MovieChat Forums > The Iceman Cometh (1973) Discussion > robert ryan was brilliant, lee marvin in...

robert ryan was brilliant, lee marvin inadequate.


i thought that robert ryans performance was absolutely outstanding. it is hard to imagine it being bettered. it was so moving to think that he knew he was dying as he played this. it lends such resonance to the references re: death in relation to his character. should have won best supporting actor oscar. he was totaly under-rated.

lee marvin was the one weak link in the piece for me however. at times you can see that he is just not up to the role. he mistakes expansive gestures such as shouting for emotional truth. he doesnt have the sort of depth and soul in his acting which most of the others have. lee was a good performer, but his medium was that of the heavy, the sort of macho guy who is unwilling or unable to show his emotions. his performance indicated to me that he was probably the same character in real life.

the film is wonderful otherwise, however, and for me robert ryan was the best thing about it.

reply

I thought that Lee Marvin did a good if not spectacular job with the part - certainly a cut above his typical fare.

However, if you compare his performance with Jason Robards in the 1960 Broadway Theater Archive film, you notice that Robards manages to convey the fact that Hickey has a few screws loose from the moment he arrives at the No Chance Saloon. In contrast, Marvin's performance conveys a sort of arrogant preachiness on the part of Hickey, without showing the underlying vulnerability and insanity until his final monologue and breakdown. I don't know if that was because of differences in interpretation, or because of Marvin's shortcomings as an actor. Personally, I think it's crucial to see Hickey's breakdown (or hints of it) from his first appearance.

reply

I havent seen this version, I just ordered it, but find it funny that everyone was saying the same things about Kevin Spacey performing this role on stage as they were saying about Lee doing it on film. That Kevin wasnt up to it and couldnt do it as well as Mr. Robards. Well he sure proved them wrong. I will have to watch Lee in this and get back to you if I think Lee was up to it.

reply

well, what did you think will38?

reply

Sorry it took so long to get back to you on this.

I didnt like Lee. I dont know if it is his performance, the directing or the editing but he never seems to me to be inhabiting the character.

I will say this though. He had big brass balls to take on this role and I admire him for it.

reply

I'll weigh in for Lee Marvin.

The important outward face of Hickey is the glib, brash, and endearing huckster.
He's a salesman and a preacher. Sometimes the other characters are on the verge of shouting "Hallelujah, brother". I think Lee Marvin nailed that part of the character.

The inner Hickey is more subject to interpretation and speculation. How much self-knowledge? How much love?

Although I saw more than one instance where Marvin showed a subtle flash of agony or vulnerability when his sermonizing boomeranged, maybe his acting from the inner demons wasn't as skillful as Robards.

I say maybe, because it's years since I saw Robards and only once. I've watched the 1973 film 3 times. Haven't seen Spacey.

Lee Marvin was severely typecast throughout his career (maybe he didn't mind),
so maybe I'm giving him a little extra credit for attempting one of the most famous and demanding roles in modern drama. But (I've read the play, and much of O'neill's comment on it) I think O'Neill would have been pretty satisfied.

I gave Mel Gibson a little extra credit for Hamlet too.

reply

I had read that Jason Robards had done the difinitive portrayal on Broadway, so when I saw the film, when it was first shown, I thought Lee Marvin was hopelessly miscast. As the performance developes he gained my credibilty. I think he rose to the level of the part; as the character of Hickey is revealed, Marvin likewise convinces me. By the end I could see it, and I thought it was the best performance of his career.
I have spent a lot of time in dive bars where derelect men and women were at the end of their rope, who, in many cases, had only months or a few years left. I judge the acting in this production on the standards of quite a lot of genuine experience in that realm. One of the sometime patrons of one of the bars in which I drank subsequently murdered an entire family in their home (the Goldmarks) under the mistaken imprression that they were Jewish & Communists. Likewise there were men and women customers who had been in 'the joint' or sometimes 'the bin'. It was not at all unusual to look across the bar and see the face of someone so disturbed he might be psychotic. Some of the regulars had peculiar rants as they became loaded. Partly in jest, but mostly because I was getting plastered myself, I used to mimic Hugo; "Thy days grow hot, Oh, Babylon." To which old Edna down at the end of the bar would shout; "Somebody make him shut up." and then glower at everybody and say; "Go in your own jackyard and backoff." The conversation in that joint ran to the effect of; "Did I ever tell you about the time I was in the *beep* whorehouse in Panama? Well...it's not a pretty story."
Among the regulars were a mentally retarded yet expert pickpocket and booster, a one time very successful salesman who had had a family and a nice home and was now a washed up drinker who mananged a porno peep-show, an incredibly smooth, young con-man who managed to swindle old lady Bullet and the entire crew of the Wawoona restoration out of a months wages, and the Yugoslav fishmarket middleman I was in buisness with for a couple of months.
My drinking buddy from in there, Mel, today lies in a horrible nursing home in Tacoma with both his legs amputated and is helpless to feed or dress himself. A nurse changes his diaper. and the stench in the place in winter when the windows are closed would gag a maggot.

reply

I wish that they would have filmed Brian Dennehy's portrayal of Hickey, that would have been interesting to see (furthermore, unlike Robards, Marvin, or Spacey, Dennehy actually matches O'Neill's description of what Hickey was supposed to look like).

