I look forward to reading the play and wish I had before seeing this production. I think I'll get a lot more out of it, which is a shame since plays are written to be performed. But I could only make out maybe half the dialogue! Entire backstories/ pipe dreams remained unknown to me and those around me in the 10th row. A couple left early. The actors appeared to be doing a great job, but sadly it was mostly a wasted effort on their part and a waste of time and money on ours.
It's almost always a pleasure to read Mr. Brantley's perceptive analysis of a play and this one is no exception. I would only make one suggestion: A critic can not tamper with the title of O'Neill's masterpiece without revealing a lack of understanding about the central meaning and power of Hickedy's tragedy -- as Brantley does with his "Iceman Rompeth" comment. The title is a deeply ironic play on a well-known bawdy joke of the 30s and 40s: "Paddy the bartender calls upstairs to his wife, "Colleen darlin' has the iceman come yet? Not yet, Paddy," she replied, "but he's breathin' hard." When it is ultimately revealed that Hickey killed his wife because she was unfaithful, the full force of the title's tragic irony hits home with soul shaking force.
One other observation: No critic has yet been able to articulate O'Neill's unparalleled insight into the perverse nature of alcoholism as personified primarily in Hickey's words, actions and motivation, especially the clues that Hickey murdered his wife more because she was so kind to him than because she was unfaithful. His alcoholic self-hatred could not bear to live with such kindness.
2
I always have and always will LOVE Mr. Washington for the class and talent that he has and is..his craft may I say ...as always beceaches him...impecable actor second to none...his supporting cast ...just the same...BUT!! THERES A BUT.. this play did him no justice..it was boring, long, and drawn out..had no plot..i still dont know what it was all about...very dissapointing... But I love you Mr. Washington
1
I saw it Friday with my parents and thought the production was extraordinary. Iceman was a tour de force for Mr. Washington, who gave a brilliant and forceful performance. He held the theater during his entire fourth-act monologue had a brilliant rapport with the rest of Iceman's gifted cast.
3
RIght on, Mr. Brantley. I felt privileged to be able to see this wonderful production. I, too, laughed and cried. Tonys all around!
2
We saw this and adored it. A once in a lifetime experience with a magnificent set of performances.
2
Saw this one evening in previews. It was exciting to see all of these actors (wow, what a cast), these wonderfully hard-working actors, work their roles and the stage - flubbed lines and all!
Colm Meaney's character was especially delicious. Liked the surprise of Denzel Washington's Hickey appearing when and how he did. Great set design and lighting. Would love to see it again now that it opened to see how it changed much from previews.
1
I saw this in previews and, while I thought the ensemble acting was excellent, I also thought that Denzel Washington was miscast. I especially didn’t buy his presentation of Hicky’s end monologue and left the theater disappointed by it. Would love to have seen this play with Jason Robards as Hickey.
6
And we all know why you think Washington was miscast--the skin color.
3
Notwithstanding your casual race-baiting accusation of bigotry (a sloppy tool of the ignorant) ... Actually, yes, Washington's ethnicity is a problem for the production. O'Neill has created a stunning African American character in ICEMAN, and it it played brilliantly in this production. But by casting an African American in the role of Hickey, Wolfe is asking the audience to comprehend race in the one instance, and to be racially blind in the other; it's an aesthetic flaw that damages the interpretation of Joe Mott, so finely played here. Washington, on the other hand, is technically wonderful, with excellent diction and rhetorical panache ... and absolutely no emotional life whatsoever. His final monologue, with its Brechtian pretensions, lacks the stakes required to understand the character's descent. Brantley wants to praise the attempt, and he should, but in the end Wolfe and Washington fail the play.
