A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (1945)

THE FILM:
In 1945, Elia Kazan's cinematic debut was publicly released. The film was an adaptation on a novel titled "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn". The novel's success was predicted therefor there was a massive pre-publication bidding. Darryl F. Zanuck eventually won the bidding with $55,000. That was a mighty large price to pay for the right to a film in the 1940s.

From that point, who knows why, but Zanuck selected Kazan to direct the film. Having only made one documentary short in the past, Kazan was a newcomer. There is much speculation of how exactly Kazan got to be the director. Perhaps it had something to do with the fact that Kazan and the author of "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn", Betty Smith, both attended the same university.

When Kazan left New York to arrive at pre-production for A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, he left New York with Nicholas Ray. Ray went on to become a successful film director with such films under his belt as Rebel Without a Cause and In a Lonely Place. He became a Hollywood gossip sensation when he came home to find his wife (at the time), Gloria Grahame in bed with his thirteen year-old son. Perhaps Ray's career all started with A Tree Grows in Brooklyn since he had a small role, he was un-credited as an assistant director, he assisted Alfred Newman with the score, and he was credited as dialogue assistant. Ray's directorial debut was in 1948, when he made They Live By Night.

Since the novel was so successful, there was a massive battle for the lead roles in the film. Alice Faye was considered for the role of Katie Nolan, but Kazan did not approve of her and selected Gene Tierney instead.  However, Tierney was impregnated and the role was bestowed down to Dorothy McGuire.

Kazan demonstrated quality direction that few filmmaker would be strong enough to do in their first film. 20th Century Fox was very satisfied with Kazan's progress and they immediately envisioned A Tree Grows in Brooklyn as a major success. It was the opinion of every 40s and 50s production company that a film could only be successful if there was in Technicolor. No matter how many film would prove that point to be wrong  they still went on believing it. Therefore, it is no surprise that Fox wanted to re-shoot A Tree Grows in Brooklyn in Technicolor. It is a marvel that Elia Kazan had enough authority to decline and convince Fox that it was a poor idea. Kazan didn't go on to make a film in colour until 1955's East of Eden.

How does A Tree Grows in Brooklyn stand now? It currently has a 7.9 on IMDb and a 100% on Rotten Tomatoes.

THE PLOT:
In the early 1900s in Brooklyn, the Nolans family endure many hardships. They are a large family with many children and one mother who does all the work. The family's father is an alcoholic. As the film progresses we begin to learn each of the characters and their issues. Katie (the mother) struggles to support her family. Sissy (the aunt) struggles with her own love life and how she constantly falls in love again and gets married. Johnny (the father) is trying desperately to pull his act together and become a responsible father so his children and wife will accept him. Francie (the daughter) wants her family to become wealthy so she can have a proper education.

A Tree Grows in Brooklyn is the story of a family that must come together to unite in true happiness.

THE CRITICISM:
As time passes, the definition of quality acting evolves. Yet to this day, A Tree Grows in Brooklyn is not dated in it's acting. Each cast member demonstrates that they deserve to be in this film.

Dorthoy McGuire proves to be a unique and versatile actress. There is a great deal of a difference in her acting in this film than in The Spiral Staircase. She brought a beloved literary character to life. She was have felt a lot of pressure from fan's of the novel, but she exerted herself perfectly. Although her portrayal had flaws she managed to combine sympathy with realism and created an overall powerful performance as a powerful character.

Peggy Ann Garner's career never truly progressed past A Tree Grows in Brooklyn. I generally hate child actors, but Garner is an exception. She is fairly likable and intelligent. I can't quite put my finger on it, but I wanted for matters to go well for Francie because of Peggy Ann Garner's excellent performance.

A definitive weaker part of the acting was because of James Dunn as Johnny Nolan. His character was supposed to be dismal and melancholic. Instead he was fairly cheerful and charming. He seemed to be acting to please the audience instead of the critics. However, there is one fabulous scene when he is playing the piano and singing when he breaks through his charm. Sadly, after that scene he returns to just being charming.

Elia Kazan demonstrates a strong eye for social interaction. He does not spend his time focusing on great shots, but on how to depict a character. Every line spoken from every character seems as if Kazan spent a long time tinkering with it to make it sound natural. Kazan makes a marvelous blend of sympathy for the characters he wrote. It seems as if he loves these characters, so you should to. Although I would not take a bullet for these characters like most people who watch A Tree Grows in Brooklyn would, I can give them my empathy.

