Endlos ist die Prärie

In Michel Ciment's book " Kazan par Kazan" which is actually a very long interview (à la "Hitchcock by Truffaut"),the director recalled how painful the filming of "sea of grass " was for him:first of all,he complained for a subject like that SHOULD have been filmed on location and we can find little fault with his opinion;besides ,he had to use the Tracy /Hepburn pairing,two actors he admired but who were miscast here;"Tracy did not like horses and horses did not like Tracy either" .His wife should have been a frail young girl,which Hepburn was not :"she was clever but she was part of the high society.." The one thing Kazan seemed to appreciate was her crying;but reportedly Louis B Mayer watching the rushes complained: her tears does not flow from her eyes ,but from her nose;it looks like snot!" Among all my movies this is the one I like the least" he concludes.

With hindsight,the film retains qualities and I do not think anyway that it is worse than the disastrous "last tycoon" which IMHO,is Kazan's absolute nadir.Hindsight displays its charms.Considering the limitations Kazan was working under,it's a wonder that the scene where Hepburn and Tracy are in front of the "sea of grass" listening to the noise and to the silence (of the Buffalos -now they are gone- and of the Indians -now in the reservations-) is really poetic.We can also save the scene of the storm ,where the farmer (David) has to fight his wealthy neighbor (Goliath).The historical context ,the end of the prairie of grass and the coming of the farmers ,is interesting.

Robert Walker's character ,an unstable boy ,predates James Dean in "East of Eden" by eight years:too bad the part is underwritten.The fact that he was born of adultery is almost passed over in silence ,except for one scene or two.

It is not my Kazan's favorite or even among my favorites,but it's a film to watch if ,like me,you are interested in the director's oeuvre..

Like this? try this......

"Giant" Georges Stevens 1955

It is very hard to not expect a lot from 'The Sea of Grass'. A talented cast, including greats Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn (deservedly one of the most legendary screen pairings) in the fifth of nine films together. An interesting subject. And also that it was directed by one of the most influential directors Elia Kazan, responsible for classics such as 'On the Waterfront', 'East of Eden' and 'A Streetcar Named Desire'.

'The Sea of Grass' turned out to be something of a disappointment. Personally don't think it is that bad, not enough to make Kazan himself disown the film and regret making it, but it doesn't do Tracy, Hepburn or Kazan justice and doesn't really allow them to play to their strengths or show what made them as popular as they were and still are. All three have done much better than this, as far as Kazan films go from personal opinion it is down there with his worst and sees him at his least involved. And it is definitely a lesser film for Tracy and Hepburn together, might actually put it below 'Keeper of the Flame', had formed the opinion of that film being their weakest but that was before re-watching 'The Sea of Grass' and noticing more flaws with it than remembered. It also sees them both in lesser roles to usual (especially Tracy).

Certainly there are good things. Cannot fault the production values, the sets and costumes are handsome and evocative but it's the quite outstanding cinematography that is particularly good in this regard. It is scored with a stirring atmosphere too.

Although they come too far and between, there are moments of tension and pathos, especially in a tragic scene later on involving Robert Walker. The supporting cast are very good, with Edgar Buchanan running away with the film. Harry Carey comes close, while there is sturdy support from Phyllis Thaxter, Robert Walker and Melvyn Douglas (whose chemistry with Hepburn is much stronger than hers with Tracy).

Mainly because the chemistry between Hepburn and Tracy isn't really there, seemingly curiously detatched. Neither of them are at the top of their game either, Hepburn is much better and is still quite good (she's heartfelt and spirited) but Tracy is out of his depth and looks like he wants to be somewhere else. Kazan's direction is uncharacteristically undistinguished and like he was not interested in the material.

Not that one can completely blame him there because the script is far too heavy in the soapy melodrama and rambles badly. Meaning that the story becomes long-winded and fails to sustain interest, due to the pace becoming very sluggish (a problem for a film that also felt overlong) and some of it is lacking in plausbility. Am another person to dislike the ending, very contrived and considering what was going on in the rest of the film what happens and the decision that is made just doesn't ring true at all and doesn't make sense.

