#426: The Ice Storm
1997, 113 minutes, Color, 1.85:1
Language: English
Directed by Ang Lee
[A note on spoilers: I’ve come damn close to including them, but think I managed to not cross the line. Then again, there may be some who would disagree, so proceed with caution.]
Before getting started, I must beg pardon for the length of this post. I would make a horrible director. Once I put the effort into something, I have terrible time cutting it down. If I were a director, I would be one who creates four-hour-long epics. I myself was surprised at how much this movie, coupled with the information from the supplemental features and some additional research, turned this entry into a free-flowing frenzy of thoughts, reflections, and observations, seemingly without end. Entering the blogosphere on this quixotic Criterion adventure has put me in a mode of really absorbing the movies and the additional content. This movie in particular, going back in time as it did, unleashed a torrent of thoughts and memories that I just couldn’t resist indulging myself in rambling on and on… and on and on… about. I did, however, have fun writing it.
Well, I suppose I can try and offset my wordy excessiveness by providing a choice. First, here is my best effort at the most succinct description I may be capable of (my apologies for the profanity, but it seems to lend itself well towards brevity):
Criterion Collection’s The Ice Storm takes us back to 1973 New England, in grand nostalgic fashion, and introduces us to two fucked up families struggling to figure their shit out in some crazy times. Precocious children look to clueless parents for guidance. There’s alcohol, drugs, crazy sex (swinger parties, Nixon masks, and front seat fumbling), and cool music. There’s also the titular ice storm, leaving death in its wake, and us wondering if anyone is capable of enlightenment. The cinematography, music, and costumes rock. This two-disc set is packed with a shit-ton of features that will keep you entertained for many hours more than the movie runtime, and are well worth a look-see.
If that isn’t enough, then there is the nearly-six-thousand-word ramble below to take a gander at:
After taking in “Roberto Rossellini’s War Trilogy,” I was at a loss for where to go with my next Criterion selection. Since we just had the biggest snowfall of the season I thought The Ice Storm was as good a call as any. Much as I loved the “War Trilogy,” I was in desperate need of a change in scenery. I think seventies-set suburban Connecticut is exactly nothing enough like neo-realistic Italy and bombed-out Berlin to do the trick.
For some interactive fun, let’s kick things off with a trivia question: What two actors in The Ice Storm appeared in another Criterion release, and what is its title?
I received The Ice Storm as a birthday present nearly two years ago. I recall liking it very much when I first saw it, but I had forgotten so much of it since that it was almost like watching it for the first time. Even though there was quite a bit I had forgotten, there is also plenty I picked up in the second run that wasn’t so clear the first time around, such as the context of the opening scene within the timeline of events. I think this film is one that needs to be watched more than once in order to fully appreciate it.
After watching it again, the first thought that comes to mind is, what a fun little flick! Well, as much fun as a movie full of adultery, isolation, desperation, alcohol abuse, teen drunkenness and drug use and sex play, political corruption, fatal forces of nature, and death can be, anyway.
Set in 1973 New England, “The Brady Bunch” this movie ain’t. I couldn’t imagine Mike and Carol going to a key party, Bobby and Cindy playing “I’ll Show You Mine If You Show Me Yours,” Marsha pharming it up with Peter, Jan going klepto, Greg hitting the water bong like a superhero while spinning Traffic’s “Light Up or Leave Me Alone” on the hi-fi, or Alice and Sam the butcher playing the advanced version of “Hide the Salami” in presidential masks. Well, wait… I suppose I can picture all of that. Who knows what those freaks were up to when the camera wasn’t rolling! Especially that Greg when he pimped out Mike’s den in psychedelic chic. Well, whatever the Bradys may have been doing behind the scenes in sunny California, the Hoods and Carvers were certainly doing front and center in frosty Connecticut.
In The Ice Storm, what we have is two quintessential New England nuclear families, the Hoods and Carvers, living next door to each other in near-incestuous relativity. Beneath the veneer of friendship, parents carry on adulterous affairs, children experiment with sex, drugs and alcohol, resentment bubbles, animosity simmers, and strong emotions swirl around like the clouds of a gathering storm. It seems they are all in some sort of existential crisis that is about to explode.
Even though it is a bit of a weighty movie, I love it for the nostalgic value. I mean, the seventies, those were the days! In 1973 Edith and Archie were reminiscing about Glen Miller, Herbert Hoover, and their LaSalle, which ain’t got nothin’ on Frank Zappa, Tricky Dicky, and a Buick Riviera.