In reply to "dgm": While I have no idea if your criticism was based on bigotry -- and find such an accusation baseless -- your reasoning for the conclusion that "Washington's ethnicity is a problem" seems flawed by a mistaken understanding of African American ethnicity as a unitary monolith, rather than a vastly varied multiplicity of personality types. Experience shows that ethnicity is sufficiently diverse within itself to accommodate the different personas of both Mott and Hickey. Hickey is essentially O'Neill's personification of the universal perversion of alcoholism which knows no ethnic boundaries. Therefore, Denzel's ethnicity is not a problem for the production. It is your overly-narrow view of the nature of ethnicity that is the problem.
3
Can someone do whatever they can to get this production recorded on DVD or have it streamed after the production closes?
8
A practical guide to seeing this historic production:
It's by no means the longest Iceman ever done, and it doesn't drag at all, but understand there are three intermissions, all of them short. Ten minutes after Act I, then a quick stretch after Act II, then ten minutes after Act III. The bathrooms are down in the basement, except for one accessible bathroom at the back of the orchestra section, reserved for those who need it.
If you're not back in your seat in time, you have to watch from the back of the orchestra until the next break--what used to be called standing room seats. Which worked fine for my significant other, who said she could see everything better from back there. The sight lines at the Jacobs are excellent just about everywhere, and the acoustics are remarkable. Legroom when you're sitting could be better, but I get the economics involved. This is the same theater where "Grease" played for almost a decade, and it's a nice intimate space.
A lot of people are going to be there exclusively for the movie star, and don't know from O'Neill. They're going to be a bit confused and maybe irritated that he doesn't appear until about an hour into the play. Wolfe and Washington have contrived to make this Hickey's entrance a thrilling and unforgettable moment in American theater, and it's worth waiting for--just remember, the ensemble is the real star. Everybody matters.
Colm Meaney's Harry Hope gets the best laugh line.
15
“there are three intermissions, all of them short. Ten minutes after Act I, then a quick stretch after Act II, then ten minutes after Act III.”
From most of the 45th Street theatres, as long as it’s not raining, the bathrooms in the Marquis Hotel are a decent option with the escalator directly up to the Marquis Theatre level. Maybe since the hotel has a theater, I’ve never been stopped and asked what I’m doing there; and as long as it doesn’t conflict with intermission at the show there, there’s never been any waiting at the bathroom.
Regarding standing room at the Jacobs (formerly Royale) – I remember standing room spots at “Grease” were spacious and $3. The people standing next to me had done standing room about 20 times. (That means they saw “Grease” 20 times for $60, no facility fee, back then!)
5
Great tip, but you'd have to move pretty darn fast to get back in time.
Bathrooms at the Jacobs were not hard to use before the play started. I think the reality only sunk in for most people after Act I. And of course they have several bars in the theater. Which is appropriate!
5
I saw it in previews... some of the actors were well connected to the work .. others seemed overwhelmed and out of their league including Denzel: a very repressed performance.. a play that long and intense can’t skip as many times as it did .. I was very disappointed.. I had last seen “Jitney” and the work was so on point on every level.. and I was expecting with all this talent the same experience “re IC” but it was not be
3
It was a different take on Hickey. But I felt like it worked, and the whole cast got a standing ovation at the end.
It was exhilarating, which is an odd thing to say about this play. Purging, somehow.
3
A standing ovation does not mean a whole lot these days...you can’t avoid them no matter how pedestrian the production. I did dig this show...just wasn’t blown away by it.
6
The standing ovation comments bring to mind Mr. Brantley’s Front-page article on standing ovations - “Want to Applaud a Broadway Show? Don’t Get Up. Really.” (not just front page of the arts, but page 1 of the whole paper)
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/21/nyregion/standing-ovations-a-broadway...
which on top of being, in my workplace, water-cooler (actually, coffee pod machine) material, had one the most delightful correction notices in the online history of the Times theater coverage:
"Correction: May 22, 2012 A critic’s notebook article on Monday about the prevalence of standing ovations at Broadway shows described incorrectly the quickness with which audience members appeared to be on their feet at a performance of the current revival of “Death of a Salesman.” Their ovation seemed to occur within a millisecond — one-thousandth of a second — not a megasecond, which is one million seconds."
