The movie, The Talented Mr. Ripley, based on the murder novel by Patricia Highsmith, was a great performance by Matt Damon, but an incredible story about how Tom Ripley manages to deceive and manipulate others around him, creating a facade that hides a serial killer. We were joined by Judge Miller, who gave us an insight on how criminal cases were conducted and how verdicts were made. He revealed that murder charges were based on the actions and intentions people act upon on, and asked us to determine whether Mr. Ripley would have been charged with 1st or 2nd degree murder. Mr. Ripley lacks entirely moral values but with his charm hides the exposition of his web of lies, impersonating others, and killing anyone that threatens to expose his secrets. As it is difficult to know the intentions of others, we were unsure, at the end of our discussion where to convict him in 1st or 2nd degree, yet this revealed the importance of criminal courts, and how we must trust those that we place in power to not be biased and only follow the rule of law.

The film co-stars included Jude Law as Dickie Greenleaf, Gwyneth Paltrow as Dickie’s girlfriend Marge Sherwood, Cate Blanchett as Meredith Logue, and Philip Seymour Hoffman as Freddie Miles.  Tom Ripley struggled to make a living in NY city in the 1950s, when he met the wealthy shipbuilder Herbert Greenleaf, who mistakenly believed Ripley attended Princeton with his son Dickie. Greenleaf hires Ripley to travel to Italy to convince his son Dickie to return home.  Instead, Ripley becomes infatuated with Dickie’s rich life style, impersonates him, and then kills him.  Through forgery Ripley arranges to live from Dickie’s allowance and when Dickie’s friend Freddie becomes suspicious, he kills him too. Ripley then plots by writing a suicide note to make believe the police that Dickie killed himself after he killed Freddie.  Mr. Greenfield travels to Italy and also believes the story of his son’s death, so he decides to leave Dickie’s trust fund to Ripley.  At the end, Ripley’s crimes come back hunting him, when Meredith who he met when impersonating Dickie, encounters him while traveling on a ship to Greece. To protect himself from being discovered Ripley kills his lover Peter.  Although, I am personally not a fan of murder movies or crime novels, the plot is entertaining as Ripley’s journey illustrates a man’s journey with deception and murders to improve his life.

To the naked eye, a murder may as direct as one’s causation of another’s death, but to a judge, the question becomes who was at fault, and what was the motive? As we watched The Talented Mr. Ripley, we were prompted by Judge Miller to assume the rolls of prosecution and defense attorneys, to debate who was the blame for Dickie Greenleaf’s death. It was interesting to ping-pong discussions of internal motives and secret plots of Mr. Tom Ripley and briefly assume the role of defending or accusing someone of intentional murder. To us, it was just a short span of a half hour where we debated on the fate of a fictional character, but I couldn’t help but wonder what the immense pressure and enormous responsibility an actual attorney would take on. This riveting discussion led to even more riveting questions, like how would an actual prosecutor obtain the evidence, and would the jury believe it? The plot of this movie was quite intriguing, and I left with a newfound appreciation and curiosity for the process of accessing a murder to its true justice.

I gained a new way to look at law after watching this movie, court cases are nothing but a large proof or a computer program, the difference though is that a mistake and each proposition have a great burden associated with it and each and every mistake is extremely costly. What jury is trying to do is but to see if the proof or the program is correct. And the prosecutors are trying to raise proposition which brings out the truth with the original statement. In mathematics or computer science, one has perfect knowledge or at least enough to proceed forward, in the case of law this is not true. There are axioms which are the past judgments but as each theorem is unique each case is unique as well. In some sense, I find that the existence of this connection to be an important one to have to make sure we don’t go wrong with our decisions as a society as a whole.

Tom is a peaceful it was till he was pushed by he cruel Dickie Green. Tom was doing nothing but confronting his tormenter, it was not until Dickie struck first that Tom decided to take action. But it was less of a decision than a reaction. Tom did not want to hurt him but he was also in danger and had to defend himself.  Tom is innocent of murder and more or so a victim of assault. Dickie for months treated him like he was the world just to rip the carpet out from under him. The emotional turmoil Tom went through plus the assault he faced make Tom innocent of murder. Believe it or not but that man is not guilty.