With this movie about the seventies, I wax more nostalgic than I do watching movies of the seventies. I may have been too young at the time to recall 1973, but I remember the years immediately following well enough to at least associate with the period.
The Ice Storm is more “seventies” than the seventies really were: riding around in big-ass cars without seatbelts, toe socks, lime-green kitchen cabinets, kids pouring dinner drinks, Watergate, Deep Throat, Iron Eyes Cody in the iconic “Keep America Beautiful” PSA, penny-operated mechanical horses outside the toy store, knitted sweaters, ponchos, big collars and groovy clothes, and an obscure “Match Game” reference. Oh so many things to conjure up fond memories of a quainter time (if only seemingly so in comparison to now, but doesn’t the past always seem so?)! What hit closest to home for me was the Penn Central logo. My dad worked for the railroad when I was a little kid and seeing that intertwined “P” and “C” on the train cars really took me back.
The amazing thing is how well this movie captured the essence of the era considering Ang Lee was still in Taiwan in 1973 and didn’t make it to Hollywood until a mere two years before making the movie. Maybe it took an outsider to do it so remarkably well.
Let’s meet the families: The Woods are Ben (Kevin Kline), Elena (Joan Allen), Paul (Tobey Maguire), and Wendy (Christina Ricci). The Carvers are Jim (Jamey Sheridan), Janey (Sigourney Weaver), Mikey (Elijah Wood), and Sandy (Adam Hann-Byrd). There’s a New Age-type minister named Philp Edwards (Michael Cumpsty) who seems to have the hots for Elena. We also have Paul’s roommate Francis (David Krumholtz) and Paul’s lust interest Libbets (Katie Holmes in her big screen debut). Don’t bother asking what kind of name Libbets is. It gets asked more than once and, sadly, the answer is never given.
The cast is stellar, without a doubt. I’ve always loved Kevin Kline ever since the first time I took notice of him in A Fish Called Wanda and laughed myself to tears (Kline’s Otto providing me the biggest yuks). Same with Tobey Maguire ever since he registered on my radar in The Cider House Rules (minus the laughing myself to tears part, of course). Both those guys, I just love their screen presence. The entire cast all play their roles wonderfully well and really do bring their characters to life. Even though I tend to think of them by the names of the actors rather than the characters, all these big names don’t overshadow the film.
For me, there is something to identify with both generations portrayed in the film. As for the children, I see things more from the time period, when I was a child, although still too young to yet be dealing with the awkwardness of adolescence. As for the adults, I see things from the present, trying to reconcile myself with the world and my place in it, albeit without children.
The children instinctively look to the adults for guidance, watching and emulating them, but the adults are just as clueless, if not more so, than the children. The children look to the adults as role models, but unfortunately the adults are fumbling around in the dark themselves. I don’t know which is worse. At least the children have a lead to follow, even if it is by example of what not to do; they can at least learn from their parents’ mistakes. The parents don’t even have that.
The children tend to be the more mature generation at times, such as when Paul and Wendy discuss the mental state of their parents, a conversation more appropriate for parents to have about their children. I think the reason the parents have no role models of their own is because of the changing times. Society and culture had changed so drastically that their parents’ mores and guiding principles are so outdated as to be irrelevant; they have to find their own ways in a political and cultural landscape that sets the seventies apart from previous generations, explaining why self-help and new-age books were so popular. They try to emulate a lifestyle they imagine they should have. It shows in their haute fashion and stylish homes. Attending a key party seems to be some feeble attempt at being “California hip” instead of provincial suburbanites.
I find fascinating the relationships and interactions between the characters, within and between families. They are complex and emotional and revealing. They all seem to be groping for love and affection. Ben looks for it in Janey’s bed. Wendy experiments with both Mikey and Sandy. Paul longs for Libbets. Elena and Jim look for it from their children. Yet they all seem to come up short.
There are many parallels between the generations. That “the apple don’t fall far from the tree” is certainly holds true here. Wendy and Elena dabble in shoplifting. Ben and Paul rummage through medicine cabinets. Jim and Mikey space out on abstract concepts. Janey and Sandy go to bed with the neighbors. The children will have a difficult time breaking the mould.