2
I saw it. I loved it. Perhaps initially I was massaged by seeing highly recognizable actors, yet somehow this time, they were unrecognizable. Everyone was cloaked, everyone was working very hard... Bravo.
4
Too many men. Classics though they may be, they don't explore new contexts.
2
Too many men? What does that mean? Those are the characters that O'Neill wrote. It's like saying "Annie" has too many little girls or "The Music Man" has too many trombones. If you want a play that has all women go write one. As much as you would like to see all men erased from the Earth that's not going to happen.
17
Too many men? Guess you missed the themes of universal truth: love and life and dreams. Maybe you should read the Sparknotes about the play and leave O'Neill to those who like some thinking with their theatre.
7
There's a play that's all women playing in the theater next door.
Which has exactly as many women as Iceman--Three. (Though the shadow of a fourth woman hangs over it).
Iceman is remarkably inclusive for a play first produced in the 1940's, and set in 1912. It confronts both racism and sexism in a way few modern plays do. But without the slightest tinge of PC. It will not be kind to your pipe dreams, or anyone else's. It takes no prisoners, it tells no pretty lies.
If you can't handle it, don't go.
13
No play should be fours long.
6
This one usually runs five hours.
3
Wow. Great piece. You are a fine wordsmith, sir. But if a review causes me to question my life, what's the actual play gonna do to me?
10
I would love to see this (yes, Denzel George C. Wolfe) but thanks to Brantley, also to see the work of that cast. Lord!
11
The night I saw it, I was a bit distracted by Mr. Washington calling 'line" four times, and the voice of the stage manager prompting him from the wings. Yes, it was preview but still but in all my years as a Broadway theater goer, I don't think I've ever witnessed that. I felt like I was attending a rehearsal, not a performance.
5
I saw it about ten days into previews--nobody flubbed a line, or needed any prompts.
I did feel Washington didn't always project as well as some of the other actors, who do stage work on a regular basis. It takes time to limber up those muscles after a long absence.
I hope I can see it again before it closes, but I'm guessing it'll mostly be sold out.
4
A preview is a rehearsal. I realize that's cold comfort, even preview prices on Broadway are steep, but it's a fact. I admire Mr. Washington's courage for treating the show as such. Of course, many in the theatre food chain: producer's, publicists, most audience members (who can blame them at those prices?), etc. treat them as performances, but the reality is they are rehearsals for the actors, stage managers, and stage hands to fine tune what, hopefully, will eventually be amazing performances.
7
It was exciting to be there, before the reviews, before every last bit of business had been worked out.
I'm still trying to figure out Washington's body language at the very end--I felt like his Hickey knows he isn't crazy, but is going to pretend he is. He's actually not ready to die--still got a few pipe dreams left. Morse's Slade is another matter.
1
I've not seen this production yet but I have to take serious exception to one of Mr. Brantley's statements in this review. He references the lies that these characters love to tell and then describes actors themselves as professional liars. This could not be further from the truth and I'm astonished that after so many years as the Times theatre critic Mr. Brantley would characterize (forgive the pun) actors this way. The primary goal of an actor is to be truthful in imaginary circumstances. What we are seeking is the truth - the truth of the character we are playing. We may be pretending for a few hours to be another person, but we are not lying. We are trying to live that character's truth. It makes me furious when others describe actors as liars and I'm particularly indignant that Mr. Brantley would choose to represent actors in such a dismissive fashion.
31
It was clearly a figure of speech. Jeez, lighten up!
5
Well said.
1
Nor is the metaphor original with Mr Brantley. I'm not sure who first coined it, but the description of actors as 'professional liars' has been used by many, including actors themselves, and has also been applied to writers of novels and other fiction. Usually it's accompanied by some version of the distinction between 'truth' and 'fact' and the observation that theatre, like the other creative arts, transcends strict factuality to use the materials of reality to establish truth.
