Opiniones de usuarios

One of the brownest movies ever made -- brown walls, brown furniture, red-brown faces of the drunken patrons of Harry's Bar -- and somehow that feels appropriate, as a lot of it is about autumnal regrets and faded dreams. One in the series of the AFI's American Film Theatre series, it's a very faithful rendering of O'Neill's great play, with one original Broadway cast member (Tom Pedi's bartender) and loads of good casting throughout. John Frankenheimer's camera is thrust right up at the actors' faces, and you keep looking for artifice or melodrama, but, with the exception of Sorrell Booke's sodden Hugo, there's very little. Fredric March's deluded Harry Hope, Robert Ryan's despairing ex- revolutionary Larry, Jeff Bridges' guilt-ridden student (a very difficult role for a young actor, especially in company as august as this) -- all have the ring of truth, and once you get used to the deliberate pacing, repetitive arguments and apologies, and startlingly frank language for a 1946 play, you're hooked. As to Lee Marvin's Theodore Hickey: I was convinced up to his famous Act Three monologue, but he stumbles here, launching into badly calibrated fits of temper and back again. Compare it against Jason Robards Jr.'s interpretation in the 1960 Sidney Lumet-directed TV version, and you'll see the difference between a good actor overreaching and a master in a role he was born to play. (I also saw Kevin Spacey's attempt on the stage a few years ago: He played Hickey like Professor Harold Hill, all bluster and forced charisma, and it didn't work.) A depressing four hours, but worthy, and a rich sample of the actor's art.

I am adding my comment because the TV version did not show up on the IMDB cross-reference list. This play was previously produced in the early 1960s for the TV "Play of the Week" series. It starred Jason Robards Jr. as Hickey. Many consider this his finest performance and this TV version, the finest production. I saw both the movie version listed here and the TV version. As good as Lee Marvin's performance was, I also agree that the TV version is superior. See this if you can. The Iceman Cometh also happens to be my favorite play.

An aside; I believe that Jason Robards Jr. was not offered the part for the movie version because at that time, his alcoholism got the better of him. There is irony here since the play demonstrates the impact of alcoholism and the pipe dreams that come from it. Up till then, the role of Hickey belonged to Mr. Robards Jr. as it should have. Mr. Robards Jr. interpretation of Eugene O'Neill's plays have always been masterful. I am convinced he was deeply hurt and has always regretted not being able to perform in the movie production.

An experiment that I am sorry ended.

This movie was an early part of a new production experiment in which the audience prepaid for the series (I am not sure of the series name but I seem to remember the American Film Theater or Institute). I had subscribed to it and I am sorry that the experiment failed after producing perhaps no more than 10 fine productions of classic plays.

"The Iceman Cometh" was part of American Film Theatre, an experiment by producer Ely Landau. The idea was for top-flight casts and creative talent to film classic plays. Then selected theaters would show one film a month, but only on two days (consecutive Tuesdays, if memory serves) before returning to their regular programs until the following month, when the next AFT release would be put up for two more days.

The program was nothing if not high-tone and ambitious. Productions included Edward Albee's "A Delicate Balance" with Katharine Hepburn, Paul Scofield and Lee Remick; "Lost in the Stars," the Maxwell Anderson-Kurt Weill musical based on "Cry, the Beloved Country"; Eugene Ionesco's "Rhinoceros" with Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder; and Chekhov's "The Three Sisters" directed by Laurence Olivier. Unfortunately, the project as a whole was an unmitigated disaster. For one thing, most of the films were uninspired, some were mediocre, and a few were downright awful. But most of all, the whole idea flew in the face of motion picture economics: how could any movie (or live play, for that matter) possibly break even when it ran for only TWO DAYS?

All things considered, it's a tribute to Landau's skill as a promoter that the AFT managed to limp through two "seasons," 1973-74 and 1974-75, before collapsing in a tangled heap of debts, lawsuits, and countersuits. But collapse it did, and the legal can-of-worms that it left, with the AFT's liabilities mixed with the rights of authors and their estates, is probably what keeps the films out of theatrical circulation and unavailable on video.

In the case of most AFT productions, truth be told, that's no great loss. But "The Iceman Cometh" is head-and-shoulders above all the rest put together (I suspect Landau knew it, too: that's no doubt why he put his best foot forward by making it the premiere production). It is, in fact, a great movie -- a great play with a once-in-a-lifetime cast (it was Fredric March's last movie, and Robert Ryan died even before it came out) under the hand of a fine director (John Frankenheimer) who cut his teeth on live drama during the Golden Age of Television.