As I watch the tree slowly grow, I do find myself glancing at my watch. This is one example of how the naive actions of a film production company can indeed provide assistance towards the quality of their films. Elia Kazan spent too long building tragedies in his character's lives so he could give them opportunities to cry. Every character has an unnecessary amount of character development to the point where it is no longer realistic. Once the film dwells in it's loss of realism, it plummets to a slightly lower level. In writing these melodramatic chronicles in the lives of the Nolans, Elia Kazan certainly was pleasing the audience members who would certainly shed a tear. Kazan followed the formula for a successful film, but missed the formula for a great film a little.

A Tree Grows in Brooklyn,
1945,
Directed by Elia Kazan
Starring: Dorthoy McGuire, Peggy An Garner and James Dunn
7.5/10 (B+)

Ranked:
1. Baby Doll
2. Panic in the Streets
3. Splendor in the Grass
4. East of Eden
5. The Last Tycoon
6. A Tree Grows in Brooklyn
7. Viva Zapata!
8. Boomerang!
9. Pinky
10. Wild River
11. America, America
12. The Sea of Grass
13. Man on a Tightrope
14. The Arrangement

The Sea of Grass (1947)

"It's the only picture I've made that I'm ashamed of. Don't see it,:
       - Elia Kazan on The Sea of Grass in his autobiography


THE FILM:
Throughout it's time, The Sea of Grass has made 4.5 million dollars with a budget of 2 million dollars. This means it made 225% percent of it's budget. At first glance, one might consider that to be a great achievement. However, On The Waterfront had a budget of $900, 000 and it brought in just under $10 million. That means On The Waterfront made 111% or so of it's original budget, a success that clearly far surpasses The Sea of Grass.

What would draw someone to see The Sea of Grass? The first option could be Elia Kazan. Although this was a film he suggested nobody see, his name would definitely draw a lot of people in. I know for a fact that he is the only reason for which I just watched The Sea of Grass. The two other possible reasons for The Sea of Grass to draw in a crowd would be because of Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracey. They had a charming, classic Hollywood chemistry that brought many to the theatres to explore the fun those two would have. Their partnership began with Woman of the Year in 1942. Later on, it included Adam's Rib and Guess Who's Coming To Dinner. The Sea of Grass is considered to be their weakest film. If you give it some general consideration, Woman of the Year and Adam's Rib were screwball comedies that demonstrated both actors' comedic talent. Guess Who's Coming to Dinner works as it bases it's character relationships on the fact that over the past years we have seen Spencer Tracey and Katherine Hepburn act together, we understand them, and when we see them as an old married couple we can easily sympathize with them and truly want the best for them. That said, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner is not a great place to start watching Tracey and Hepburn films as you must be familiar with their chemistry to enjoy it fully. To get back on topic, a reason that I would predict The Sea of Grass does not work as those three other hits did, is perhaps because it was a straight romance-drama when we knew little of the chemistry between Tracey and Hepburn. It was their fourth film and their second and third films had not been massive hits. That said, The Sea of Grass did not go down in history the way some other Tracey and Hepburn films went down in history.

Generally, its not great publicity for a director to denounce their own film and declare it to be an example of poor film-making. Why exactly did Elia Kazan disapprove of The Sea of Grass? Most likely for the same reasons as every other average person (some examples of this reasoning will appear in THE CRITICISM, below). Many sympathize with Kazan in that it is said that he was not in fault when he made The Sea of Grass. The studio put him up to it after the success of his debut film, A Tree Grows in Brooklyn. The public generally accuses Conrad Richter and Marguerite Robert for the poor quality of The Sea of Grass, as they were the writers of the screenplay. However, I am certain that Kazan could have made a few edits to improve the film, that he did not.

The Sea of Grass currently stands with a 6.5 on IMDb and a 20% on Rotten Tomatoes.

THE PLOT:
A woman from St. Louis named Lutie Cameron goes to marry a New Mexico cattleman named James B. Brewton. After their marriage, James B. Brewton shares "the sea of grass" with Lutie. The sea of grass is a sprawling field of long grass the blows in the wind. James experienced many hardships when he moved to New Mexico and he lost his brother. The sea of grass remains a symbol of peace and a way for him to remember.

However, the local inhabitants of the near by village are not crazy about James. They despise the manner in which he keeps them away from "the sea of grass" in an attempt to use it for his personal cattle grazing! What on Earth should Luttie do? Is it correct for her to go on imagining everything is alright?