I'm reminded of Picasso. One man complained to him his pictures didn't represent reality. When Picasso asked for an example of pictorial reality, the man showed a wallet photo of his girlfriend. 'Is she that small?' the painter said. Strictly speaking, Picasso was a professional liar. But ....
4
Saw it last Friday. Agree with Mr. Brantley for the most past, but would add a few observations. This production lopped off close to 30 minutes of dialogue -- previous shows have run nearly 5 hours. Call me crazy, but i love O'Neill's repetition! The ensemble work was so strong that I felt it dominated the production. That's saying something given that the role of Hickey is so overpowering. I'm still digesting Dezel's performance. His (and Wolfe's) interpretation of the famous confessional monolgue was certainly unique -- much more downplayed than normal. And, I don't necessarily agree with staging it toward the audience -- it's his buddies he's confessing to! All in all, what a treat to once again see one of the American theater's masterworks given such a monumental and stirring workout.
9
I've seen several versions of Iceman, live and filmed, including the '85 revival with Robards. I don't think they cut lines. I think they just speeded up the tempo, particularly in the first act. I could be wrong, I wasn't sitting there with the play in my lap--I know the production with Nathan Lane dropped a whole character. They usually have to do something to deal with the size of the pieces. In this case, it was tempo. They slowed down when they needed to, but a lot of the dialogue is rattled off like Robert Preston's Harold Hill on speed. And it works for me, but I imagine those who don't know the play must be confused at points.
3
While I agree with you on the speeded-up tempo at certain points, Wolfe admitted in an interview that they did cut out a good bit of repetition. It was nice to see a "full" cast, though. You're right - Falls cut out the McGloin part. (It must have been an economic decision rather than artistic one since the part is extremely minor. The character only has about 10-15 lines.)
3
Yeah, if you're going to cut a character, he's probably the one, but I'd probably rather lose a few lines than a person.
It's a monster of a play. And to do it on Broadway--where a lot of people have buses and trains home to catch--I can understand it. But I've read the play (first time in high school), I've seen several versions--I didn't catch the cuts. They're not glaring.
My ideal would be a six hour production, with three half hour intermissions, but we can't all be O'Neill fanatics.
5
Always an education to read Ben Brantley. Where else might you see criticism of theater referencing the musical nature of a play such as this? Or the idea that Iceman is more akin to opera or oratorio than conventional drama?
But was there some rumbling the other day that Mr. Brantley may retire? Say it ain't so.
When I saw the play on Tuesday, I was in the front row of the mezzanine, which made it hard to understand some of the language, particularly in the first act. Yet when Denzel came on the stage, with his powerful voice and presence, the dialog was as clear as if I was in the front row orchestra. Still, if I were to see the play again, it would be important to be closer to the stage in order to fully hear all of the actors.
8
We sat in the orchestra, we could not understand the English,the Boer or the Russian characters. Overdone accents coupled with 'acting drunk" made them incomprehensible.
At intermission a fellow behind us asked a person using the hearing aid headsets if he was getting all the dialogue. Reply: "Nope"
This production did not move me, we remained seated during the obligatory SO.
Never seen or read the play but I saw the murder coming well before the insinuations or confession. Denzel Washington telegraphed the huge reveal long before his taking a chair to confess (I thought his facing the audience worked) but at least his diction was clear.
I'm shocked the young actor was called out for kudos in the review? At best a blue ribbon for memorizing his lines, open faced? Mmm, boring and without range.
I've never seen so much spewed spittle, poor stage crew must have to hose down the stage,yuck! Maybe spewing is a form of method acting? This production made me want to shower after returning home. I had to question myself was the spittle a distraction or purposeful? Anyways for this audience member it added an unusual dimension to an unpleasant night in unpleasant company.
I think Ice Man is an antiquated piece? alcoholism is far more complicated than crushed pipe dreams, or life circumstances. The play seems centered on the self delusion aspect of the disease which clearly was the view of the times.
