What a great topic. I thought the most recent Ripley was brilliant in its all its gloomy languid off season splendour. The world looks so real in black and white.
I agree with your analysis but my take is the cons complete lack of empathy and his strong sense of being unfairly overlooked by everyone is what drives him. Tom is clearly unloved and his intelligence has gone unnoticed and unrewarded. He has fallen through the proverbial cracks and no one cares.
He feels he is unloved and yet he doesn’t hesitate to abuse the trust of anyone who shows the slightest inclination towards fondness. Everyone is a piece in his evolving chess game.
Revenge and the rightful recognition of his talents and charm are as important to Tom as stealing the wealth of his entitled targets. Taking their lives is a necessary inconvenience. Why should Dickie the novice and laughable painter have the perfect life of leisure in Italy, the beautiful writer girlfriend, the sailboat, the access to galleries and music, good wine? Maximum entitlement for such a vanilla persona. And Tom- overlooked, ignored and under- estimated. Well he sure showed them.
As for your Toronto con - I had forgotten all about him until I read this. He told me his story late one afternoon near Lonsdale and Avenue Rd. I was blown away by his acting and his manners which were more perfect than I had seen in a long while. But unlike you I told him I wasn’t buying his story. Too perfectly lined up, all the pieces fitting neatly into the puzzle. I clearly remember my first words after he finished his story. I said, “ come on!” In a way that meant “ give me a break. Then I continued to walk and never looked back.
In the 60’s when I grew up with my 5 sisters and my one legged father we were poor my mom worked many jobs and the catholic family childrens aid made sure us little ones had enough to eat. My sisters grew to be strong and beautiful and every one ended up using their various cons to get a step up in life. Their hatred toward men is visceral even today (most in their mid 60’s and early 70’s) all of them still have cons they play and (in my opinion) have ruined them. Cons are destructive and my beautiful strong sisters bear these scars. Your article really got me.
An interesting meditation on the subject, and a pleasure to read. I haven’t seen the new Ripley but the Matt Damon film left a very deep impression on me, and I remember thinking back to it a lot, wondering if ultimately Tom would ever find the effort he went to worthwhile. I guess your take on it suggests he would not—that it’s a pretty horrible fate, to be a Mr Ripley.
Leah. I was taken in by this same fellow. A street in the Annex. I remember it like it was yesterday for two reasons. One, I still feel like a sucker (aka, loser) when I think about handing him $10 and two, he only thought I was good for $10 (that's all he asked for and I'm sure I was better dressed than that).
This reminds me of my ex boyfriend if I’m honest. The way he would act as the person I wanted him to be, how he seemed to find the whole experience of stringing me along entertaining and the knock on effect of all those lies on the people around him. Great piece.
Loved this piece, Leah. And you’re right, the conman gets into our imagination, our psyche, in our attempt to understand. My dad was a conman as you know. He was a liar and a manipulator, and often did it unashamedly. If he’d been cornered he’d probably also say it was to fill a void, to be admired, accepted, loved. But that I suspect would also be a con.
The conman starts to believe they have a right to con people because they have convinced themselves they are good at it, they are above the law, above the ordinary man. Their own private and titillating rebellion.
I binge watched Ripley. Absolutely loved it, and it made me want to revisit Italy. Such a stunning place and so beautifully shot.
I thoroughly enjoyed this combo of memoir/film review/cautionary tale Leah.
"...you pressed $250 crisp bank notes into his hands." I can only imagine that part since I don't easily give money to my own sons. I'm chicken shit when it comes to shady characters (run Forest run!) but my writer's curiosity can appreciate wanting to know what makes other folks tick. Your anecdote's ending is right out of my teacher's note book (now what have we learned class?). If only we could admit that we are all humans trying to get by in life (most of us on less than $250 in crisp new banknotes)
I wish I had an anecdote, but I don’t. We went to her house (messy but clean) She gave us lunch, spoke very little and chatted amicably with Frank and Janet. All three were a lot older than me so we didn’t have a lot to say to each other. I don’t recall her even asking me a question. Like many writers of her time, she introverted and self-involved. She didn’t need a new friend who was only an old friend of hers. Maybe the two women had been romantically involved. But that’s just a hunch.
