When I heard about Anthony Minghella's death, I felt compelled to write something immediately. Fortunately or unfortunately, a severe head cold got in the way. See, I'm of two minds about Minghella's work. On the one hand, he's responsible for one of my favorite romantic comedies, Truly, Madly, Deeply. On the other hand, he's the reason I no longer dismiss the looneys who talk about Hollywood's "gay agenda."
As the release of The Talented Mr. Ripley approached, I decided to read the original book first. Possibly a mistake as I tend to compare movies to the book and have strong negative feelings when they veer too far from the original. I understand that the movies often have to drop characters or subplots to fit the primary story into 2-3 hours of film, but when they make significant alterations to the plot or characters that seem to serve no purpose but to please the beancounters, marketing guys, or some particular quirk of the director's, it pisses me off.
Let me give you an example. In Stephen King's It!, the character of Richie did vocal impersonations (like Rich Little or Frank Caliendo). When it was made into a mini-series, they decided to cast Harry Anderson as Richie. Harry Anderson does not do voices. Richie's character was changed to accomodate the actor they cast, rather than them casting an actor who could play Richie. This pissed me off to no end.
So what did Anthony Minghella do that was so awful? He turned Ripley gay. There was an undercurrent of unspoken homoerotic tension in the book, to be sure. Perhaps if it had been written in 1998 instead of 1958, Ripley would have been overtly gay. But he wasn't, at least not in The Talented Mr. Ripley. Some of the more gay'ish bits in the movie could have been written off to different visions of the character. But Minghella ends the movie with a scene that's not in the book, with Ripley having an overtly homosexual relationship. It was as if he felt that question could not be left unanswered, and he chose the answer he liked.
I have no problems with characters being gay. I've watched and enjoyed films, both comedic and dramatic, where primary characters were gay and were not caricatures. But as a writer myself, I wondered if I had a character who could go either way, who some thought was gay, some thought was straight, and some merely enjoyed the fact that it was never stated which he really was, how would I feel if some gay man came along and made a big Hollywood picture with major stars and turned my character unmistakeably gay? I'd be upset.
See, besides the fact that Minghella apparently decided to remake Ripley in his own image to some extent, it pissed me off in another way. I liked the fact that it was left to bubble below the surface, that the reader was left to make up their own mind. That kind of subtlety, in my opinion, is a nod from the author to the reader that says "I think you're smart enough and grown up enough to mull this over and draw your own conclusions." I feel that when Minghella went and turned Ripley gay, he insulted the intelligence of the audience and showed a distrust for his viewers.
Since then, I haven't watched any of his other films, because I no longer trusted him. Furthermore, as a liberal, I'd felt like I could look down my nose at conservatives who would go on about the "gay agenda" in Hollywood and laugh at them. But after seeing Minghella do what he did to Ripley, I couldn't write them off as easily. He stole some of my liberalism and gave credence to some of the right's insanity, which may be the thing I dislike him for most.
So when he died and so many mourned his loss, I just couldn't. I'm not the fan everyone else seems to be and I felt like I needed to say why.
Entries (RSS)
A quick web search gives no indication that he was actually gay. The only information I found implied that he wasn't.