Had a ticket during the preview run, but the show was cancelled. Still trying to get over that. I don't live nearby. Denzel love.
4
I've lived through that. So sorry.
3
A hard work, in my past life, to sit through. I'd seen it on stage once, with Robards, and the movie with Marvin (twice). I thought I'd never wish to see it again. Yet this review makes me want to do just that. I think the challenge of this play, one that I have never seen successfully met, is how to breathed life into dead corpse, how to make deflated balloons float, how to sustain a work that seems to say all it needs to say in the first half hour or so into a cohesive, entertaining work that last four hours It appears that Wolfe has met that challenge. I truly would like to see this.
6
I hope this production will be filmed and available for viewing (American Masters?) for those of us who missed it; this play is so important at this moment.
26
Agreed. Anyone know if the Nathan Lane production was recorded?
1
I have tickets for next week. It seems to me that Denzel will tear up this part in all the ways described in Ben Brantley’s review. Denzel - A born Hickey if ever there was one. Can’t wait!
6
It was wonderful to experience a dozen plus male characters on stage being. I’ve seen lots of Broadway shows with lots of performers on stage at once, but the individuality of the men in this show, while sharing the stage and themselves, felt a rare experience to me. And Denzel wasn’t the only talent, oh wait, that’s Bill Irwin and I know that face too, Colm Meany and ... fantastic, talented, casting. The ending made me laugh, which was surprising and wonderful. It was one of the most satisfying endings I have experienced in live theater and the lighting was spectacular too! So glad I absorbed this production. Well done, gentlemen!
14
Nice that Mr. Brantley mentions Lee Marvin who portrayed Hickey in John Frankenheimer's little-seen film version of O'Neill's work. Even so, it was Robert Ryan, who had passed away shortly before the movie was released, who gave a performance for the ages as Larry Slade. A famously world-weary and dyspeptic actor, Ryan seemed to be exposing his very soul in that film. I saw the movie 45 years ago and yet I can recall Ryan's performance as vividly now as though I had watched it just yesterday.
39
Agree. And we can see it again on DVD, with Jeff Bridges as a wondeful Parritt.
3
Fredric March as Harry Hope and a very young Jeff Bridges as Parritt. A real powerhouse cast.
3
Ryan was great, but no filmed production can ever do this play justice. You focus in on one character, you lose the ensemble. And David Morse was the best Slade I've seen. Strange to think he and Washington came to prominence together, on St. Elsewhere, so many years ago.
2
I left during the third act intermission. I found the production to be uninteresting. Didn't care about the characters at all. Denzel, while the only cast member that was energetic seemed out of place. Overall the production felt hollow.
5
Hollow?? I saw a different play. Gripping. Tragic. Human.
And the last act was critical to the plot and the tragedy of Hickey.
11
I saw Jason Robards play Hickey at the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C. in the mid-1980s. It's hard to believe anyone could top that performance and the charisma Robards bought to the role. It was as if O'Neill wrote the part just for him.
15
He chilled the blood. It was one of the most frightening things I've ever seen.
This is funnier--and not to take away from Washington's performance, but I basically only remember Robards from that production. Even though there were great actors in it, like Barnard Hughes. I only remember him.
I'll remember everybody in this one. Colm Meaney couldn't be improved on as Harry Hope, and Michael Potts was sensational.
Begging a question, though--nobody in the bar, including Potts' Joe Mott (who is painfully aware of the racial divide between him and everyone else, though his pipe dream is that he can overcome it), sees Hickey as a black man--if they did, he'd get blasted with epithets, just like Joe. The magic of the theater. You just accept it. Maybe Hickey knows he's black, but nobody else sees it. I guess it worked about the same way when James Earl Jones played Hickey, but that's not a well-regarded production.
I think this is going down as one of the greats. And so long since Hickey came to Broadway.
3