I have to admit to skimming the series. Something about people making horrific decisions that flips a switch and I go, "Nope, not watching that." I started "Dexter" and switched it off when he cut into the first skull. Started "Breaking Bad" and in episode 1 when buddy decides to start a life of crime, I checked out. "I can see where this is going and I don't want to follow." Ripley, I did stick with (in a way) because it was beautifully shot, and I was interested to see exactly how far he got with those people, and then how it would resolve. Probably watched 50% in regular speed. I have a friend who trained as undercover RCMP and one of the training tasks was to be like your Frenchman: put on a suit, tell stories (Vancouver) and get enough money for a night in a hotel. His story was "I jumped out of a cab and must've lost my wallet in the car, and just need $25 to get a cab back home." He pulled it repeatedly until he got the $200. Your analysis of the actual confolk (and Michele's instincts) hold up. Great read.
I read this earlier this morning then set it aside to think about whether I had ever been victim to a con (as opposed to an online or telephone scam which is a very low form of criminality indeed). I don’t think I have and I’m not sure I’m the better for it.
I am a sucker and fell for an online con. I transferred much money to the scammer
To save his job - being the good guy- he appealed to the side of me. My daughter shit it down and to the end the conman told me he was not a scammer. Good piece Leah and I love seeing your graveyard rambles.
Thank you for describing the inner workings of. Mr Ripley. I knew Madame Highsmith through friends. She lived alone not far from Paris near Fontainebleau. I wish I could have shown her your piece - for her opinion of course.
The novelist as conman. Not conperson, of course. Writers wouldn't use such a word. But it's interesting isn't it, that the novelist con puts a bracket of book covers around their cons and then return to their in-between-books life? The con of the good novelist (and memoirist?) is in the end, more deft, but not nearly so destructive.
What a great topic. I thought the most recent Ripley was brilliant in its all its gloomy languid off season splendour. The world looks so real in black and white.
I agree with your analysis but my take is the cons complete lack of empathy and his strong sense of being unfairly overlooked by everyone is what drives him. Tom is clearly unloved and his intelligence has gone unnoticed and unrewarded. He has fallen through the proverbial cracks and no one cares.
He feels he is unloved and yet he doesn’t hesitate to abuse the trust of anyone who shows the slightest inclination towards fondness. Everyone is a piece in his evolving chess game.
Revenge and the rightful recognition of his talents and charm are as important to Tom as stealing the wealth of his entitled targets. Taking their lives is a necessary inconvenience. Why should Dickie the novice and laughable painter have the perfect life of leisure in Italy, the beautiful writer girlfriend, the sailboat, the access to galleries and music, good wine? Maximum entitlement for such a vanilla persona. And Tom- overlooked, ignored and under- estimated. Well he sure showed them.
As for your Toronto con - I had forgotten all about him until I read this. He told me his story late one afternoon near Lonsdale and Avenue Rd. I was blown away by his acting and his manners which were more perfect than I had seen in a long while. But unlike you I told him I wasn’t buying his story. Too perfectly lined up, all the pieces fitting neatly into the puzzle. I clearly remember my first words after he finished his story. I said, “ come on!” In a way that meant “ give me a break. Then I continued to walk and never looked back.
In the 60’s when I grew up with my 5 sisters and my one legged father we were poor my mom worked many jobs and the catholic family childrens aid made sure us little ones had enough to eat. My sisters grew to be strong and beautiful and every one ended up using their various cons to get a step up in life. Their hatred toward men is visceral even today (most in their mid 60’s and early 70’s) all of them still have cons they play and (in my opinion) have ruined them. Cons are destructive and my beautiful strong sisters bear these scars. Your article really got me.
An interesting meditation on the subject, and a pleasure to read. I haven’t seen the new Ripley but the Matt Damon film left a very deep impression on me, and I remember thinking back to it a lot, wondering if ultimately Tom would ever find the effort he went to worthwhile. I guess your take on it suggests he would not—that it’s a pretty horrible fate, to be a Mr Ripley.