The cinematography is outstanding. It is a beautiful picture that really fills the screen with great images. I did have an issue with the color that I don’t recall from the first time I watched it on the same television. There was some red over-saturation bleeding through in the skin tones. Sometimes it looked as if the people had hives on their faces. I played with the color settings, but to get rid of the red would be to go so far to the green the people looked seasick, or to turn the color down so much that it almost looked Black and White. I got it as best I could, but it was still a little distracting. I’ve only watched one other color movie on this television in recent weeks and didn’t notice anything quirky like that (it was The Double Life of Veronique and, in fact, the color and image was wonderful), so I hope it’s just something with the DVD transfer and not the television. I suppose I will see the next time I drop in a color film.
The music in the movie is fantastic, especially the original music. It is as integral a part of making the movie work as is the acting, directing, and cinematography.
There is also some great dialogue. My favorite is when Elena tells the progressive minister how she is surprised to see him at a “key party.” He tells her that sometimes the shepherd needs the company of the sheep. Her response, “I’m going to try hard not to understand the implications of that,” is classic.
With such a title as The Ice Storm, it is safe to assume that there is one. Ang Lee says he considers the storm as one of the characters, and does an amazing job recreating it. It reminds me of the ice storms I’ve seen in my life. They really are amazing things, succumbing the environment to their force. The weight of the ice snaps large limbs from mighty oak trees like twigs, bends pine trees over double, and sags power lines until they nearly brush the ground. Yet, in spite of their devastating nature, they produce vistas of majestic beauty. I remember some unbelievably beautiful landscapes where the sun shone brightly on fields of trees and bushes in crystal shells that glistened with blinding flashes and sparkles. It’s wondrous how something that can wreak so much havoc can possess such dazzling beauty. Nothing can beat the real thing, but the filmmakers in this case came about as close as possible. The magic of how such a feat was accomplished is revealed in the special features. They were able to recreate such a cold-weather phenomenon on days that were nearly eighty degrees. If only we could see the actors’ breath in such scenes, would the illusion be absolute.
The ice storm is the main event, but it is foreshadowed with a few icy cameos of sight and sound, such as when the ice is released from the old-style metal trays with a lift-handle to break the cubes free. The camera lingers on the cracked ice, but more so in order to hear the sounds than to see the ice. I was also taken by a close-up shot of ice being scooped from a crystal bucket, cubes clattering to the tabletop, and tinkling sounds of it being dropped into the glass. Crystal clear vodka is poured over the cubes and seems to melt everything together. It is certainly a visually and aurally appealing scene, and it made me just more than a little thirsty for a good vodka on the rocks. I don’t have any vodka right now, so I suppose I will have to settle for a Scotch.
The characters are out of synch with their environment and each other. Mikey slips off into a daze when he is going after a football. He can’t do well in math or English, but can grasp the abstract concept how geometry exists perfectly in the mind. When Jim comes home from a long business trip, Mikey and Sandy were completely unaware that he had been gone. Jim himself seems to be lost on this fact and mentally wanders off on the virtues of silicon. Maybe the reason for their disconnect is subconscious, as if they cocoon themselves in a comfortable “ignorance is bliss” shell to avoid the pain of the reality. When Jim and Elena can no longer deny the infidelity of their spouses they both look pathetically wounded; their cocoon has been ruptured.
The ice storm seems to highlight the disconnect the characters have with reality. They are oblivious to the dangers of such a natural phenomenon. Mikey has an overpowering urge immerse himself in the wonder and beauty of the frozen environment when all the molecules are inert, but courts danger by performing a perilous dance on an ice-covered diving board above and empty swimming pool. The hazardous conditions don’t prevent any of the guests from attending the key party. Even when the storm is at its worst, Jim says to Elena, “Let’s go for a drive,” and she, equally heedless to the recklessness of the idea, quickly agrees.
Of the characters, my favorite is Christina Ricci’s Wendy. She is only fourteen, but she seems to be the most mature person in the bunch. She is the most self-confident. Even though she is experimenting with sex, it’s as if she already knows what to expect. She rides her bike through the street with a self-composed assurance that is almost enviable, especially by her mother when she sees Wendy pass by. In the commentary, Ang Lee mentioned just how much he loved Ricci’s face. Her expressions speak volumes more than words. She gets the most close ups in the movie, and deservingly so. Only one example of the power of her expression is when she realizes a woman has witnessed her pilfer some candy from the pharmacy. Wendy gives the woman a look that says, I know you won’t dare to say a thing to anyone. It’s better than Obi-Wan Kenobi using the Force on the stormtroopers in Star Wars. Another thing I like about Wendy is her social and political concern. In this regard she surpasses her parents in maturity and awareness of the world they live in. I especially liked it when she started to say grace at Thanksgiving dinner. Her sexual experimentation seems to be more to see “what the fuss is all about” rather than to try and satisfy confusing yearnings, evening questioning one of the neighbor boys about nocturnal emissions. She takes a clinical approach to the subject of sex. I also like a girl with a bit of freak in her. A Nixon mask? You go, girl! I could gush about this character even more, but I think I’ve already gone on far too long.