Nobody connected with this film ever did better work -- not Ryan, who was brilliant and deserved a posthumous Oscar nomination for it; not March, one of Hollywood's greatest; none of the supporting cast; not even Jeff Bridges, who was only 23 and just at the beginning of his career (he once said that this was the film that made him realize he was serious about being an actor).

A special case is Lee Marvin in the pivotal role of Hickey; he was much disparaged by critics at the time, but the tone was one of

how-dare-this-B-movie-thug-lay-his-unclean-hands-on-a-role-that-belongs-now- and-forever-to-Jason-Robards. Meaning no disrespect, but Robards was hardly infallible; Lee Marvin never did anything as bad as Robards's Brutus in "Julius Caesar" (1970). An impartial viewing of Marvin in "The Iceman Cometh" shows he was entirely up to the role, even in the demanding, shattering 25-minute monologue where Hickey's self-loathing hypocrisy slips out against his will.

I was lucky enough to see this film twice in a theater -- once on its premiere in November '73, and again in the spring of '75, when Landau tried (in vain) to recoup his losses by giving a general release to selected AFT films. I've never forgotten it, and there are moments as fresh in my mind as if I saw them yesterday: Robert Ryan's anguish when he snarls, "You think you'll get me to admit that to myself?" and Marvin replies, "But you just did admit it, didn't you?"; Jeff Bridges's tormented profile as he sits at the table with Ryan trying to sort out his life; Fredric March as the doddering saloon-keeper venturing outside for the first time in years; Lee Marvin's ironic little dance as he calls himself "a happy-go-lucky slob like me." All, and so much more, unforgettable.

I am dismayed to read in another comment here that there seems to be a three-hour version of this film out there somewhere. This would be outrageous enough if the original version were readily available, but since the original is not, it's intolerable. Any cutting of this film (which already judiciously edits O'Neill's original text) can only be a mutilation. Accept no substitutes, and DO NOT watch this film, regardless of its length, if it is shown on TV with commercial breaks. See it ONLY in its 239-minute version, uninterrupted except for the two intermissions O'Neill intended (this was, by the way, the first movie with two intermissions) -- the cumulative power of the play demands it, and a movie this great deserves nothing less.

The Iceman Cometh is one great film to go out on for not one, but two of the best players ever. This turned out to be the last performances for both Fredric March and Robert Ryan. In the case of Ryan he knew he was terminal and his performance has real poignancy.

Of course you can't beat the material that was given to them and the rest of the cast. It's been argued that The Iceman Cometh is the greatest work from the pen of America's greatest playwright Eugene O'Neill and I'm not going to argue the point.

Some would give the honor of O'Neill's greatest play to Long Day's Journey Into Night. That particular play was Eugene O'Neill's remembrance of his childhood and family. The Iceman Cometh is also about a family of sorts, the community that's been established around Harry Hope's waterfront bar and SRO flophouse. It's owner Harry Hope played by Fredric March, is a former Tammany politician who's not set foot outside his establishment because he's in mourning over his late wife Bessie.

The whole usual crowd of boarder/drinkers is awaiting the arrival of one of the regulars who apparently likes to go slumming there. It's Hickey, a gladhanding traveling salesman Lee Marvin who spends like a Diamond Jim Brady and is generally the life of the party. But it's a new and somber Hickey that comes to bar that day.

A stranger arrives that day also, Jeff Bridges a young anarchist is on the run he says from the Pacific Coast where his mother among others has been picked up. He's looking for an older leader of the movement Larry Slade who is played by Robert Ryan. Ryan is a beaten and tired man and of all the people in the bar he's the one with the most realistic assessment. It's the last stop for this crowd before the Grim Reaper.

But the somber Marvin, still full of salesman's guile gets them all to reassess themselves and their 'pipe dreams' even for a little while. He also reveals a terrible secret about himself and Jeff Bridges has even bigger cross to bear and Bridges can't bear it.

I was blown away by the performances of everyone in the cast. Marvin came in for some criticism at the time, attempting to serious a part and one that Jason Robards, Jr. was given acclaim for as his career role. But there was nothing wrong in Lee Marvin's performance that I could find. Young Jeff Bridges more than held his own with the veteran cast. My favorite among the supporting parts is Bradford Dillman who plays a lawyer who graduated from Harvard Law and for whatever reason, broke down and is now here.

One member of the cast in this production was in the original Broadway cast when The Iceman Cometh premiered on Broadway in 1946. That was Tom Pedi who played the bartender Rocky Pioggi who also doubled as a pimp for some prostitutes who hang out there. Next to Ryan, the women who we don't learn anything about really, seem to have the most realistic ideas about the patrons there. Pedi's performance in a part he grew to own is pretty special also.