THE CRITICISM:
The Sea of Grass was a victim of misrepresentation. Many came to the film showings expecting a western as the trailer would have suggested. That said, nothing can hurt a film like advertising the suggests it is something it is not. For example, the 2011 film, Drive, suffered from poor audience reception as most of the audience came in expecting two hours of explosions. I bet a lot of men came to The Sea of Grass expecting to see Spencer Tracey having gun fights. Instead, they received a very slow classic.

Have I mentioned that nothing happens in this? The story dwindles and by half way through you're thinking "they should really have cut out a lot of this" and buy the end of the film you are thinking "wow... they should have cut out all of this!". For a film that is intended to make you feel the emotion of the drama, I sure was feeling board.

The Sea of Grass is a poor imagination that seemed as though it was written by a fourteen-year-old-girl who tries to write like as mature as possible so she can be like her idol Jane Austen. Yet the problem remains, she is fourteen... and she is a terrible writer. I felt like I was watching a replica of everything I'd seen before, Gone With The Wind, a little bit of the drama-romance portion of Alfred Hitchcock's Suspicion and all those three hour long BBC classic literature adaptations.

Save your time and brain cells - don't watch The Sea of Grass.

The Sea of Grass,
1947,
Directed by Elia Kazan,
Starring: Katherine Hepburn, Spencer Tracey and Melvyn Dogulas
5.5/10 (D+)

Ranked:
1. Baby Doll
2. Panic in the Streets
3. Splendor in the Grass
4. East of Eden
5. The Last Tycoon
6. Viva Zapata!
7. Boomerang!
8. Pinky
9. Wild River
10. America, America
11. The Sea of Grass
12. Man on a Tightrope
13. The Arrangement

Man on a Tightrope (1953)

THE FILM:
I have written about how so many of Kazan's film are extremely hard to find. Man on a Tightrope is certainly his second most unknown film (first of course being The Visitors which I have still yet to get a copy of). I've done a fair amount of research on Man on a Tightrope only to learn a few things. One of those things is that this will certainly be a small review.

Man on a Tightrope is an attempt at a melodrama-thriller. It stars Frederic March, Gloria Grahame, Terry Moore and Richard Boone. Gloria Grahame was not originally the first choice for her role. Marlene Dietrich was supposed to play the role but she eventually turned it down. What a shame. It seems every role was originally intended for Marlene Dietrich. Then second choice for the role was Hildegard Knef until Kazan spontaneously changed to Grahame.

Interestingly, Man on a Tightrope was shot on location in Bavaria, Germany. This really helped make me believe in the film.

Where does Man on a Tightrope stand today? It barely does. The most popular way of viewing the film is through The Elia Kazan DVD Collection - a collection I recommend for any Kazan film. In fact, if you look at Man on a Tightrope on IMDb it's poster is one of the Kazan DVD Collection. I'm certain most people only check this film out because of Kazan.

THE PLOT:
Kael Cernik is the head of a group of Czechoslovakian circus performers in 1952, Germany. However, as Czechoslovakian soon falls under the control of communists, Cernik is informed his circus will be re-organized by the communists. A great deal of Cernik's performers are sent to join the military and his circus equipment is taken away from him.

After learning that he is being forced to insert pro-communist messages into his remaining few acts, Cernik decides he has had enough. It is then he decides to escape Bavaria.

THE CRITICISM:
What a mess! This film is filled with characters who seem as if they're to have something essential to the plot of the film... and then we never see them again. It was as if Kazan began to film a ensemble drama where we begin to understand the characters when suddenly - BAM! Kazan decides he wants a thriller.

I just don't get it. Kazan claimed to be a communist and yet here he is, making a clearly anti-communism film. That just proves it. He was a manipulating genius. He pretended to care for several separate causes. However, in giving it two cents worth of thought, you can see right through him. On The Waterfront was clearly pro-communism, and Man on a Tightrope is clearly anti-communism. What kind of filmmaker would make a film to contradict what he believed in? What kind of filmmaker would try to convince people not to believe in his cause?

Each and every big name in the cast fails to deliver performances that could be called even 'adequate'. Here's the problem with melodramas: You can have a great actor star in a melodrama, and you will have no idea whether they will deliver a good performance. The genre itself is very unique, and quite frankly, I have learned that I do not like it.

Little can be said about Man on a Tightrope, and little deserves to be said about it. I recommend you don't see it, even if you love Kazan.

