This takes much patience to stick with, especially if you are going into this expecting a traditional western. It's as if somebody realized that there were more stories than cattle rustling and Indian attacks and decided to focus on the largeness of the great outdoors. It's a saga, much like "The Big Country" and "Broken Lance" with a bit of "The Violent Men" thrown in. This is "the thinking man's western", one you would not send your young sons to on a Saturday afternoon in the 1940's. This is the type you'd see at Radio City Music Hall in New York City or the Chinese Graumann's in Hollywood, and expect all the glitter and gloss that MGM could provide.For it's star performances, this is superb, another winning turn for Katharine Hepburn, yet the two men (Spencer Tracy and Melvyn Douglas) play characters that are not extremely well defined. Coming from St. Louis society, Hepburn is engaged to Tracy, a ruthless land baron who refuses to allow his property to be sold to be developed past the sea of grass, idealistic for sure, but cruel to the settlers desiring to farm and ultimately do the earth some good. Tracy's speech about the sea of grass is as poetic as Truman Capote's proclamation about "the grass harp" where the whistling winds among the blowing tall weeds have a music all its own. Hepburn finds out early enough about the many enemies that her husband has made, culminating in tragedy when Tracy has a family she has befriended thrown off his land where they have settled in desperation. This leads Hepburn to leave him briefly, becoming involved with Tracy's bitter enemy, Melvyn Douglas, culminating in Tracy's ruthless revenge in taking away Hepburn's children.If you are patient and keep attentive to the lagging plot, you can be sucked in to the period soap opera, a bit more earthy than most, but filling the screen with all the large emotions that can fill the screen. There are excellent performances by Edgar Buchannan as a soft hearted cook, Harry Carey as Tracy's one voice of reason that he listens to, and Ruth Nelson as the hopeful wife of the squatter who defies Tracy by settling on his land. Robert Walker and Phyllis Thaxter come on in the last quarter of the film as the pieces of this convoluted puzzle come together. This is where the interest for me started to go south. It's a shame that this isn't better, as under the direction of Elia Kazan it had potential but the lack of a clear cut well rounded script prevent it from being fully successful.

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 ****

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

"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.