Bridges is the outsider, he had a cause, a revolutionary cause and O'Neill in his youth hung around with that crowd as we learned in Warren Beatty's Reds. We also learned that while O'Neill liked the people he was less than optimistic about the beliefs they had. If Bridges is a failed John Reed, O'Neill in Ryan's character of Larry Slade is looking back over the years when he drank in such places as Harry Hope's. The rest of the cast is no doubt modeled after people he knew back in the day.

In his own way, O'Neill loved these people a whole lot more than he did his own family. And it's to them and for them he wrote The Iceman Cometh. And it's for us to see a small part of New York in 1912, some folks who might have passed unnoticed by time, but for the fact that a literary genius passed among them.

I have to confess right off the bat that I love O'Neill and this play is certainly one of the grandest of them all, but I am also one of those that would have preferred to see Jason Robards in the Hickey role. I did see Robards play it on kine scope and thought he was about as right as it gets.

Having said that, Lee Marvin does admirably in this huge role. My expectation were low but I was not disappointed. I even thought he brought a level of menace to the part that might have been missing with another actor.

It is a grim play. Nothing cute about this bunch of burn outs and hardcore drunks. Not easy to view and experience and very long! (I watched it in 3, count them, 3 sittings! Special praise goes to Robert Ryan, in one of his best roles ever and a very young and vibrant Jeff Bridges who comes through against a long array of seasoned performers.

I do not think I have ever heard the word "pipedream" more. It occurs again and again and with purpose and sadness.

Although this work has a half a ton of drunks and losers, it is not for the partying JERSEY SHORE crowd. This is highbrow epic stuff.

Bravo!!

Can I tell you that I have waited 30 years to see this movie? When I was in my late teens, I received a brochure in the mail advertising the American Film Theater series. One of the films in the series that made my eyes pop was the promise to show Eugene O'Neill's "The Iceman Cometh". I was a big fan of O'Neill's work, but felt cheated by AFT's disastrous marketing concept of showing it's films to season subscribers only, and then only giving them two days to see the film. I was forced to take a pass, but mourned my loss ever since.

This play is rarely performed. At four hours, it would task most theater companies, and Hickey's 25 minute soliloquy in the last act requires only the best actors to pull off. I was fortunate to have seen this play, once in my life, performed on the stage. This was Chicago's Goodman Theater production starring Brian Dennehy as Hickey in 1990. I felt fortunate, but came away from that production dissatisfied. Dennehy was a "good" Hickey, but not a great one, and the rest of the cast left me a little shallow.

How glad I was then to discover that this film had been re-released. By pure chance, I saw a notice in the paper that this film would be showing at the Gene Siskel Film Center in Chicago. I couldn't let this opportunity pass by a second time. I attended the screening and was absolutely stunned. It exceeded my expectations.

First of all, the cast was stellar. Robert Ryan played his last film role here, and it was perfect. I don't say something like that very often. I cannot imagine a better Larry.

Fredric March played his last role here too, as Harry Hope. Also an excellent performance.

The question everyone would be asking about is Hickey, played by Lee Marvin. Was he up to the role? To my surprise, Marvin couldn't have been a better choice.

Hickey was a salesman, and a rare one at that. He was the type of salesman that could knock on your door and convince you that what he had to sell was what you needed. A salesman like that had to exude a sense of complete self confidence. They would have to be totally sure of themselves and show it. Lee Marvin did that perfectly.

The tragedy of Hickey was that he was his own best customer. He was a tortured soul until he came across a solution that made him feel that he could live with himself again, thus creating his own pipedream. His mistake was to think he found a solution that would save humanity.

Unfortunately, in Harry Hope's dive, pipe-dreams and illusions were the only thing the patrons had to live for. Tampering with that created disaster.

Lee Marvin convinced me that he was Hickey, and in a play like this, that is quite an accomplishment.

By the way, I discovered that this film is now available on VHF and DVD. I am getting a copy.

Lee Marvin does his best here, but is just not in the same class as Jason Robards who is perfect for the role. There are other fine characters in the Marvin version which makes it definitely worth a look, however, nobody in the supporting cast does a bad job. Fredric March and Robert Ryan are truly spectacular in their roles and really steal the show from Lee Marvin. The Iceman Cometh is a great play, probably the best Eugene O'Neill ever wrote. If you haven't seen it, watch this, it's a cut above the average American film. But if you're planning on buying a copy, search for Jason Robard as Hickey. Lee Marvin's acting is too one dimensional to make this an excellent film.