Sigourney Weaver’s Janey is another favorite. There is something in her coldness that gives off the feeling that she is more aware of the inanity of their existence rather than just being a frigid bitch. She only suffers her situation because she is trapped in it by the circumstances of family. She exudes a “fuck it” aloofness just to endure it.
I also was intrigued by Joan Allen’s Elena. Here is a woman who is trapped in the same miserable circumstances as everyone else, but she still has hope. She seeks liberation by going back to her youth, riding a bicycle, trying something daring like stealing, and exploring spiritual avenues through books and discussions with a progressive minister. Though she finds disappointment along the way, she still seems to always maintain hope.
Tobey Maguire was the perfect Paul. He could be self-assured in the company of people he was comfortable with, such as his roommate or his sister, but charming in his awkwardness around Libbets and his nervousness in uncomfortable situations, such as when his dad tries to give him the “birds and the bees” talk, though much too late in Paul’s life. I enjoyed that scene because it reminded me of the when I was on the receiving end of one. My dad tried, also after it was too late, with similarly disappointing results. He walked into my room one day, tossed me a book titled The Life Cycle Encyclopedia, or something like that, and said, “Here. Read it. Don’t just look at the pictures,” and walked out. I glanced through it and quickly saw that there was nothing I hadn’t already learned in school, and by other means. I threw the book under my bed, where it stayed for many years, and resented the old man for giving me a shitty textbook with pencil drawings instead of sharing the far superior stash of his magazines I had already found.
One of the funniest scenes for me was when Libbets passed out with her head in Paul’s lap. It wasn’t the scene itself that was so funny, but rather what it reminded me of, the scene in Animal House when Larry Kroger’s date passes out on him and the angel and devil of his conscience battle his moral dilemma. It is comedy at its finest and if you want to re-live it yourself, you can check out (most of) the Animal House script. (Do a wordfind for “fuck her” or “gazongas,” and it will take you right to the scene.) Somehow it seems funnier to read it than to watch it.
Tobey Maguire does have a pleasant voice and was perfect for the voiceovers in this movie. I like his philosophical analogies between The Fantastic Four comic he’s reading and family life.
Then, of course, there is Kevin Kline. He always shines – even in other movies that don’t. He does a great job of being the dad who tries to do the right thing but always comes up short, even in his best efforts. Kline does have a unique ability to bring levity to a situation in very a subtle way, such the way he asked Paul to pretend he “didn’t say any of that” after his “birds and the bees” discussion played out in a way completely the opposite of what he imagined.
The Criterion Collection DVD release is chock full of special features – enough to warrant a second disc. They are worthwhile, enjoyable, and do a lot to enhance the appreciation of the film.
Audio Commentary:
Director Ang Lee and producer/screenwriter James Schamus discuss the film. I read the journal entry I made when I first watched this movie two years ago. I had dismissed the commentary as “two guys reminiscing and shooting the shit,” and apparently didn’t even watch the whole thing. Well, I suppose it is just two guys shooting the shit, but I wasn’t able to appreciate it before. I certainly did this time around. Really, any commentary that starts out with the director saying, “fuck you” to the producer in response to a sarcastic question has got to be good.
When I first watched the movie, one of the things that really got under my skin was the way Paul and Wendy referred to each other as Charles. I was fixated on it and wanted to know why. I expected answers in the special features, and was pissed off when I didn’t get it from the audio commentary. The language the two children share with each other is discussed, but never the Charles thing, and that’s why I stopped watching it. I was still curious about the Charles thing, but not so much that I was distracted by it, watched the entire commentary, and enjoyed it. The comments did provide additional insight to entire movie making process, from adapting and writing the script, to the direction and editing, the weather conditions, how the effects were done, working with the actors, etc. I smiled when they pointed out what they believed may be “the best bong hit in film history” and “the worst sex scene in film history.” To them, making a good sex scene was one thing, but to make a truly bad sex scene was “pure cinema.” Like I said, it is a fun feature.
