Too often, Ice Castles gets passed off as a "chick flick" or a "popcorn movie", not worthy of serious cinema buffs. I'm glad to see that there are others out there who disagree with that, but it seems we're still in the minority.
I first saw this film at the age of seven, without any prior knowledge of what it was about, or its themes. And this, I'm convinced, is the way it should be-the hour of buildup prior to the infamous "accident" scene shouldn't seem like a buildup to a plot point, but as a natural progression of events. But because the marketing campaign of the film gave away this plot point in the trailers, people went in waiting for the accident to happen, not seeing or hearing or feeling what was going on on the screen.
It's a shame that Lynn-Holly Johnson didn't have much of a career after this film, other than the one James Bond movie and the also-underrated The Watcher in the Woods, because she makes a strong impression here with a difficult part. But even so, she is overshadowed by the truly incredible supporting performances, especially Colleen Dewhurst and Tom Skerritt. Dewhurst manages to disappear from the movie for a half-hour, and then when she resurfaces, she gets the most emotionally shattering scene in the picture, and runs with it. Skerritt plays a conflicted, troubled man who wants his daughter to be happy, but at the same time is haunted by the memory of her mother. (When you know his other movies, you know what a terrific range he has!)
A lot of attention has been drawn, especially from people looking for a "family" viewing experience, to the large amount of swearing the characters do. But it makes sense when you accept that these are blue collar, farm community folks, so it almost would seem unnatural for them *not* to swear. I, personally, found it much more problematic that Johnson's character-who is sixteen at the start of the film-seems to have an unspoken romantic relationship with an older man, the TV reporter. This aspect of the story is so underplayed that one might not notice it on a first viewing, but it troubles me to look at it now, and in a way it spoils an otherwise stellar film.
The ending that just about every review mentions is marvelous, not only in the performances, but in the unspoken talents involved too-the camerawork and editing. It has just the perfect amount of silence and pauses to milk the material for all it's worth. The editing, which in most cases is an invisible task when watching a final cut, is superlative throughout the film, but you only notice it when you start to pick it apart, as I have. In many places, if shots had gone on for two frames more or less than they do, the effect would be gone. The music is also wonderful, and the editing moves to it perfectly. (The remake, made by the same director, was an interesting exercise because it wasn't half as impactful because they were trying for a faster pace-just goes to show you how important editing is in the filmmaking process).