It was a wise decision on the part of producer Ely Landau- one of the only wise ones, as seems to be the history of the flawed ambition of the American Theater Company's movie adaptation productions- to hire John Frankenheimer as director. He was known at the time in the movie industry for churning out high-charged action and adventure pictures (i.e. The Train, Grand Prix), and the occasional dark classic (The Manchurian Candidate), but he started as a television director, and with a play that ran like The Iceman Cometh there would be needed someone who could track the stinging, meaning-of-life-and-death dialog of O'Neill's play with the camera and not make it feel too 'stagey'. This might be difficult to surmise that he made it fully cinematic in the sense of using more than one set or exteriors, as he didn't. Everything is confined to that set of Harry's bar. But within this precise, necessary limitation, Frankenheimer delivered one of his best projects.

Then again, how could he not with the source material? It's about some of the richest theater ever produced, least in the 20th century, and is considered by many to be O'Neill's epic masterpiece. It's a tale of a community, a quasi-family of bums and stragglers who're stuck more or less in a dive down in a seedy section of New York city in the early part of the century, awaiting the return of Hickey (Lee Marvin), a big force of a man who works in advertising. This time things are a little different, however, and a new revelation leads the men (and a couple of the women) to wonder if he's flipped his lid. Around this premise of a dark secret or a certain feeling of "death" that Hickey has brought with him, O'Neill creates an ensemble that's unforgettable in its mix of light and dark, principled and sleazy, afraid and just downright kooky. There's a whole mix; there's Larry the ex-anarchist who's slowly dying inside (Robert Ryan); there's the depressed-cum-demanding kid (Jeff Bridges); Harry (March); the bartender/pimp; a black gambler; the "Limey"; the "Tarts"; and a crazy, rambling European screaming about socialism from time to time.

And despite what some may have said comparing it to the 1960's made-for-TV version directed by Lumet (which I would love to see but is at the moment unavailable), I'd be hard-pressed to see a cast better than this. Just a reminder: Lee Marvin can act, amazingly, and here he puts his chops to such a test that he rolls on to his climactic, half hour quasi-confession like it's the performance of his life. Ditto for Ryan and March, and for them it was more-so (Ryan knew he was dying, adding a poignancy to what was probably his best, most subtle work, and March is captivating as the stubborn old drunk owner). And Bridges, in a role which he said made him want to continue seriously being an actor, is hard to take one's eyes away from, even as his character wavers from being sympathetic to unlikeable in a single scene. And the bulk of the supporting cast are all wonderfully played and transposed, injecting life into a play that requires it to keep it going full throttle.

It's not an easy thing to endure; it's four hours long, and for the first hour here and there one has to go through some minor early morning drunkenness from the characters, which isn't the least effective portion of the play as well as the film. From there on out, if one is tuned into O'Neill's precisely harrowing story of the bums and drunkards and outcasts and all very flawed human beings, it will work wonders even in its sparsest moments. The ending, I might add, is about as perfectly bittersweet as I've seen this side of Woody Allen's Manhattan. Frankenheimer's work is a nearly forgotten gem.

The American Film Theater made about 10 films of notable plays which retained the feel of seeing a theater production, but employed high caliber actors to fill the roles, and enhanced production values so you are not just simply watching actors perform on a stage. The movies that were made (A Delicate Balance, Luther, Galileo, The Maids, The Man in the Glass Booth, Butley, In Celebration, The Homecoming) are interesting, but not really entertaining.

The camera doesn't replace the experience of seeing a live performance, and since the actors are employing theatrical techniques in their performances they do come across as overblown and somewhat hammy.

"The Iceman Cometh" comes across better than most of the AFT productions. The cast is steller with Robert Ryan and Bradford Dillman being particular standouts. The only weak performance is delivered by Jeff Bridges who was probably too young at the time to rise to the demands of O'Neill's work.

This is a long movie (4 hours)and character driven, but worth the viewing.

John Frankenheimer was a great director, 'Birdman of Alcatraz', 'Seven Days in May' and 'The Train' are all fabulous films and 'The Manchurian Candidate' is a masterpiece. Had no doubt that he would be well suited for this adaptation of 'The Iceman Cometh'. Which has all the attributes that 'A Long Day's Journey into Night', also written by one of the all time great American playwrights Eugene O'Neill, has and has what makes that play so powerful. The cast is a talented one too, with Fredric March and Robert Ryan in their last roles particularly grabbing the attention.

