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

I tuned into this film on TCM expecting to see a familiar prairie epic about Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy fighting the heroic fight against the elements. What I got was a film about two flawed and vulnerable human beings who made a series of disastrously bad personal and parental decisions. Even though there was a lot of talk about Col. Brewton's (Tracy) attachment to the "grass"and being a cattleman, the story of the Brewton's failed marriage could have taken place in Baltimore. It was nice to see both Hepburn and Tracy acting in flawed ways and out of character. From the looks of it, Tracy was uncomfortable in the role. But Hepburn is the better actor here and her predicament is more poignant. It's an odd and interesting film that's well worth seeing.

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

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.

In 1880 St. Louis, well-dressed socialite Katharine Hepburn (as Lutie Cameron) prepares for her fancy wedding to well-heeled rancher Spencer Tracy (as James "Jim" Brewton), but he is delayed due to business concerns. Traveling to New Mexico, Ms. Hepburn is hitched to Mr. Tracy after meeting his mutually attractive rival Melvyn Douglas (as Brice Chamberlain). This "love triangle" eventually produces wild Robert Walker (as Brock). Well-respected director Elia Kazan practically disowned this film; it's easy to see why, with Tracy and Hepburn appearing out of place in a decades-spanning, overblown pseudo-western soap opera epic. The reported effort to make Tracy appear sober and Hepburn appear glamorous was successful, at least. A thick layer of MGM production gloss doesn't enhance the story as much as it does the watching. ***** The Sea of Grass (2/26/47) Elia Kazan ~ Katharine Hepburn, Spencer Tracy, Robert Walker, Melvyn Douglas

The Sea of Grass is directed by Elia Kazan and written by Conrad Richter, Marguerite Roberts and Vincent Lawrence. It stars Spencer Tracy, Katharine Hepburn, Robert Walker, Melvyn Douglas, Phyllis Thaxter, Edgar Buchanan and Harry Carey. Music is by Herbert Stothart and cinematography by Harry Stradling. We are on the America's frontier and St. Louis woman Lutie Cameron (Hepburn) marries New Mexico cattleman Col. James B. 'Jim' Brewton (Tracy). Brewton is seen as a tyrant by the locals and Lutie quickly comes to realise that nothing will stop her husband from driving his plans forward. For serious Western fans it straight off looks odd seeing the pairing of Tracy and Hepburn in this setting of farmer/rancher feuding, and the pic never quite breaks away from the initial reaction of things being off kilter. In spite of the undoubted quality of the lead actors, this just becomes a raging soap opera. It's never once convincing, the studio bound theatrics becoming an eyesore, and as the run time inexplicably crawls drearily to two hours in length, there's not even any action to perk up proceedings. This was a rare blip in the filmic career of Kazan, who gives us all a warning when we find that he disowned the film, even saying he was ashamed of it. That's pretty damning evidence that serves notice on why this should be avoided by anyone other than Kazan, Hepburn and Tracy completists. One tends to think that the plot trajectory of Lutie embarrassed him, for without doubt it's offensive to womanhood, the finale only confirming this in a whirl of smugness not becoming the stars and director. It's a nicely enough produced production, with Stradling's smooth photography sparkling due to HD screenings via TCM, but as the script struggles to enact vibrancy, so shall you struggle to stay awake. 4/10

As close to a complete disaster as any Tracy/Hepburn picture came as well as being Elia Kazan's least distinguished picture. It's a western of sorts with Tracy as the cattle baron who rules with a rod of iron and Hepburn as the wife who tries to stand up to him. It's well cast, (Melvyn Douglas, Robert Walker, Ruth Nelson and Harry Carey are also on hand), and superbly photographed in black and white by Harry Stradling but it never catches fire. The screenplay by Marguerite Roberts and Vincent Lawrence is leaden in the extreme and the film is just dull. Both Tracy and Hepburn are miscast and the film just drags on for over two hours and a few decades. Consequently it isn't much revived; a curio but not in a good way.

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 film reminds us of the unbridled male chauvinism of the 1940's. Spencer Tracey's character ruins the lives of everyone around him with impunity. I am amazed that Katherine Hepburn agreed to do this role. Her "sacrifice" is sickening. The ending especially is truly mind blowing as she totally gives up all sense of self in order for Tracey's character to finally accept her back after years of exile. If she showed up at the end and put a bullet through his head it would have been much more fulfilling and would have rung with much more a sense of justice. If seen from a proper perspective, its a great study of abuse of power.

It'll be very difficult to describe just how much I hated the film The Sea of Grass because part of what I loathed was the ending, and I never give spoilers in my reviews. In one sentence: From the first to last scene, I hated this movie. Katharine Hepburn is seen in the first scene in her wedding dress, and her father is getting ready to give her away. All of a sudden, she receives a telegram from her fiancé, saying he can't make the ceremony and requesting she travel to his town-he lives on a vast ranch-and they'll marry there. Kate shrugs, packs her things, and boards a train. How is that realistic? Why wouldn't she be hurt, livid, humiliated, or all of the above? But no, she leaves her city life and her family and transports herself to an entirely new and foreign environment for the sake of her husband-to-be, Spencer Tracy. Spence doesn't pick her up at the train station and isn't available to meet her in town when she arrives. Melvyn Douglas is, and he cautions Kate against her upcoming marriage; Spence isn't very well liked in town and he's known for being a cold, immoveable man. But no, she marries him anyway and gets ready for a life of misery. The Sea of Grass is a pointless, offensive film. I don't usually jump on the feminist bandwagon, but from a woman's point of view, this is an abhorrent film. Kate is repeatedly treated badly, and yet is blamed for things that aren't her fault. Spence is absurdly conceited, thinking only of his land and never of his family. Why did he seek out a wife in the first place if he was planning on ignoring her? Even if you love Hepburn-Tracy movies, or especially if she's one of your favorite actresses, don't subject yourself to watching this two-hour "Man is Boss" propaganda. The only good part of the film are Kate's beautiful dresses, designed by Walter Plunkett. But just look at some still pictures and call it a day.