-----Original Message----- From: Byron Roye <
broye54@comcast.net> Sent: Dec 12, 2005 9:01 PM To:
"
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com" <
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com> Subject: RARA-AVIS: Ice
harvest
I Finally saw Ice Harvest in the movie house and I was
disappointed, not greatly disappointed but It was not worth
the 8.50 per ticket I spent to see it. I hurts me that there
are so many movies that are essentially B-movies that I would
enjoy for what are, programmers to fill out a bill. But when
those movies are billed as A-movies and are charging a full
fare it hard to take. I realize that the economy of movie
making is such that it can not support that type of
distribution model. But it made it easier for the movie
viewer to see many more minor movies that they would
otherwise not see. I imagine that Straight-to-Video and cable
provides that function today.
Back to the Ice Harvest, the movie and the book. I found the
changes that were made in the movie were a drawback. By not
setting the movie in the time period of the book which I
believe was the early 70's created some problems. The first
is that cell phones were not that prevalent and they would
have easily eliminated the miscues and miscommunications
between the characters. The whole Porno Titty bar angle seems
anachronistic for the current time. Not that some Porno shops
are still around but by far most of Porno sales are conducted
via the internet. And most Titty bar if there are not upscale
pretend to be. There both were sleazily appropriate for
1970's rather than now.
As I was reading the Ice Harvest I must admit that the
structure for me was odd. The first two thirds of the novel
was just a series of disjointed meetings, missed
opportunities and one bacchanal after another in the middle
of a Midwestern ice storm. If I did know that there was a
crime involved from this listserve I would have mistook the
novel for another Pointless New Yorker short story and given
up on it. The details of how the two partners pulled off the
heist is never given. I think that the ending of the novel is
better if only because it promises a better follow on
novel.
Wow. After almost ten years on rara-avis, I have to say this
post is packed with more statements and ideas that I disagree
with than any five posts I've ever seen here.
I saw THE ICE HARVEST last night and thought it was a very
good, character driven comedy thriller. The kind of movie we
don't get to see much of any more. Modest filmmaking with
good writing, acting, and directing. If not being a
blockbuster makes this a "B" movie (a term that doesn't even
exist in the same form for which it was invented - B movies
were originally the second half of a double bill), then this
is a great B movie. (Which I will take any day over a crappy
"A" movie.)
The book is one of my favorites of the last ten years.
Frankly, as much as I love Scott Phillips and everything he
writes, the first two thirds of the book - the "disjointed
meetings, missed opportunities and one bacchanal after
another" - made that book special, not just another
by-the-numbers neo-noir exercise. The last third, while
executed brilliantly, covered very familiar ground. Handled
more conventionally, I doubt that book would have found the
acclaim that it did. It was nominated for every single
mystery prize for which it was eligible. And it WON the
California Book Award.
The filmmakers behind ICE HARVEST concentrated on the
thriller aspects of the novel, but infused the movie with
enough of the loose, funky feel of the first part of the book
to pack the structure with some interesting asides - which
actually tied in quite brilliantly to their new ending. For
the record, the filmmakers shot the book's ending and
discarded it when it was universally hated by the test
audiences. (Look for it on the Special Edition DVD.) I
generally get queasy when moviemakers cater to the test
cards, but I have to say that the new ending felt right to me
- and even made me smile (you have no idea what a big
accomplishment that is). I think it works for this movie.
Even the novel's author, Scott Phillips, approves of the new
ending.
A reviewer somewhere recently pointed out that this is the
kind of movie we don't get to see enough of anymore -
modestly budgeted, character driven fare. I completely agree.
Certainly better than "Straight-to-Video" product. Was it
better than the book? No way. But that would have been a very
difficult task to pull off. It would have required a closer
adherence to the book's structure and a far less sympathetic
actor than Cusack in the lead. And the resulting movie
probably would have played six art houses across the land and
then been buried on cable, so I understand why the filmmakers
made MOST of the choices they made. It's not perfect, but
still, I'm glad they made this movie. It's unfortunate that
anyone has to pay $8.50 to see ANY movie nowadays, but I feel
like I got good value for the dollar, which is not how I
usually feel after a trip to the movie house - even when I'm
seeing one of those big "A" movies.
I've got two words that might soften the blow for Byron in
the future: "Bargain Matinee."
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
--------------------~--> Know an art & music fan? Make
a donation in their honor this holiday season!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/.6dcNC/.VHMAA/Zx0JAA/kqIolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
RARA-AVIS home page: http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rara-avis-l/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
to:
rara-avis-l-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 13 Dec 2005 EST