Of the thirteen films making up the interesting and ambitious but uneven American Film Theatre series from the early 70s, 1973's 'The Iceman Cometh' is easily one of the best and to me one of the few "great" ones of the series. Recently (well a couple of months ago) saw the 1962 film version of 'A Long Day's Journey into Night', which bowled me over, 'The Iceman Cometh' while not quite as great is very nearly on that film's level in my view. The cast are on top form and well served by O'Neill's masterful character writing and development, it's intelligently directed and is dramatically powerful. It is very faithful to the play, like almost all the adaptations in the American Film Theatre series are, without being overly so.

If you aren't too fond of a lot of talk, a lack of "likeable" characters, deliberate pacing and long lengths 'The Iceman Cometh' (both play and film) may not be your thing. If you don't mind slow pacing, love psychologically fascinating and masterfully developed characters and complex emotions, this will be right up your street. It certainly was mine, and being already familiar with the play and 'A Long Day's Journey into Night' helped a lot.

Did find the opening scene a little too darkly lit perhaps and on the sluggish side.

'The Iceman Cometh' however is otherwise very handsomely and atmospherically shot film, like all Frankenheimer's films. The photography and editing may not be as inventive as those for 'The Train' for instance, but this is not the kind of film, but the film doesn't feel like a filmed play and one of the few films in the series to not feel like that. Frankenheimer directs splendidly, pace-wise it's fluent, it captures the mood beautifully, it's subtle and it is very true in spirit to the play without being over-conventional.

Furthermore, the dialogue is still emotionally and psychologically powerful. There is a lot of talk, but it is talk that all feels crucial to the characters and their situations without feeling rambling or too heavy in exposition. The story is deliberately paced but atmosphere-wise it blisters with intensity, while also being in spots very moving. The ending has always stayed with me in the play and it lingered long in my mind after the film was over. 'The Iceman Cometh' is long in length, but this is an example of a play to film adaptation where a long length was necessary and where pretty much everything has to be intact. It gripped me and commanded the attention throughout.

All the characters are of the kind that are very flawed but fascinating in their complexity. O'Neill was a master of character writing and character development, and this film clearly understood that and embraced it. The acting is nothing short of excellent. The standouts being the devastatingly anguished turn of March and a similarly poignant and intense one from Ryan (the latter giving one of my favourite performances of his). Actually thought that an atypically cast Lee Marvin, whose performance had a more controversial critical response, did admirably in his difficult role and attacked it with gusto. While his delivery of his massive scene is not the earth-shattering of deliveries of that scene he does a noble and wonderful stab at it. Although Jason Robards was indeed a supreme interpreter of O'Neill one cannot have him in every film version of his plays. Young Jeff Bridges and Bradford Dillman are also impressive.

Overall, great and one of the best of the series. 9/10.

After awhile I became captivated by these characters. It was hard to sit there for four hours so I did it in two installments, much better that way.

It seems that there have been a few actors psychologically and kinesthetically "born" to interpret the works of a certain great playwright (or director) as Toshiro Mifune/Akira Kurosawa for the cinema. It would seem that March and Jason Robards had this relationship with Eugene O'Neill. I've been told that March's performance in "Long Day's Journey into Night" in NYC in the 1950's was for the ages; this "ICEMAN" is another example. I had always thought that in his high gloss Hollywood films March appeared a bit flat and dull (excepting of course "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde"). In this film we can see a great actor regalvanized in one of the greatest supporting performances ever committed to film. Beneath the sheer coating of mordant humor which March provides with such finesse, we witness the total, volcanic deterioration and spiritual anguish of a human being. Probably the two greatest career finishes in cinema history were March and Robert Ryan in this movie.

While I don't cover much of the plot in this long film, I do try to explain the philosophy that underpins why a bunch of drunks are sitting around a bar, in 1912 New York, waiting for their friend, Hickey, to arrive. If you'd rather see the film first, then read no further.

***

When I saw this 1973 film in the seventies, I thought it was an interesting, if long-winded, exposition about the evils of alcohol addiction and sloth, and not much else. Being in my early thirties then, y'see, I was more interested in less depressing topics.

Recently, however, I obtained a DVD and decided to have another look. When I finished I realized, of course, that the play is indeed much, much more than my first, immature assessment. In fact, as I watched, it became very clear to me that the whole play is an allegory that plays – no pun intended - with the biblical John the Baptist, The Last Supper, and the betrayal by Judas Iscariot.

Intrigued by those thoughts, I searched the internet for O'Neill biographies (as I knew next to nothing about him) because I had an idea that O'Neill had been a Catholic who'd rebelled and that he had fully intended his play to (almost) parody those religious icons. Various search results confirmed O'Neill's religious background and his rejection of Catholicism while the following, from another online source, supports the idea of a religious underpinning for the play:

• "The Iceman Cometh, the most complex and perhaps the finest of the O'Neill tragedies, followed in 1939, although it did not appear on Broadway until 1946. Laced with subtle religious symbolism, the play is a study of man's need to cling to his hope for a better life, even if he must delude himself to do so."