Having travelled the Italian countryside, along with road trips through Switzerland, Germany and Spain, in the summer of 2017, watching “The Talented Mr. Ripley” was a cozy trip down memory lane. Mesmerized by the beauty of Europe, I enjoyed the movie from the first 20 minute onwards given its setting in beautiful Italian places.

The movie has a quirky and interesting story. Watching a talented conman navigate his way through the struggles he faces in getting money and affluence and very amusing. Despite his wrong ways, I began to appreciate Ripley’s skills, especially impersonations. The scene where he alone sets up trails of communication between himself and another character in the movie (Dickie) brings up his attention to detail. Despite his wrong ways, I ended the movie with an appreciation for Ripley’s wits and ruthless execution of plans, with him killing his beloved partner to keep himself form being exposed the most ruthless executions of his plans.

Judge Miller decided to show Rose scholars the movie “The Talented Mr. Ripley.” He also has an activity for us in which half of the students would be the defendants and the other half would be the prosecutors. I was fascinated by both the main character, Tom Ripley, and the execution of our mock trial. Mr. Ripley is a dangerous criminal mainly due to his talents of telling lies, forging signatures, and impersonating others. Also, he is a very clever individual who is able to think quickly and under pressure. The trial was also very fun and both parties provided good arguments. The main argument was deciding whether the crime was murder, premeditate desired to kills someone,  or manslaughter, accidentally taking someones live.  Personally, I believe that Ripley committed manslaughter against Dickie Greenleaf. However, I also believe that it was only a matter of time before Ripley murdered dickie in order to steal his identity and his father’s fortune.

Watching this film on a friday night left me thinking on how a person’s innate talents can be used to a wrong advantage. Ripley was so great at forgery and impersonation that it became very hard for me to even read into his true character for the most part of the film. In the beginning, many students could respect his hardworking mentality but then with all the faking that happened later on in the film it seemed like Ripley was trying to steal Dicke’s lifestyle from him in a dark way using his talents which then made me become much more skeptical of his character. In my opinion, I feel we should use our talents for improving ourselves and the world around us rather than using it to our advantage to steal something from another person.

Guilt written across his face,

Yet hidden so well.

He buried the key,

and set his own mind in flames.

Demons ravaging within the confines,

One lie after another,

Chasing a life that did not belong to him.

Poor Conniving, Deceiving

Mr. Ripley

Little did he know what he would become

A Monster, A Murderer.

Have mercy upon those who cross his path,

For he is lost and gone.

“The Talented Mr. Ripley” was a very interesting film to watch with lots of thinking going on. Throughout the movie, I thought of Dickie as a rude and spoiled person who was going through puberty. On the other hand, Ripley superficially looks and acts like a kind and hardworking man. When the murder happened, it is really hard to fight for either side knowing the full story behind their relationship and the physical fight that happened on the boat. It made me realize how you can’t be biased towards someone in a trial because anything can happen that could have led to murder. I’m amazed how many different cases of murder there is and how it can differ between states.

We had a hands-on experience of deciding if an act is murder or not. I have been always interested in law because of my limited exposure to it. I think it is interesting to see the nuances and thought process to decide if a situation is judged fairly and an appropriate decision is imposed upon the violater. During my trip to Vietnam, my friend and I had sat next to a lawyer who owns a law firm and to my interest in philosophy, I asked him if he believes in morality. He answered that once you are in in this industry, there is no morality. I was shook when I heard it but I think I realised his position during the discussion after movie, even when we have the evidence(scenes) right in front of us to decide on if it is a murder case or not. 

While the movie started out slowly, I really came to be intrigued by the character of Tom Ripley. Throughout the film I felt myself questioning who he really was under the mask of his different impersonations. Along with that, what might have encouraged his fascination with personalities? An origin story for him would be extremely fascinating. At times you also really feel for Tom because he clearly has difficulties with social interaction, latching onto Dickie and often being happy to just be involved.