I guess the original novel, by Rick Moody, was none too flattering to the town of New Canaan. The filmmakers insisted on using the actual town as the setting, and because of some of the bitterness about the book, the local politicians weren’t very accommodating. I find it interesting when the leaders of movie locations, whether a town or a university, takes some morally superior stance for political purposes and either refuse to allow the film to be made there or make things difficult. I guess that is their prerogative, but it just makes ‘em look like schmucks in the end.
Lee and Schamus touched on why The Ice Storm, even though it was critically acclaimed and is very popular on home video, did so poorly in the box office, which was something I had wondered about. It is such a loved and revered movie now that it is surprising it didn’t pull down a single Oscar nomination, but I suppose 1997 was just a hell of a year for movies.
I like Ang Lee’s sincere enthusiasm. It is almost infectious as he talks about his movie. He just loved the actors he had working for him and would gush about their abilities; about how their whole bodies could act – their fingers, their backs, even their hair.
There are many things in the movie that registered with me on a subconscious level but was made more explicitly clear from the commentary: Ben directs venomous derision at Mikey early in the movie and has to come to terms with it in the end. Janey curls up in the fetal position at one point, something easy to notice, but it was the whole “uterine world” that did not register so much at first, what with the waterbed and darkness too. I’ve always liked Tobey Maguire’s voice and they decided to have him do a voiceover during a particularly heavy point in the film because “Tobey’s voice will make anything endurable.” Much of the last part of the movie has almost no dialogue, and they noted how very few people seem to realize that is the case, based on how few reviewers ever commented on it. They mentioned how there is nothing like a father’s crying, and this movie has two such scenes. Jim’s anguished tears are even more profound, recalling Janey sleeping and Shamus says, “imagine waking up to the rest of her life to the sound her husband crying.” It sends a shiver down the spine. Ben also breaks down, overwhelmed with by his emotions, while in the midst of his family. Lee and Schamus recall the father crying at the end of The Bicycle Thief, which I had to watch the end of again just to see. Yes, it is a powerful thing to see a father give in to his emotions and have a good cry.
The commentary is worthwhile to take in, and I’m surprised at myself for not thinking so the first time I saw it. I suppose it was just because, of all the things the movie presented, I was so distracted by Paul and Wendy always calling each other Charles. By the way, I was able to find the answer to that enigmatic question. I did an extensive search two years ago and came up snake eyes, but this time I was able to find the answer, through Google Books, in the original novel (on page 19). It’s Charles Nelson Reilly from the show “Match Game.” That answer satisfies me and I don’t really care why it was that they chose Reilly for their mutually shared pseudonym. It’s just something funny kids do and knowing the reference, at least, is good enough for me.
Theatrical Trailer:
The trailer is great, hitting all the highlights, and making me nostalgic for a nostalgic movie – a double whammy! It does have a lighthearted tone with the voiceover and music selection that would compel me to watch the movie again and, I think, if I had never seen the movie before, pique my interest enough to want to watch it for the first time. If you have any doubts about checking out this movie, just check out the trailer for yourself first; it’ll convince ya!
Disc Two:
Weathering the Storm is a thirty-six minute documentary made for this Criterion release and containing interviews with much of the cast. I liked hearing the feelings the movies aroused in each of them. Elijah Wood nailed it, calling it “a heavy movie that lingers with you.” Sigourney Weaver noted the lonely lives the characters experience in their homes, searching for connections but not brave enough to make them. Kevin Kline referred to it as bleak and harrowing but infused with dark humor.
Throughout the discussions and interviews there were stills and movie excerpts to demonstrate the topic. I found it interesting how a powerful moment in the movie could be even more powerful when analyzed separately from the whole. A great example is the scene where Kevin Kline’s character carries Christina Ricci’s character home. Kline and Ricci tell how the scene evolved and its impact on them individually.
There is a twenty-one minute interview with Rick Moody, author of the original novel, on adapting The Ice Storm to the big screen. I found this segment to be most intriguing. I can only imagine what it would be like to have a novel, something you created, adapted to someone else’s vision. Moody answered that question in a frank and open-minded way. He points out that a translation, whether from one language to another or from page to screen, is as much about the translator as it is the original author. He sees it as “somebody else’s refracted version of those characters and those conflicts.” A book becomes secondary to the film it was made from. He managed to keep himself distant and objective during the adaptation, overcoming doubts when it began to be referred to as “Ang Lee’s The Ice Storm.” He recognized that something that appears to be a difference between the novel and the movie may actually just be the director picking up on something that was subliminal in the novel. Moody says, “What is the movie for the novelist other than a big, hulking billboard? That’s the truth. It’s helps your book have a life. And in this, it helps my book by being quite a beautiful and sensitively made movie at the same time. Who am I to get proprietary about the stuff?”