So, yes, the play is about a lot of drunken loafers in various stages of despair, but they all represent the status of humanity, according to O'Neill: besotted by its own self-delusion and self-pity.

Consider Hickey (Lee Marvin, in a truly great performance) as a modern rendition of the biblical John: the quintessential salesman, the sharp-talking shark who can tear you to pieces verbally, and the man who has the message that will save you; yes, you twelve, you drunken bums, sitting on your asses twenty-four-seven, drowning yourselves in your collective delusions. Forget your pipe-dreams, says Hickey, stand up for yourselves, on your own feet, and get out there and face the world, the new world that is dawning for each, if only you would act! But first, you must give up the first, and maybe worst, crutch: booze. Because, continues Hickey, I've seen the light and I've given up drinking – ah, well, except for the odd, important and festive occasion, y'know...

So what could be more important than a birthday party for Harry Hope (Frederic March), the bar owner without hope, who hasn't stepped outside since his wife died twenty years earlier? He and the other eleven men in that bar have been waiting and waiting for Hickey to come and lavish his eloquence (and drinking money, of course) upon them all.

So, Hickey delivers, and then some, by convincing them all, except Larry Slade (Robert Ryan in his best-ever performance), in a moving - literally and figuratively - tirade during and after that Last Supper that Hickey will ever attend at this bar. Why last? Because Hickey has an unsavory secret that shocks them all, (except Larry) to the core when he is forced to reveal it and, in doing so, they all (except Larry again) reject Hickey's promise of personal salvation. Hence, when Hickey meets his fate with the law, as did the biblical John, and the bums go back to their booze and their delusions, Larry is the only one to realize that he can no longer remain on "the grandstand of philosophical detachment" and must act now according to his convictions.

Ironically, Larry's decision seals the fate of Don Paritt (a very young Jeff Bridges), a thoroughly unlikable coward and betrayer of lost causes. Lacking true courage to initiate the action to atone for his crime, Don beseeches Larry to decide for him, with the inevitable result. And, as Larry savors his new found "freedom", such as it is, he looks through the window, and specifically away from his one-time drinking partners who are all now busily, once again, deluding themselves with drink.

As the epitome of a modernity that rejects religion, Lee Marvin says it all, with consummate skill and panache; only Robert Ryan's Larry (O'Neill's alter ego), perhaps as a counterpoint to the biblical Peter, sees Hickey's message for what it truly is – a rejection of that "opium of the masses" as Karl Marx opined - and finally decides to act for himself. The other ten 'apostles' at the bar are lost souls because it's sufficient for O'Neill, in my opinion, that Larry finally woke up; the rest of the world can live in Hell.

What's missing – or, rather, who's missing – from this whole play is, of course, a Christ-figure. Again, given O'Neill's view of religion as a delusion, that is entirely fitting.

The setting – all in one long, dark and moody bar – the directing from Frankenheimer, the photography that uses long takes and medium closeups throughout, the production standards, all add up to an experience that is only rarely presented. And, without a doubt, all of the actors performed to the peak, I think, of their prowess.

Highly recommended for all theatre and cinema buffs.

I must now, of course, search for a DVD of the 1960 version and prepare a comparative review.

Based on Eugene O'Neill's famous play, a group of alcoholics live their lives for the most part blind drunk, hanging on to pipe dreams of what will come to rescue them. The exception is Larry, Robert Ryan, an ex anarchist who is dying and never had any dreams. He is joined by Don, Jeff Bridges, a young anarchist, who may be Larry's son and who seems choked up by what he seems to have done to his mother. During the course of the story we learn all about the characters and their dreams as they prepare for a birthday party for Harry, alcoholic owner of the bar, Frederick March. They also await Hickey, Lee Marvin, who returns whilst on his sales tours regularly and is always the life and soul of the party. He arrives, but this time he has quit the booze and tries to persuade the others to get on with life as their dreams are just feeble excuses for not facing their alcoholism and lack of life. The effect of Hickey's 'preaching' takes up the remainder of the story impacting the characters differently.

Quite extraordinary character piece with a bar room set chocked full of great actors giving their all and not a duff performance amongst them. The protagonist here, if there is one as such an ensemble cast is Robert Ryan who gives probably the best performance of his career, full of anger and fear of death and only challenger to antagonist Marvin, who is also very impressive as his story wilts and changes, leading to the inevitable dramatic reveal. The third great performance and third lead if you will is Frederick March, angry owner of the bar, struggling with endless problems he must face, which do not really exist, to avoid facing up to reality. The remaining characters, in smaller, but nonetheless important roles though are all good. A moving, theatrical piece then by acting giants you will remember for some time.

