I've been dying to read a Ripley book since I saw the Matt Damon film in the movie theater, some years ago. I decided to read "Ripley's Game" because I knew there was a film adaptation, and for once John Malkovich seemed perfect for the part. I had read a profile on Highsmith -- about her insane mother, her crazy life, and her awful personality -- and I liked the idea that, in her world, the villain always won. (And messily)."Ripley's Game" surpassed all expectations. Beyond its dark, boozy atmosphere, I couldn't believe the level of violence, the complexity of the characters, and the emotional depth. Ripley may be a psychopath, but he still feels pangs of guilt. The game isn't really "his"; it's a game that occurs around him, and he meddles with the pieces, but he barely escapes prison or death. Ripley is shockingly clumsy for a criminal mastermind, and in a way he doesn't seem very skilled at being a criminal, just a chronic liar. Which, in this fictional instance, I absolutely loved.On the downside, Highsmith didn't smooth out everyone's motivations (why is Ripley involved at all, you may wonder?), and there are some dull stretches. The last quarter of the book seems largely devoted to a failing marriage, which frankly *should* fail. But what keeps this denouement interesting is Highsmith's intense interest in feminine intuition: Women in her stories alway seem to solve these deadly riddles long before the (male) police do, but because of patriarchal condescension, nobody pays attention to them. This is both empowering and subversive at the same time; in a traditional whodunit, there would be a (male) killer, a (male) detective, and a helpless, fainting woman. In Highsmith's stories, the detective is clueless, the killer fancies himself brilliant, and the woman figures everything out, but to no avail. Meanwhile, the Jonathan character seems designed to prove that decent men can do awful things, given the right motivation. At the start, Jonathan seems like a pushover; by the middle, he's unrecognizable. Is he courageous for his willingness to kill, or a coward for lying about it to his wife? The novel poses questions well beyond the expectation of its genre. So, this time Tom is turning a terminal patience into an international killer, with his usual charm and twisted logic. And this odd couple manage to fool even Mafia itself. I didn't enjoyed it as the previous twos because there's less of Tom in this this story. I actually like the way he thinks himself out of trouble, usually making a profit. Jonathan, his partner in this game, has a more plain personality. The best part is imagining his face when Tom turned to him on the train to Paris and offer his help to kill the mafioso they're looking after.
What do You think about El Amigo Americano (1974)?
still a page-turner, but the ending seemed really abrupt and almost sloppy.
—marty
Watched the movie and didn't like the story line.
—saya
