"Purple Noon" (1960, original title "Plein soleil") is French director Rene Clement's take on Patricia Highsmith's "The Talented Mr. Ripley". Highsmith's novels have been favored by a number of international directors, including Hitchcock and Wenders and more recently Minghella's own attempt to get at Mr. Ripley.
There is much to like about this movie visually. The views of the Italian Mediterranean, the street scenes in Rome and of village life, even the daytime holiday celebration (fireworks in daylight!) are breathtaking, the sort of thing you hope one day to be able to see on a really big screen. The feel of the movie is right too, effortlessly recreating Italy in the 50s, down to the cars, clothes, food, and people on the street.
What's wrong is the characters, a problem most other directors of Highsmith's novels have had. To begin with, the ostensibly American Philippe (Philip) Greenleaf, Tom Ripley, and Marge Duval are most decidedly non-Americans. They don't look like Americans, they don't act like Americans, and they certainly don't move like Americans. Only the character of Freddy Miles is credibly American and then perhaps only because he's in so few scenes.
A more serious problem is that Clement doesn't appear to know who Ripley is, or at least doesn't know who Highsmith's Ripley is. In the various Ripley novels, written over a period of nearly forty years, Ripley is an amoral killer who is often forced to murder out of loyalty or to keep his past a secret. In Clement's hands, Ripley is puerile, almost juvenile, with a fairly good motive for hurting Greenleaf. Only during the scenes of Ripley alone on the boat can you catch a glimpse of Highsmith's Ripley. But as soon as he's back in the company of Marge and the others he once again becomes something almost pathetic, almost pathological.
Why is it so difficult for film directors to capture certain literary characters? In Ripley's case, perhaps it's because he's neither a basically good character nor a truly bad character. He's somewhere else on the moral landscape, someone who in the novels definitely feels guilt and anguish over what he does, although in Ripley these are not the character-destroying emotions you would expect but rather a kind of painful regret or feeling of disloyalty. Clement's attempts to capture this, if indeed that's what he was trying to do, feel completely wrong. I'm thinking of the several scenes of Ripley ravenously eating after committing a crime. Is Ripley emotionally starved? It's hard to say, but these scenes come across more as black humor than as insights into Ripley's character. At one point, after committing a murder, Ripley gazes out the window at children playing innocently on the street below. Without a narrator, it's hard to figure what's going on in his head here. Guilt? Relief? Longing? Or is he just checking to see if the coast is clear?
"Purple Noon" has great suspense and, despite its trick ending, will remain in your head, vivid and pleasantly memorable, long after viewing. But for readers of Highsmith's novels it will always feel like a bit of a failure.
There is much to like about this movie visually. The views of the Italian Mediterranean, the street scenes in Rome and of village life, even the daytime holiday celebration (fireworks in daylight!) are breathtaking, the sort of thing you hope one day to be able to see on a really big screen. The feel of the movie is right too, effortlessly recreating Italy in the 50s, down to the cars, clothes, food, and people on the street.
What's wrong is the characters, a problem most other directors of Highsmith's novels have had. To begin with, the ostensibly American Philippe (Philip) Greenleaf, Tom Ripley, and Marge Duval are most decidedly non-Americans. They don't look like Americans, they don't act like Americans, and they certainly don't move like Americans. Only the character of Freddy Miles is credibly American and then perhaps only because he's in so few scenes.
A more serious problem is that Clement doesn't appear to know who Ripley is, or at least doesn't know who Highsmith's Ripley is. In the various Ripley novels, written over a period of nearly forty years, Ripley is an amoral killer who is often forced to murder out of loyalty or to keep his past a secret. In Clement's hands, Ripley is puerile, almost juvenile, with a fairly good motive for hurting Greenleaf. Only during the scenes of Ripley alone on the boat can you catch a glimpse of Highsmith's Ripley. But as soon as he's back in the company of Marge and the others he once again becomes something almost pathetic, almost pathological.
Why is it so difficult for film directors to capture certain literary characters? In Ripley's case, perhaps it's because he's neither a basically good character nor a truly bad character. He's somewhere else on the moral landscape, someone who in the novels definitely feels guilt and anguish over what he does, although in Ripley these are not the character-destroying emotions you would expect but rather a kind of painful regret or feeling of disloyalty. Clement's attempts to capture this, if indeed that's what he was trying to do, feel completely wrong. I'm thinking of the several scenes of Ripley ravenously eating after committing a crime. Is Ripley emotionally starved? It's hard to say, but these scenes come across more as black humor than as insights into Ripley's character. At one point, after committing a murder, Ripley gazes out the window at children playing innocently on the street below. Without a narrator, it's hard to figure what's going on in his head here. Guilt? Relief? Longing? Or is he just checking to see if the coast is clear?
"Purple Noon" has great suspense and, despite its trick ending, will remain in your head, vivid and pleasantly memorable, long after viewing. But for readers of Highsmith's novels it will always feel like a bit of a failure.