As a spectacle designed originally for a theater stage this was superbly translated to the 'smallscreen' I am more than well seasoned in the art of sitting in judgment and I have to say it is so well constructed that I watched it from start to finish with no interruptions. My guess is that in the theater presentation one would have enjoyed at least one toilet break!... Each and every character added their own ingredients to a thoroughly satisfying theatrical experience. Another small point for me was to see the wide range of actors strutting their stuff - possibly their ages spanned over sixty years from March to Bridges yet their convictions came through in such a way that I felt I was in that barroom with them and after all, is this not what theater should be. My congratulations to all involved, the camera work enhanced the drama extremely well. I will be watching this again.

Eugene O'Neill was a great playwrite, though I must admit that despite being a quality production, "The Iceman Cometh" is a thoroughly unpleasant film. After all, the film is about a group of alcoholic bums on skidrow...talking and talking and talking...while waiting for death!

The film begins at a flophouse bar in the seedy part of town. The room is full of unconscious men....drunks who literally fell asleep where they sat. Slowly, one by one, they wake up and begin telling their story, philosophizing or simply screaming in the throes of the DTs. One is NOT a drunk but a Wobbly* who is hiding in this dingy dump to avoid the police.

The cast is great...and instead of me telling you who the great actors are, just look at the IMDB cast list. The dialog is also exceptional...gritty and realistic. But despite all this, it's also about the most unpleasant play ever put to film. And, to make it worse, the story is four hours long! It's the type production to appeal to VERY hardcore viewers but most others will give up on it because four hours of THIS is not easy on anyone! And, I should add, if you are depressed...avoid the film as it might just make it much worse. As for me, it was an endurance contest (like "Eraserhead") to finish.

Interestingly, the star of this film (Lee Marvin) does not appear until just after an hour into the movie. Ironically, he plays the alcoholic who claims to have given up booze and is reformed...ironic since Marvin in real life destroyed himself with alcohol.

*The Wobblies is a nickname given to members of the Industrial Workers of the World. When I checked several sources, they said they were made up of anarchists and socialists, but this isn't quite right. First, not all Wobblies were violent nor were they the types behind bombings...though they did in their literature call for the violent downfall of capitalism. But socialist? No, as they were not for a European-style of socialism but a textbook version of a communist system. I say 'textbook' because they believed in a communist ideal--where business owners are divested of their businesses and everyone lives a happy and egalitarian democratic life...something which I honestly doubt is humanly possible. The union was very strong and scared many people in the early 20th century and including this character makes sense, as Wobbly aggitation was at its height. Now, it still exists but membership and visibility have been greatly reduced...possibly because ACTUAL communism is not exactly a good political system for the worker.

This feels like John Frankenheimer going back to his origins of making live drama for television. Based on the play by Eugene O'Neill, it's an actors' showcase where everyone gets their moments to shine in a depressing story of lost dreams, alcoholism, and self-delusion that gives time to every little side character to demonstrate O'Neill's point. It's not fun at all, but it's not intended to be. Never really removing itself from its play origins, though Frankenheimer consistently gets attractive compositions, The Iceman Cometh is an interesting look at people who have seen their dreams die and yet only have those dreams left.

In a flophouse and bar owned by Harry Hope (Frederic March) a band of misfits and drunks have found their home. They awake slowly one morning, one at a time in the seats next to the bar, talking to each other, revealing who they are and their pipedreams that they still cling to. The central figure in all of this is Larry Slade (Robert Ryan), a former anarchist who left the Movement to become a drunk philosophizer. The regular population of the house has been added with the young Don Parritt (Jeff Bridges) who is the son of a woman in the Movement that Larry knew. The denizens of the house are all waiting eagerly for the arrival of Hickey (Lee Marvin), a man who shows up twice a year to booze it up, spreading his money around, and providing the only real joy these people have in their lives.

The film has a very clear structure in three acts. The first is to establish the characters and their pipedreams. The second is to showcase Hickey and his changed character from his described self from his previous visits in his efforts to get the men in the flophouse to reject their pipedreams and alcoholism to move on from their lives. The third is to show how it was all a lie and Hickey is actually a monster as everyone reverts back to living with their pipedreams.