Perhaps the most interesting part of the night was the “trial” that we conducted as prosecutors and such. At first it seemed very obvious to me that the killing was really self defense. Dickie had initiated physical contact and had eventually threatened Tom’s life, not to mention the emotional stress that Tom was under. I was surprised to find that really only a few people championed the idea that it was solely self defense. Over the course of the discussion I kept having to reevaluate the scene and rethink what had happened, comparing it with the different degrees of murder/ manslaughter. I felt that this is really evident of how important multiple perspectives are in getting the full picture of anything. This is why juries exist, obviously, but it still stunned me just how much my perspective on it changed and had to be reanalyzed over the course of a few minutes. It was a really fun and surprising experience!

Last week, I went to a movie showing of The Talented Mr.Ripley, which was based on a book series with the titular character Mr.Ripley. Mr.Ripley in the book series, is a criminal who commits various crimes in the book series. I have never seen the movie before and never even knew Matt Damon, from the Martian, was a part of the movie. However, as part of the movie experience, we attempted to find out the answer whether or not the character commited a murder or manslaughter. The two are often distinct yet many people don’t know the difference between them. Murder is the intent to kill someone, while manslaughter is the accidental death of a person. Manslaughter falls within two categories however, 1st degree and 2nd degree. 1st degree murder involves an actual purpose to cause harm to someone but not actually trying to kill. 2nd degree is causing the death of a person without actually trying to harm someone.

This investigation was mostly led by Judge Miller. Judge Miller provided insight on how the court system works with murder and how they would decide on cases with manslaughter. His insight improved the film and provided more aspect on the areas in the movie. The most fun activity in the film however, was debating on what decided manslaughter and murder within the movie. He split us into defendants and crime attorneys in order to make a character spend their life in prison or just a few years in prison for his actions.

As someone who loves watching movies, looking at the Rose Scholar weekly event board and seeing that a movie, The Talented Mr. Ripley, which I had never even heard of before interested me.  This interest was compounded when I discovered that Matt Damon was the star.  However, I did not initially give a second thought to the aspect of the event that involved analyzing a pivotal scene in the film which resulted in the death of a prominent character at the hands of Mr. Ripley, played by Damon.  It was not until just before the beginning of the film that Judge Scott Miller passed out a packet detailing the different classifications of killing another person in New York, expanding my interest to the activity that we were about to partake in.

Judge Miller explained the different classifications, including terms like manslaughter and 2nd degree murder.  The purpose of this was to equip us will the terminology to classify the murder that would ensue in the movie.  I found this lesson very interesting as it is a topic that I am not familiar with and I would like to learn more about.  After this event, I would recommend that everyone should at least familiarize themselves with such legal terms, not just the ones concerning classifying a killing, so that they will better be able to understand the consequences of their actions.  In addition, I especially liked how Judge Miller split us into groups and tasked us with arguing on behalf Mr. Ripley or against him after the murder took place.  This caused me to remain engaged with the movie and develop my argument, making the information that I had just learned especially useful, along with it being a fun exercise and an opportunity to debate.  Despite the event officially only lasting until midway through the movie when the pivotal killing took place, I was so captivated by the film that I decide to say and finish it out.  Ultimately, the event itself was an interesting and fun exercise while the movie was captivating and worth seeing again.

I love any and all stories where you feel for the character who is obviously the bad guy. It messes with my brain though. I went into this movie knowing one thing: Matt Damon plays a murderer (thank you to my dad for spoiling it). In spite of that, all I wanted in this movie was for Matt Damon’s character to succeed. He’s this shy underdog, clearly trying to deal with his sexuality, and I felt for him the entire way. This was juxtaposed with Jude Law’s character, who is careless, and had clearly had a lot of the luxury he experiences in life handed to him. I really wanted him to get in trouble for what he did to the local woman, even though he did not technically have a hand in her death. When the movie handed this karma to him I was glad, and then horrified that I was glad. This movie is clearly meant to make us think about criminal justice in general, which is probably why the judge chose it to screen. The murder forces considerable analysis of Ripley’s motives. I don’t think that Ripley got into the boat with the intention of killing anyone, but it’s a grey area. It also made me wonder whether the motive should matter when a crime takes place. When we went over the types of murder in the US criminal justice system I found out that it does already play a significant roll (whether or not the motive was self defense, or whether you truly intended to murder someone), which is interesting because it is so difficult to determine without actually witnessing the murder take place.