As you say and describe so clearly, he was a very good professional con man. If only he'd devote his energies to saving the planet.
Leah. I was taken in by this same fellow. A street in the Annex. I remember it like it was yesterday for two reasons. One, I still feel like a sucker (aka, loser) when I think about handing him $10 and two, he only thought I was good for $10 (that's all he asked for and I'm sure I was better dressed than that).
This reminds me of my ex boyfriend if I’m honest. The way he would act as the person I wanted him to be, how he seemed to find the whole experience of stringing me along entertaining and the knock on effect of all those lies on the people around him. Great piece.
Loved this piece, Leah. And you’re right, the conman gets into our imagination, our psyche, in our attempt to understand. My dad was a conman as you know. He was a liar and a manipulator, and often did it unashamedly. If he’d been cornered he’d probably also say it was to fill a void, to be admired, accepted, loved. But that I suspect would also be a con.
The conman starts to believe they have a right to con people because they have convinced themselves they are good at it, they are above the law, above the ordinary man. Their own private and titillating rebellion.
I binge watched Ripley. Absolutely loved it, and it made me want to revisit Italy. Such a stunning place and so beautifully shot.
I thoroughly enjoyed this combo of memoir/film review/cautionary tale Leah.
"...you pressed $250 crisp bank notes into his hands." I can only imagine that part since I don't easily give money to my own sons. I'm chicken shit when it comes to shady characters (run Forest run!) but my writer's curiosity can appreciate wanting to know what makes other folks tick. Your anecdote's ending is right out of my teacher's note book (now what have we learned class?). If only we could admit that we are all humans trying to get by in life (most of us on less than $250 in crisp new banknotes)
I wouldn’t be surprised re the booze. She was very thirsty before and after lunch - and the wines were the finest available.
I wish I had an anecdote, but I don’t. We went to her house (messy but clean) She gave us lunch, spoke very little and chatted amicably with Frank and Janet. All three were a lot older than me so we didn’t have a lot to say to each other. I don’t recall her even asking me a question. Like many writers of her time, she introverted and self-involved. She didn’t need a new friend who was only an old friend of hers. Maybe the two women had been romantically involved. But that’s just a hunch.
I have to admit to skimming the series. Something about people making horrific decisions that flips a switch and I go, "Nope, not watching that." I started "Dexter" and switched it off when he cut into the first skull. Started "Breaking Bad" and in episode 1 when buddy decides to start a life of crime, I checked out. "I can see where this is going and I don't want to follow." Ripley, I did stick with (in a way) because it was beautifully shot, and I was interested to see exactly how far he got with those people, and then how it would resolve. Probably watched 50% in regular speed. I have a friend who trained as undercover RCMP and one of the training tasks was to be like your Frenchman: put on a suit, tell stories (Vancouver) and get enough money for a night in a hotel. His story was "I jumped out of a cab and must've lost my wallet in the car, and just need $25 to get a cab back home." He pulled it repeatedly until he got the $200. Your analysis of the actual confolk (and Michele's instincts) hold up. Great read.
I read this earlier this morning then set it aside to think about whether I had ever been victim to a con (as opposed to an online or telephone scam which is a very low form of criminality indeed). I don’t think I have and I’m not sure I’m the better for it.
I am a sucker and fell for an online con. I transferred much money to the scammer
To save his job - being the good guy- he appealed to the side of me. My daughter shit it down and to the end the conman told me he was not a scammer. Good piece Leah and I love seeing your graveyard rambles.
This essay taught me something this morning : thank you .
Thank you for describing the inner workings of. Mr Ripley. I knew Madame Highsmith through friends. She lived alone not far from Paris near Fontainebleau. I wish I could have shown her your piece - for her opinion of course.
The novelist as conman. Not conperson, of course. Writers wouldn't use such a word. But it's interesting isn't it, that the novelist con puts a bracket of book covers around their cons and then return to their in-between-books life? The con of the good novelist (and memoirist?) is in the end, more deft, but not nearly so destructive.