his double-identity. Rippley killed Peter because of his repressed homosexual urges. C'mon people! I'm changing it. Why else is it an LGBT Project. Oblivious! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.119.240 (talk) 06:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I totally disagree ... but both of our opinions are unsourced editor interpretation, which is unnacceptable in an article. A reliable source needs to be provided to properly assert the meaning of this scene, but in the meantime it seems that the version requiring the least amount of interpretative stretch is the current "coverup" scenario, which is set up by Tom's running into Meredith (who knows him as Dickie, while Peter knows him as Tom). If your scenario were correct, he could've killed Peter before he bothered buying a ticket on the boat!— TAnthony^Talk 04:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The characters or the sequence of the film have to tell us what went on. If they did not say it then it cannot be described as such in the plot because we cannot assume what it is they are thinking unless t=what they are thinking is part of the dialogue. Such as it was said that Ripley saw their last encounter. He saw the last encounter between the two that was on screen. We have no idea if Dickie and the pregnant woman met before she drowned herself after Ripley became aware of their connection. All we know is that she is seen down by the shore looking at the group in the boat then walks away. Ripley did not have an allowance from Herbert, only Dickie. Dickie's passport was never altered except when it is presumed that Dickie has committed suicide and Ripley scratches out the photo. The only forgeries of Dickie's signature are when he and Marge "break-up", he gets money from the AmEx office with Logue and signs the "suicide" note.2605:E000:9152:8F00:B88F:9EB2:B49D:91E5 (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Is this a thriller ?

I have problem seeing this movie as a thriller. According to IMDb it's a crime-drama.--Ezzex (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

As a fan and viewer I agree that it is more a thriller than a crime drama. IMDb is obviously as unreliable a source as I am though, is there another source that could settle any potential debate? — TAnthony^Talk 00:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Anthony T.
I have found this:

The movie is an intelligent a thriller as you'll see this year. It is also insidious in the way it leads us to identify with Tom Ripley. He is the protagonist, we see everything through his eyes, and Dickie is not especially lovable; that means we are a co-conspirator in situations where it seems inconceivable that Tom's deception will not be discovered. He's a monster, but we want him to get away with it. There is one sequence in the film involving an apartment, a landlady, the police and a friend who knows the real Dickie that depends on such meticulous timing and improvisation that if you made it speedier, you'd have the Marx Brothers.here

And this:

Thus, ultimately, the film is an intricate study of the pernicious ways of psychopathology. Mental disorder is a venom not confined to its source. It spreads and affects its environment in a myriad surreptitiously subtle forms. It is a hydra, growing one hundred heads where one was severed. Its victims writhe and as abuse is piled upon trauma - they turn to stone, the mute witnesses of horror, the stalactites and stalagmites of pain untold and unrecountable. For their tormentors are often as talented as Mr. Ripley is and they are as helpless and as clueless as his victims are.here

Cheers! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 11:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a crime drama thriller, as stated on its IMDB page. Jim Michael (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

As I noted in 2014, IMDb is not considered a reliable source.— TAnthony^Talk 04:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

"Young sociopath" -- I have removed phrase

I have taken out the part of the plot summary describing Tom Ripley as a "sociopath." First of all, he is never described as one in the movie itself, and speculation about a character's mental or psychological state does not belong in a plot summary. Second, the journal article cited [2] doesn't actually describe Ripley as a sociopath or psychopath. The article includes him in a list of famous movie characters commonly perceived to be psychopaths, but it explains that some of the characters on the list (such as Norman Bates or Travis Bickle) wouldn't qualify as psychopaths according to the clinical definition. There is a common tendency in popular culture to use the terms "psychopath" and "sociopath" loosely to describe just about any violent and/or dangerous person, even if they don't fit the psychiatric definition of the term, and that's part of what the article was about: the difference between cinematic depictions of psychopaths and real-life individuals who fit the term. (All this said, I think there is a reasonable case to be made that Tom Ripley does fit the term, but it needs a better source, and it belongs in a different section than the plot summary.) marbeh raglaim (talk) 07:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I support the removal because, as you write above, "he is never described as one in the movie itself, and speculation about a character's mental or psychological state does not belong in a plot summary." I was never happy the description. Thank you. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 12:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Talented Mr. Ripley (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120114181613/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/ripley-my-part-in-his-downfall-726050.html to http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/ripley-my-part-in-his-downfall-726050.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

"Dickie has left her to live in Rome"

This is a very confusing statement as Marge had no intention of living in Rome, that is why she returned to the States with Dickie's father. The use of the word "left" is vague as it can mean at least two things: that Dickie broke off their engagement or he let Marge live in Rome. Marge did not need Dickie's permission to live in Rome. And to say he merely "left" her leaves it up to speculation as to what is he doing. Not every one has seen the movie.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

It is interesting that of ALL the stuff that is irrelevant on talk pages and articles throughout WP you find such a fascination with what I write?2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

What is the function of talk pages if your reaction to shutting down a "discussion" is to erase it from the record? That does not sound very cooperative within the bounds of WP policy and practice?2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Just a note to say that I hear you, and I hope that no further misconduct happens here. Sam Sailor 02:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

So let us get back on track here. "Dickie has left her to live in Rome." For those that have seen the film it may be apparent; but WP is not necessarily for those that know but want to find out. Has Dickie broken off their engagement and then goes to live in Rome or has he blessed her action to live in Rome? If you have seen the film you know what is the intent of Ripley's note. But we need to approach this as if people have not seen the film. WP is not an avenue for POV. If a statement is vague then speculation is introduced.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 03:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes

TheOldJacobite, I informed IUpdateRottenTomatoes about what MOS:FILM says about Rotten Tomatoes for older films. The editor restored the RT score but put it at the bottom per the guideline's recommendation. If you still think the RT score should not be included at all, let us know. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the RT score is dubious for older films. I question its legitimacy in general, but for older films especially, its score is questionable. That said, I have no intention of enforcing my own view against consensus. Has this been discussed in the Filmproject? If so, can you point me to that discussion? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 00:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Failure to attribute original

This article is gravely misleading.

Readers might think that the film is a brilliant original piece of work, when in fact it is a pallid woke-ish remake of Plein soleil, released in 1960. My gentle effort to point this out has been deleted without discussion.

Though Hollywood and devotees of its output may live happily in their absence of aesthetic judgment and ignorance of history, shouldn't an encyclopedia take a worldwide view? Belle Fast (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Both films are based on a novel, so they are each individual adaptations of that novel. One is not a remake of the other. The proper place to mention Purple Noon is in The Talented Mr. Ripley, which that article does. You'll find that in general, the article for an adaptation does not reference previous and future adaptations, as the works are unrelated except for the source material. In this case, the mention of Purple Noon in the lead reads as trivia, especially when no connection to the earlier film is supported later in the article. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 15:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)