The second half movie was absolutely gripping. In spite of it all I wanted Ripley to get away with it all. Even after watching all those gruesome killings. Even when he murdered the man he loved. This is a shocking opinion to have. Am I the kind of person who thinks murdering a bad person is okay? I would hope not.

Last week when we watched The Talented Mr. Ripley, Judge Scott Miller had us pause the movie and discuss whether or not Tom Ripley was acting in self-defense when he (spoiler) kills Dickie. The discussion was basically about if he could be found guilty or be prosecuted legally for the murder–which doesn’t take into account the moral, sympathetic, or personal aspects of it. Is Tom a bad person? Is he evil? Weirdly enough, either because he is the main character or for other reasons, many of the audience found Tom to be sympathetic and likable. He’s great at impersonations, and clearly clever in that he can think two steps ahead of most people. But despite all that, he was definitely not in the right to kill Dickie. So, if a “good person” does a bad thing, are they now a bad person? Tom clearly feels guilty over what he’s done to Dickie, but he does not want to face the consequences, and rather uses the situation to his advantage. The fact that he even later on kills two other people because they came too close to figuring out the truth makes it clear that Tom is (pretty conclusively) not a good person. Yes, you can get trapped in a situation. But when you’re faced with two hard choices- to either face consequences for your actions or kill someone to keep your secret and freedom – the answer should definitely not be to kill more innocent people.

I am not a person that watches movies in genres besides comedy. However, on Friday night I and several other Rose residents sat down with Judge Miller to watch “The Talented Mr. Ripley.” Judge Miller, is the trial judge for criminal cases in Ithaca. Watching the movie with him gave me insight on to how a court and a jury work in murder cases, the different levels of murder, and everything you have to look at when convicting someone of murder. Having Judge Miller gives his insight on the murder that took place in the movie showed how a judge thinks, and how one must evaluate all aspects of the situation when convicting someone. Overall it wad a great night! But I really hope I do not get chosen to be on jury for a murder case any time soon!

The first thing that I want to say about The Talented Mr. Ripley is that the titular character started off as being somewhat sympathetic but then started making me uneasy when he found Dickie and Marge in Italy. Ripley lives in a pretty terrible life in New York City, living in a trashy apartment in the meatpacking district doing what he can to get by. But the way Ripley sticks out in Italy, the way his pasty skin stands out on a beach of tans, the way he seems both endearingly awkward and obsessive over Dickie’s life, struck me the wrong way. From trying on his host’s clothes, covertly getting Dickie’s signatures and a handwriting sample, and pretending to kiss an asleep Dickie on the train, Ripley just feels uncanny and disturbing.

A big part of this event was determining how to interpret the killing about an hour into the film in the law sense. I had originally felt that Ripley was definitely guilty of murder in the second degree, and I felt bad for the people who Judge Miller had designated to defend him, feeling like they would be grasping at straws. However, I was completely incorrect; there were a lot of good points that people made, such as Dickie initiating the conflict by hitting Ripley first, or noting Ripley’s surprise when he knocks Dickie back with the oar. There was also room for interpretation, such as considering whether Ripley’s verbal insults count as provoking or not. This really gave me a feel for how complex and confusing a case might be, even when it looks, at first, like it’s a clear cut ruling. Even though the law has rules on what constitutes murder and what constitutes manslaughter and self-defense, there’s a lot of room in the definitions to move around and twist the case to favor one side or the other.

Last Friday, I was given the chance to watch The Talented Mr. Ripley. This movie creeped me out honestly so I left after the murder scene.

How is he even talented? What were his talents other than the creepy mimic and forgery things he showed once in the movie (before I left that is)

The whole weirdness of the guy watching some dude and falling in love with him for some reason. Why did he even fall in love with the guy? That confused me so much. I would have preferred that Mr. Ripley would have done his job, getting the guy’s son back to the USA no matter what. Think about it, what if instead of falling in love with the guy, you just kill him and send him back to his father in a suitcase or something. He sure did his job at that point and deserved a fine $1000 payment if I do say so myself.