The first time I watched this movie I considered picking up the novel to read some time. I feel even more compelled to now. I don’t think it was the interview with Moody so much that makes me consider that, as it was reading some excerpts of the book when I was searching for the “Charles” reference. I read the opening pages and liked Moody’s style. He makes wonderful use of sentence fragments, which is something I enjoy reading if it is done well. If the movie hits on the nostalgia of 1973, the book explodes with it. I really like how it highlights the year by starting out with the thing’s that didn’t exist then, before immersing itself in the year by listing popular, cultural, and political events unique to the period. He even mentions the most popular film of the year. Yeah, the first few pages grabbed me and I think it won’t be long before I seek the book out and eat it up.
“Lee and Schamus at MOMI” is a thirty-two minute discussion at a New York’s Museum of the Moving Image event honoring Ang Lee and James Schamus, hosted by David Schwartz. It is a very entertaining and funny discussion, especially Schamus’s description of the first pitch meeting he heard Ang Lee present. Lee also tells of when it was during his reading of the novel that the book became a movie for him.
I enjoyed the discussion a lot and it made me more interested in Lee’s work. I’ve only seen Brokeback Mountain, which I thought was great, and parts of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon that impressed me. This segment covered many of the films Lee and Schamus made together and now I would like to see more of them – even The Hulk! I’ve wanted to see Lust, Caution ever since it came out, but still haven’t, and hopefully will some time soon.
“The Look of The Ice Storm” is a feature that breaks down the appearances of the movie in three different segments:
“Cinematrography by Frederick Elmes” is a thirteen-minute look at the technical aspects of the film, with the lighting aspect being the most interesting to me.
“Production Designs by Mark Friedberg” is a fourteen-minute segment that focuses mostly on the ice as a character in the film. The filmmakers looked into the “issue” of the ice as much as its appearance. It is here where they really show how the ice storm was created and it is very interesting indeed. The locations are also seen as characters in the film and they discuss the issues of filming in New Canaan, Connecticut as well as how the homes were an extension of the families that lived in them.
“Costume Designs by Carol Oditz” is an eight-minute look at how the costumes came to life. I enjoyed this segment most of all. It was here where I noticed some of the details of the movie that escaped me, like Mikey’s fly being down when he loses track of the football or the tape holding Paul’s shoe together. The designer mentioned Kevin Kline’s issues with the costumes. It seems to me that the first time I watched this movie I saw part of an interview with Kevin Kline where he was apologetic for his antics that made life difficult for the costume crew. I either saw it somewhere else, maybe online, or I just managed to overlook it this time around. Boogie Nights came out the same year as The Ice Storm and was also an effectively done trip back into the seventies. Oditz mentioned an interview that was done on NPR by Terry Gross with the costume designers of both movies. I think that would have been interesting to listen to, but was unable to locate it online.
There are also seven minutes of “Deleted Scenes.” Typically, when I look at deleted scenes on most movie DVDs, I come to the conclusion that they were deleted for a good reason. That was pretty much the case here too.
Kevin Kline uses graphic sexual analogies for the economy. It was hilarious, but didn’t go well with the movie, as it was too funny. There is also a scene in a diner with Elena and the minister, a scene with Ben and Elena in bed, and an extension of the scene with Libbets’s head in Paul’s lap. The optional audio commentary track for the deleted scenes adds most of the value to this feature because it explains what the intention of the scenes was and why they were ultimately cut.
The last supplemental feature is the essay “Baby, It’s Cold Outside” by film critic Bill Krohn. It’s a nice piece and I got different things out of it by reading it before and again after watching the movie.
Well, that about does it for Criterion’s package of The Ice Storm. I was much more verbose than I expected to be. I think it was just because I was more consumed by the movie and the special features than I have been in the past because of my blog efforts. I will try to be less prolix in the future, but I can’t make any promises. Anyway, I hope someone enjoyed my efforts here. If not, at least I did! Catch ya on the next one.
No comments:
Post a Comment