Where this is compelling is in the portrayal of the individual characters. Like Larry being confronted with his failure to keep to his principles, having abandoned the Movement after a bombing, having left Don's mother (though he's not Don's father, for sure), and having gone from heady ideals to pathetic drunk. He starts as something of a realist of his position, understanding where he is, but the introduction of Don who confronts him with what he's walked away from, as well as the implications of the free love movement's effects on Don and his mother, and Hickey with his alternative viewpoint on life. This is a confrontation in rhetoric that gives Ryan time to demonstrate his acting range, mostly sitting in a chair, as he shrivels up in the face of attacks and gets to rejoice at another man's downfall in the most hideous of ways and then recedes into himself as the implications of everything plays out in real terms for another character.

And this plays out across more than half a dozen characters like Willie (Bradford Dillman), a Harvard Law graduate who dreams of getting back into the law, his plan specifically around going to the DA's office for a job, or Joe (Moses Gunn), a black former owner of a gambling house who dreams of getting that ownership back. The characters are all realistic and interesting.

But at four hours, did we really need all of them?

I've never seen the play performed on stage, and I probably never will. I'm far from anything like a connoisseur of the stage, but I think the feature film world shows that this was an indulgence on Frankenheimer's part, that a more cinematic approach to adaptation would have pared down the characters, cutting at least a couple. It might also have been an idea to expand the setting to get it out of the two rooms that it takes place in. However, that would be messing with one of the most well respected American plays, and that can't be. You adapt it "faithfully" or not at all. Still, within the context of a slavishly faithful adaptation of a stage play, Frankenheimer does everything he can to keep the film visually fresh over the course of the four hour running time. I think my favorite approach is the first hour where he uses deeper focusing techniques to give us a foreground to focus on and then a background, still mostly in focus, that remains still. So, someone will be talking in the foreground right of the frame but the background left will be two people hunched over a table so still that they feel like pictures. It's a great look.

So, I admire the film. I think it's compelling and overlong. I think it makes its point repeatedly, but at least each time it's centered around a character being a character rather than a thin excuse of symbolism for an idea. Performances are very good with Marvin being a wonderful presence. O'Neill was obviously a good writer of characters. Frankenheimer did the most he could do within the small box the play offered him. It's pretty good.

In 1973 when the American Film Institute's repertoire played in selected U.S. city theaters, "The Iceman Cometh" was a series standout. The film retains its effectiveness today, due to O'Neill's insightful script, John Frankenheimer's excellent direction, and a fine cast, headed by Fredric March and Robert Ryan. We are fortunate to have so beautiful a production of this classic American play preserved on film.

One reviewer opines that Jason Robards' Hickey is better than Lee Marvin's. I couldn't disagree more. I have DVD's of both versions and I believe Robards is playing Robards as much as he is playing Hickey. Also, Robards strains in The Iceman that you can see he is "acting." Marvin, on the other hand lets Hickey be Hickey. One other thing makes the Iceman Cometh with Marvin far superior is the supporting class. Robert Ryan, Bradford Dillman and Frederic March give magnificent, believable performances. I think Robards believed all the reviews that said he was the ultimate O'Neill actor. By way of contrast, see Robards in Long Days Journey Into the Night where he doesn't let his persona get in the way of his role. Also, in Long Day's Journey we have an ensemble play/movie that doesn't require Robards to strain to be the great O'Neill actor.

This is more of a question than a comment. I recently taped the 1973 film version of THE ICEMAN COMETH from the Encore cable film channel. The movie, which is excellent and highly recommended (though seeing a production of the play is even more effective), was vastly shorter (by an entire hour!) than I had remembered it being when I saw it twice back in the 70's and 80's. I am almost certain that this three hour version aired by Encore is something doctored up by the studio to offer a more palatable running time to cable channels and art houses.

My question is: does anyone know if the four hour version still exists; and if there is anyway of getting my hands on it? The many, MANY, internal cuts in the three hour version (probably unnoticeable if you're not familiar with the play or the longer version of the movie) seriously undercuts the power of O'Neill's great play.

All round wonderful record of the play. Beautifully directed by Frankenheimer. Excellent all round cast with top kudos to Frederick March. As to Lee Marvin. He comes alive in the long monologue after foot dragging through the part till then. The ultimate Hickey? The one that can't be touched or beat? My main man Jason. Rent the 1960 TV version directed by Lumet. There you will see greatness. If only Robards played it in the 1973 version, how much deeper it would have become. How ironic that because he didn't get a chance to do the part and ended up in a horrific car accident he nevertheless came back to Broadway in A Moon for the Misbegotten, and once again wiped everyone off the stage with another confessional monologue, the likes of which we will never see again.

This movie is a rich 4 hours long. Lots of talk very little action. Yet I was transfixed by the dialogue and the acting. I have seen two productions with Robards in the title role and this hold up very well. How it is not on videotape escapes me.