Re: RARA-AVIS: Ripley, the film

From: Jim Beaver (
Date: 03 Jan 2000

Kate wrote:
> Saw Ripley yesterday. Although leisurely, it never dragged for me.
> Terrific evocation of period and place. However, there were things that
> bothered me -- a minor one was that in some scenes, there was no glass in
> Ripley's eyeglasses, but in other scenes, there was. Very distracting,
> when it would have been much better to be consistent. And furthermore,
> they were a Clark Kentish sort of prop, since he didn't seem to need them
> in the scenes where he didn't wear them.

Actors who need to wear glasses on film often get (or are provided) lenses with a non-reflective coating. Although there is always some reflection, the glare is cut so far down that from many angles it looks as if there is no glass in the frames. Angles with brighter or multi-source lighting have a greater chance of revealing the glare in the glass.

Also, as a person who wears glasses to read and see television and road signs, but who can get along pretty well without them if need be, I saw no particular problem with Ripley using/not using his specs. As an actor, I rarely ever work with mine, and as long as I don't need to read something, I manage pretty well. I had no trouble imagining what things looked like to Ripley when he had his glasses off, as I spend a lot of time with mine off.


# To unsubscribe, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to
# The web pages for the list are at .

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 07 Jan 2000 EST