Le maître de la prairie

"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.

Why do I get the feeling some folks know little about Spencer Tracy? For example, Kazan's alleged quote of "Tracy did not like horses and horses did not like Tracy either" (per Ciment's book). Excuse me, but how could a man who loved to play polo, which Tracy did and did a lot in his younger days and against studio wishes, not like horses? I've played polo and if you don't like horses (and they don't like you) you won't be playing the game more than once or twice. Maybe the quote was made for the more obvious reason: to justify Kazan turning out a movie that was below his abilities? If true that one of Kazan's excuses for the painful experience of directing the movie was not filming on location, I can't totally disagree, but then again a good many great films were not filmed on location, so this excuse only holds so much water. And how can one think that the movie is a "cattlemen vs. homesteaders" film? That's the setting, and it is the trigger of the conflict between the main characters, which leads to the betrayal, which is the center piece of the story, but that certainly isn't the movie. I grant you, it's not one of Tracy's best, but he does the best he can with the lame Marguerite Roberts' script. Even if this movie had been shot on location, it doesn't change the glaring fact that a bad script is still a bad script. If you believe Tracy was sleepwalking, then you have to also believe Kazan was on life support and Roberts was dead, from the neck up, while scripting this one. If Tracy's at fault for anything, it's for trying to save the film, which is more than it deserved.

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.

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

Considering that Sea of Grass is helmed by a director who's not familiar with the western milieu it's amazing that it comes off as well as it does. Elia Kazan is so much better in an urban setting like On the Waterfront. Yet Tracy and Hepburn do make this work on some levels.

John Wayne in McLintock and Spencer Tracy in Sea of Grass have the same view of the prarie. Both films take the side of the cattle rancher as opposed to the farmer. Certainly other films like Shane make the farmer the good guy. But events here show that Tracy was right about the prarie as his arch rival in politics and love, Melvyn Douglas, ruefully points out.

Tracy and Wayne also have spousal problems, although certainly Wayne handles his with a tad more humor. One thing that Maureen O'Hara does and Katharine Hepburn doesn't is share his vision of the prarie. She befriends the farmer family nearby and that is what causes the rift between her and Tracy.

McLintock is a comedy and Sea of Grass is a western soap opera. Kazan was lucky in casting folks like Edgar Buchanan and Harry Carey who knew their way around a western. Robert Walker was taking some tentative steps toward a similar role in Vengeance Valley. He only appears in the last half hour of the film as the kid with dubious paternity, but you will remember him.

Katharine Hepburn would have to wait another 28 years before doing another traditional western in Rooster Cogburn. Eula Goodnight is certainly light years from Lutie Cameron. Colonel Jim Brewton though is the same type cattle baron as G.W. McLintock.

I think the film is more for fans of soap opera than for fans of westerns. And certainly it's for fans of Spence and Kate.