I had to leave after the murder scene because I was just so uncomfortable with the movie after the murder. The whole cliche where he has a date with two people in the same restaurant is honestly boring and I couldn’t remove my fear that my boy Ripley was gonna get the chair after this because the odds are far too out of his favor.

This past Friday, I attended the Rose Friday Film for “The Talented Mr. Ripley.” A New York judge was also in attendance to discuss the crimes committed in the movie. Therefore, the focus was on the murders that happened during the movie. However, my focus was more shifted towards Tom’s obsession and “talent.” In the beginning, Tom is portrayed as a hard-working man trying to support himself, making the viewers have sympathy for him. However, as the movie develops, we see that Tom has a dark side. Unsatisfied with his life, he attempts to take over Dickie’s life… by murdering him. That was the turning point in the movie. Although Tom loved Dickie, he ultimately loved his lifestyle more. So he lies to Marge and tries to impersonate Dickie and his lifestyle. This ends in more murders and lies. What I found interesting was that Tom killed all these people to obtain Dickie’s amazing life but in the end, he ended up hating himself more than before. Instead of choosing an honest path, he tries to cheat life, failing. If Tom had decided to keep living is own life fully, he would have been better off.

The movie The Talented Mr. Ripley opened my eyes to the danger that comes with passion and obsession. In the film, we saw Ripley’s obsession drive him to the extreme. He murdered his “best friend”, the person he was obsessed with (Dickey). It was crazy to see how insane he was acting and too see that he would take it that far. This obsession led him to take on a false identity, kill 2 of his companions, and lie to basically everyone he interacted with. Some might say he killed Dickey in self defense, but I do not believe that was the case. I think that his emotions took over him and led him to the extreme.

On Friday night, I joined Judge Scott Miller as well as other Rose Scholars to watch The Talented Mr. Ripley and discuss the different degrees of murder. The movie followed Tom Ripley and his obsession with Dickie Greenleaf, the son of a successful businessman who frolics around Italy spending his father’s money and living the high life. Ripley falls in love with Greenleaf and creates a whole persona that he thinks Dickie will want to be with. However, the two have a falling out and Ripley ends up killing Greenleaf. The events leading up to the death of Dickie Greenleaf define whether the killing was second degree murder, manslaughter, or self defense. Murder involves actively choosing to kill someone and then carrying it out, while manslaughter is more recklessness. The different opinions of the “prosecutors” and the “defense attorneys” showed to me how, even when all the evidence is laid out in front of us, even when we know all the events leading up to the killing, there is still room to argue whether it was murder, manslaughter, or self defense. I can’t imagine how many more factors, more arguments, and more gray area there is in a court of law with a real crime, without the entire story.

Judge Scott Miller really turned this into a great event and made it more than a movie, and he got us to play different roles in the audience and engaged us further during the event. I really got to analyze the movie and resultingly question Ripley’s ethics in terms of what he did and how he was able to finesse several people. Matt Damon’s acting was amazing, and he played the role of a psychopath in Ripley really well. Without spoiling the film or revealing any additional encompassing details, I would say that you should definitely watch this if you want to see a movie with a thrilling plotline that stars quite a few great American actors.

I never thought murder could be so subjective.

In the murder scene, we had Ripley and Dickie alone in a rowboat. Ripley confessed his love and got rejected, and out of anger hit Dickie with an oar causing Dickie a large laceration on his face. Ripley, then realizing what he had done, quickly apologized but it was too late, Dickie overwhelmed with anger, went after Ripley, locked him in a two-hand chokehold angrily screaming “I’m going to kill you.” Ripley then in fear, grabbed the oar and started hitting Dickie again until he stopped… and died.

There could have been 2 possibilities. 1) Self Defense 2)Manslaughter. Self-defense can be argued in that Ripley was defending himself from a deadly force ie Dickie choking him screaming “I’m going to kill you.” But I could argue that it was manslaughter because, after the choking when Ripley was in the midst of attacking Dickie, he could’ve stopped. Ripley was clearly in the dominant position during his attack as Dickie was already beaten into submission. But because Ripley was in such an emotional state of mind, he couldn’t think clearly and didn’t think to stop. It’s quite interesting how much nuance there can be to declaring what is “murder.”