I think the 1960 made for TV version of the play, The Iceman Cometh, may be ruffled and low budget in comparison to other adaptations but this choice may add something to O'Neill's down and out characters. For example, the fact that the camera angles and editing lack polish or technical refinement just improve the sight of the unkempt bar and its inhabitants. However, it is obvious that this was a major television event. The introduction (or perhaps a disclaimer) from Brooks Atkinson proves this as he explains to at-home audiences that it takes a "sensitive spirit and a mature mind" to watch this play. He also prefaces the tragedy that it must be thought of as a play that has "respect for the stark truth." The performance that follows such an admired introduction is effective and quite strong.
The acting in this production is superb. Jason Robards delivers a performance of a life-time as Hickey, a role he obviously appreciated and worked hard on. The production sets up Hickey's pending arrival as a celebration, with the drunkards recollecting his previous visits as foolish and lively debaucheries. This heightens the tension for when Hickey does arrive and instead of spending freely and getting drunk, he says he's given up the hard stuff and would rather talk frankly about these pipe dreams that have made them all depressed. The costuming of Hickey is appropriate for such an arrival. Robards enters and is the only one who isn't dressed slovenly. He stands out in a sophisticated suit and tie and he is one of the only characters who wears a hat, perhaps a device that helps conceal the true guilt he feels.
As the guilt develops and consumes Hickey, Robards performance becomes more gut-wrenching. By the end of the piece we see Robards giving a very natural take on the devastation that has become him. This is interesting because the whole production covers two mediums: television and stage and yet Robards performance shines above both methods and nothing seems lost in translation.
The supporting performances were very well done also. Myron McCormick and Robert Redford in particular stood out to me. Robert Redford stood out immediately, not only because he is so attractive, but because in his first appearances he looks like a puppy: wide-eyed and eager to learn. This is another contrast in performance; as the play goes on we learn more and more about Parrit's own guilt. With McCormick as Larry we see the teacher, the wise man who's stage presence is only more effective by his calm demeanor and slow movements. Both actors give performances that gain momentum (especially Redford, I think) so that by the end we see a very powerful final conflict.
The whole production does a very good job at stationing: setting the scene for the audience. From the introduction to the top of Act One we see a very dismal group of people who look as if they are already dead and gone. Larry gets a close up when he describes that whether drunk or sober they are a misbegotten lot. Even the women who frequent the bar are indecent. The piece does a good showing this because as soon as they enter you wouldn't assume they were "bad women" by their outfits, which is a tease, for when they open their mouths they sound gruff and dirty. But then again, they are at Harry's with the rest of the misbegotten so they must be low down.
One thing I wondered was if they aired this televised production in one full stint with commercial breaks or if the broke it up so that it was like a series and you returned weekly to another act or another scene? I tried to find out the answer online but it proved difficult. My question was raised because there were breaks in the action with titles like "Act One Scene Two" to reaffirm the audience where we were. I think if the drama had been weekly and audiences had to keep tuning in to see what happens to the barfly's, it would have been a powerful device that increased the already high stakes.
Overall, this was a version of the play that really used O'Neill's text to its fullest. It pursued the tragic journey's of these men and showed the dark side of their pipe dreams. The translation from stage to film only highlighted some of the character elements (movements or expressions) that could be lost from stage. The film also narrows our view of the setting as the audience and therefore adds to the claustrophobic and dark nature of Harry's saloon.
The acting in this production is superb. Jason Robards delivers a performance of a life-time as Hickey, a role he obviously appreciated and worked hard on. The production sets up Hickey's pending arrival as a celebration, with the drunkards recollecting his previous visits as foolish and lively debaucheries. This heightens the tension for when Hickey does arrive and instead of spending freely and getting drunk, he says he's given up the hard stuff and would rather talk frankly about these pipe dreams that have made them all depressed. The costuming of Hickey is appropriate for such an arrival. Robards enters and is the only one who isn't dressed slovenly. He stands out in a sophisticated suit and tie and he is one of the only characters who wears a hat, perhaps a device that helps conceal the true guilt he feels.
As the guilt develops and consumes Hickey, Robards performance becomes more gut-wrenching. By the end of the piece we see Robards giving a very natural take on the devastation that has become him. This is interesting because the whole production covers two mediums: television and stage and yet Robards performance shines above both methods and nothing seems lost in translation.
The supporting performances were very well done also. Myron McCormick and Robert Redford in particular stood out to me. Robert Redford stood out immediately, not only because he is so attractive, but because in his first appearances he looks like a puppy: wide-eyed and eager to learn. This is another contrast in performance; as the play goes on we learn more and more about Parrit's own guilt. With McCormick as Larry we see the teacher, the wise man who's stage presence is only more effective by his calm demeanor and slow movements. Both actors give performances that gain momentum (especially Redford, I think) so that by the end we see a very powerful final conflict.
The whole production does a very good job at stationing: setting the scene for the audience. From the introduction to the top of Act One we see a very dismal group of people who look as if they are already dead and gone. Larry gets a close up when he describes that whether drunk or sober they are a misbegotten lot. Even the women who frequent the bar are indecent. The piece does a good showing this because as soon as they enter you wouldn't assume they were "bad women" by their outfits, which is a tease, for when they open their mouths they sound gruff and dirty. But then again, they are at Harry's with the rest of the misbegotten so they must be low down.
One thing I wondered was if they aired this televised production in one full stint with commercial breaks or if the broke it up so that it was like a series and you returned weekly to another act or another scene? I tried to find out the answer online but it proved difficult. My question was raised because there were breaks in the action with titles like "Act One Scene Two" to reaffirm the audience where we were. I think if the drama had been weekly and audiences had to keep tuning in to see what happens to the barfly's, it would have been a powerful device that increased the already high stakes.
Overall, this was a version of the play that really used O'Neill's text to its fullest. It pursued the tragic journey's of these men and showed the dark side of their pipe dreams. The translation from stage to film only highlighted some of the character elements (movements or expressions) that could be lost from stage. The film also narrows our view of the setting as the audience and therefore adds to the claustrophobic and dark nature of Harry's saloon.
Tell Your Friends