Overall, far from a must avoid but to see what is appealing and influential about Kazan, Tracy, Hepburn and Tracy and Hepburn's chemistry it's best looking elsewhere because none are really done justice here. 5/10 for mainly the production values and the supporting cast. Bethany Cox

This movie is tough to love. Partly this is due to the setting of the film (nothing but grasslands as far as the eyes can see), but most of it is because the two main characters are so flawed and unlikable. In some ways this unlikability is good, as too often Hollywood films of the 30s and 40s present people in a "black/white" fashion and people who fall somewhere towards the middle are seldom seen. However, such "gray" characters are tough to bond with or care about, so I can understand why the film makers generally avoided this. Katherine Hepburn seems like a good character through much of the film, but midway through it, she shows a self-centeredness that make it tough to really see the tragedy in her life. Her initially living with the cruel and lawless Tracy is unforgivable, but her having an affair and then leaving her kids (one the bastard) with Tracy and not seeing them for almost 20 years make her very, very tough to like. Tracy, on the other hand, does stay to care for his kids--but in a very self-serving fashion. He is an emotionally constricted and yet over-indulgent father. As a human being, he's a lot worse--killing or nearly killing farmers because he saw the plains as his own personal property. The central message that eventually these farmers contributed to the destruction of the plains is lost--Tracy's not fighting against the farmers due to any love of nature or a desire to preserve the land. No, he's just a greedy rancher that will do ANYTHING to keep the land without fences.

Despite the problems with the characters, the film is exquisitely filmed--with some of the more beautiful camera shots I've seen in a long time. This film is worth seeing, but not one I would recommend you rush to see.

"The Sea of Grass" showed up on cable recently and out of curiosity, we watched it, based on the great director at the helm, and the cast involved in it. Unfortunately, Elia Kazan wasn't up to the task of directing the Conrad Richter novel about the post pioneering days. In fact, this film sort of falls flat as neither Mr. Kazan, or its stars, show any semblance they were much interested in the project.

One would imagine that to bring together Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn to play the leading roles would inspire the rest of the cast, but alas, it wasn't meant to be. The film is, by no means, a total failure, on the contrary, but there are no sparks in it to keep the viewer interested.

As someone remarked in this forum, we don't get anything from the Colonel and Lutie in the way of love, from the start. For the romance they were living on the sly, the stars don't light up for the camera to give us a hint they are in love in real life. The only one that shows any spunk is Melvin Douglas, who as Brock, can't hide his love for Lutie. The supporting cast is good, with some excellent minor performances by Phyllis Thaxter, Edgar Buchanan, Ruth Nelson, James Bell, and the rest.

Watch "The Sea of Grass" if there's nothing better playing at the same time.

Young woman in 1880 St. Louis marries a cattle-baron who wields a powerful, occasionally unpopular and unfeeling hand. The couple settles into their New Mexico ranch-house, where she soon has a child, but the days and weeks of loneliness get to her and she shares in a flirtation with the smitten local attorney. Conrad Richter's novel becomes somewhat misbegotten vehicle for Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn, though the stars do make valiant attempts to lend believability to these characters. Richter's story is full of stop-and-start melodrama, which nearly sabotages the central relationship (particularly since screenwriters Marguerite Roberts and Vincent Lawrence have given all the best dialogue exchanges to the supporting players, many of whom ultimately fare better than the leads). Melvyn Douglas works very simply with Hepburn and they have an easy rapport; Robert Walker (as the grown son Douglas fathered with Kate) brings along a nice swagger; Edgar Buchanan (as the cook) and Harry Carey (as the local doctor) have seldom been so endearing. It's difficult getting a handle on Tracy's reserved, unimpressed Colonel. Blank-faced and slack jawed, Tracy puts a great deal of thought into this complicated man but walls himself up from the audience in the process. Hepburn, in her early scenes, radiates nervous warmth and good will, but turning her into a black-wearing drudge filled with regrets was probably a mistake. Overlong, not particularly satisfying...yet the film has something. It's handsomely-made, reasonably well-paced and is certainly unusual coming from this high-powered star-duo. **1/2 from ****