Despite some nice visuals
and clever storytelling,
Ang Lee's
multi-stranded drama
is flawed and hardly a masterpiece
The Ice Storm was Gene Siskel's favourite film of 1997. It has also received a Criterion release and is generally lauded as an obscure gem. I must say however, that despite some effective elements and ideas, I do not believe that this film is worthy of such high praise. Here's why:
The film's acting is perhaps it's greatest asset overall. Sigourney Weaver and Kevin Kline are both great in particular, along with the cast of younger actors. Due to the film's multi-stranded nature, each of the 'main cast' receive comparable amounts of screen time throughout the film and are all allowed time to shine and give something memorable. This perhaps the greatest strength of such a structure, allowing the actors roughly equal time to establish themselves and give their performances.
However, it is the screenplay that lets the cast down. The dialogue is relatively good, natural enough and often poignant, however is hardly the stuff of greatness. The characters and narrative are the main issues here however. The audience is expected to sympathies with the sexual and romantic frustrations of rich white people, and although this can be done well in some other films, here it screams the phrase 'first-world problems'. There is nothing forcing Kevin Kline's character to attend a wife-swapping party, at all, however we are made to feel sorry for him regardless. This is the most egregious example of the problem, however not the only. The film is also narrated by Toby Maguire, who does a decent job with his material as a pathetic and slightly creepy nerd. However his subplot is entirely superfluous and does not intertwine with any of the others, ruining the entire idea of
multi-stranded storytelling. This gets me onto the largest issue I have with the narrative, things that we are told are important, do not seem to be. Maguire's nothing subplot takes more screentime than one involving the death of a curious adolescent boy. This is an example of the screenplays weakness, not properly explaining what it is trying to say, burying it's poignant moments beneath irrelevant ones. I will say that a subplot involving the sexual awakening of a young girl and boy was fairly spot-on. Well acted, paced and given the gravitas necessary. It is also the only one which seems to culminate in some fashion and have a semblance of a conclusion.
Despite the weak screenplay, the film is nicely shot. It captures the essence of the hostile cold environment, the 1970's period, and the small-town American setting quite well. There are also some very clever and truly memorable images here, although hardly enough to redeem some weaknesses in the screenplay. This is not a Terrence Malick film, reliant on aesthetics rather than screenplay in order to get it's ideas across, it is simply a well-shot film with an uneven screenplay.
In conclusion, I think this film would have worked better as a TV miniseries. The structure and prevalence of subplots would have probably worked out better in that format, and the acting and dialogue (whilst mostly good) do feel more akin to a TV show than a cinematic release. Overall I do not understand the abundant praise and feel that the film is a flawed and uneven mess, with some very notable high-points.
By Jack D. Phillips
A Zoom Film Review.
The film's acting is perhaps it's greatest asset overall. Sigourney Weaver and Kevin Kline are both great in particular, along with the cast of younger actors. Due to the film's multi-stranded nature, each of the 'main cast' receive comparable amounts of screen time throughout the film and are all allowed time to shine and give something memorable. This perhaps the greatest strength of such a structure, allowing the actors roughly equal time to establish themselves and give their performances.
However, it is the screenplay that lets the cast down. The dialogue is relatively good, natural enough and often poignant, however is hardly the stuff of greatness. The characters and narrative are the main issues here however. The audience is expected to sympathies with the sexual and romantic frustrations of rich white people, and although this can be done well in some other films, here it screams the phrase 'first-world problems'. There is nothing forcing Kevin Kline's character to attend a wife-swapping party, at all, however we are made to feel sorry for him regardless. This is the most egregious example of the problem, however not the only. The film is also narrated by Toby Maguire, who does a decent job with his material as a pathetic and slightly creepy nerd. However his subplot is entirely superfluous and does not intertwine with any of the others, ruining the entire idea of
multi-stranded storytelling. This gets me onto the largest issue I have with the narrative, things that we are told are important, do not seem to be. Maguire's nothing subplot takes more screentime than one involving the death of a curious adolescent boy. This is an example of the screenplays weakness, not properly explaining what it is trying to say, burying it's poignant moments beneath irrelevant ones. I will say that a subplot involving the sexual awakening of a young girl and boy was fairly spot-on. Well acted, paced and given the gravitas necessary. It is also the only one which seems to culminate in some fashion and have a semblance of a conclusion.
Despite the weak screenplay, the film is nicely shot. It captures the essence of the hostile cold environment, the 1970's period, and the small-town American setting quite well. There are also some very clever and truly memorable images here, although hardly enough to redeem some weaknesses in the screenplay. This is not a Terrence Malick film, reliant on aesthetics rather than screenplay in order to get it's ideas across, it is simply a well-shot film with an uneven screenplay.
In conclusion, I think this film would have worked better as a TV miniseries. The structure and prevalence of subplots would have probably worked out better in that format, and the acting and dialogue (whilst mostly good) do feel more akin to a TV show than a cinematic release. Overall I do not understand the abundant praise and feel that the film is a flawed and uneven mess, with some very notable high-points.
By Jack D. Phillips
A Zoom Film Review.
No comments:
Post a Comment