I have also frequented a few run-down dives, and while O'Neill captures certain aspects of the scene, he takes a major artistic license by making most of his characters in "Iceman" far too lucid, articulate, and intelligent. Years of heavy drinking tend to dull both the intellect and the personality. For one thing, every drunk I've known has had a personality just like every other drunk: undirected hostility and paranoia, a tendency to repeat the same phrase or story over and over again, etc.

Furthermore, most of the characters in the play seem to come from "respectable" backgrounds and worked their way down, unlike most dives which house not so much washed up has-beens (as in Icemman) as never-have-beens). I guess the point is that you need some eloquent dialog for a play to truly work on the stage, where speaking is all you have.

reply

What you say about 'dives' and 'drunks' is mostly true. I have really run the gamut of dive bars up and down the west coast, from San Diego to Vancouver B.C. Two of those bars stand out in my memory because of the 'mix' for want of a better word. I have had astonishing conversations in bars, mostly one-way. I was a good listener. The talkers were men who had been through WWI, the great derpression, WWII, and a whole lot else. The ones I remember are the ones that stood out, for their intelligence, or for their character. But, in the past twenty to twenty-five or so years I have noticed a drastic diminution in the level of conversation in bars.
I am just old enough to remember when there was no television! As boy of seven I came home from school and listened to the "Lone Ranger" on radio. The bar patrons today mostly grew up in the age of television. Now, the bars themselves have television sets (note the plural; some have multiple TVs, either all tuned to the same station or all tuned to different sations). If that weren't bad enough, the bars I go in (I rarely go out anymore) also play extremely loud rock music...constantly, at the SAME TIME that the televisions are on. It never stops, and it's LOUD. So, those inarticulate boobs of today's generations sit and drink and stare. They can't even hear themselves think. The noise serves mainly as a counter irritant, to the pain they're in all the time. And their brains are so inept at sorting and storing the vast input of cacophany and confusion of modern life into any meaningful order that there's scarcely a store of ideas in their minds that could be converted to so much as a simple declarative sentence. Without the vocabulary to corale their confusion into any meaningful concepts, they sit there mute, or repeat of few stock snipets that serve to estblish mutual recognition, the mere presence of another blob of protoplasm in the same room.
There was a time, however, when there was conversation; and, if that isn't astonishing enough, there was sometimes facinating, memeorable, converstation, not in all bars, nor even in many bars. But...if you found the right joint...at the right time...well, let me tell you, there were diamonds in the rough out there who had seen something or been somewhere...and who could tell you something. I can remember well the faces and words of men from a time before some of you were born.
In a city the size of New York, even as it was a century ago, you may have found somewhere in the bowels of the city, down in the Bowery, a place not unlike Harry Hope's, a dead-end for the human detrious of this mega rat-cage experiment called variously, social darwinsim, capitalism, private enterprise, free enterprise, etc., a terminous for the terminal, with very revealing snitches of their memories and pipe dreams filtering through the smoke and the whiskey vapors and into the ears of a young Eugene O'Neil.

reply

You make a lot of interesting observations. Perhaps 80 years ago having people as articulate and interesting as the residents at "Last Chance" would not be as unrealistic as it would be today.

For one thing, people back then had to read if they wanted to be entertained -there was no TV, no loud music playing at every joint. Therefore, they would speak in complete sentences rather than little sitcom soundbites. This isn't just true of drunks and bar patrons, it's true of EVERYBODY today. I rarely hear complete sentences, much less interesting thoughts or observations even from the mouths of the college educated today.

I probably like "Iceman Cometh" for reasons other than what O'Neill intended. If I found a bar with the sort of patrons that you see in the play, I would frequent it and prefer it to the sorts of people that I meet anywhere today.

reply

Aye...beJesus...it's so

reply

[deleted]

I agree with the original poster. Where Robert Ryan's Larry was a very interesting and believable character, Lee Marvin's performance was over the top and pretty disappointing after all the fanfare.

reply

[deleted]

My favorite Marvin film role was in the title role of Louis laMour's 'Monte Walsh'. It was a melancholic story covering several years, in the life of an old cowpoke, nearing the end of the open range.

Carpe Noctem!

reply

Ryan was the best, then March, then Marvin. Ryan definitely should have been nominated for Oscar.

reply