Man on a Tightrope,
1953,
Directed by Elia Kazan
Starring: Frederic March, Gloria Grahame, Terry Moore and Richard Boone
5.5/10 (D+)


Ranked:
1. Baby Doll
2. Panic in the Streets
3. Splendor in the Grass
4. East of Eden
5. The Last Tycoon
6. Boomerang!
7. Viva Zapata!
8. Pinky
9. Wild River
10. America, America
11. Man on a Tightrope
12. The Arrangement

East of Eden (1955)

THE FILM:

In 1955 the world changed. One man made that major change. The truth is he could have hardly been called a man at the time. His name was James Dean. He starred in only three films. All of which he played a rebel, a troublemaker and the kind of person we all wish we were. Marlon Brandon was almost given the lead in East of Eden, but it was decided he was too old. You can tell that James Dean never acted, everything he did was play himself. In fact, John Stienbeck (author of the novel "East of Eden") arrived on the set one day and after meeting Dean he exclaimed "Jesus Christ... HE IS CAL!" Another example of Dean's rebellious attitude is when he refused to show up at the premiere of East of Eden, for unknown reasons. This act of rebellion nearly cost Dean his starring role in Nicholas Ray's Rebel Without a Cause, which is perhaps Dean's most well-known role.

Personally, I find that East of Eden best demonstrates Elia Kazan's very original directorial style. There is a classic scene on a rooftop where Cal (James Dean) talks to Abra (Julie Harris). The reason I selected this scene is because in order to get the reaction he hoped for from his actors, he actually got James Dean drunk so he could best deliver a realistic performance. However, Elia Kazan wasn't the only actor doing original things to help cast members deliver the best possible performances. Off-camera, James Dean would provoke Raymond Massey so Massey would hate Dean. The reason for this bizarre action is that Dean felt that this would make Massey's acting as Dean's hating father would appear more realistic. In looking back to this classic film, it most certainly have worked. Eli Kazan knew that Massey despised Dean but did nothing to prevent it, as he approved of realism in characters.

In '56 East of Eden was nominated for four Oscars in the categories of best actor, supporting actress, directing and original screenplay. It one best supporting actress but lost all of the others. Now a days many would despite the academy's naive ruling and consider it an injustice. East of Eden is judged to be Kazan's greatest film as well as James Dean's greatest film. It certainly makes sense to be given such a claim. Despite the fact that I do believe that East of Eden is slightly overrated it still deserves it's position as a major Hollywood classic. What makes this film Kazan's best? Two words. These two words were made into an Eagles song... "James Dean".

THE PLOT:
We start in 1917, a historic time period: right before America drew involvement into World War I. Adam Trask is a successful and elderly farmer with two sons. His first son is Aron, a young successfully who resembles his father; both physically and mentally. His other son is named Cal. To say the least, Cal is the opposite of his brother. He is moody and has difficulty managing his angry outbursts. 

Cal learns from his father that his mother is alive, which contradicts that how his father had claimed that she was dead for many years. After tracking her down, Cal now understands where his anger comes from. After his father loses most of his money, Cal begins to sell beans in order to make money and impress his father. This fails and Cal is once more united with a feeling of depression. Matters get worse as Cal and Abra begin to feel an attraction towards each other.

Nothing is going correctly for Cal as he watches how is life is being torn apart before his eyes. East of Eden is a fascinating character study of a young man who we can all relate to.

THE CRITICISM: 
East of Eden is the type of film that strongly grows on you over time. At least, that how the film worked for me. At times East of Eden is just a little too much, but then again, which Kazan isn't? East of Eden is made by it's acting. There is very little more to comment on while discussing East of Eden.

In the other Kazan films I've seen, this is most likely the greatest performances from the entire ensemble. No, this does not have the greatest performances, but as a whole, East of Eden gets the cake. James Dean does overact  but that's the way the part was written. He takes the lead as as symbol for young people who want to rebel against the strict guidelines of society. This is the best film to view James Dean's best acting. If Dean had not been tragically struck by a car the same year East of Eden was released he would have made perhaps another 30 films. 20 of those films would have been made for money and not have James Dean delivering his greatest performances. The other ten films would most likely have good nonperformance by James Dean, but I highly doubt any of them would compare to East of Eden. 

Julie Harris demonstrates true diverse acting. She is the star of my favourite horror film, The Haunting in which she plays a nervous woman on the verge of a mental breakdown. In this she plays a young and pretty woman in love. It seems like a simple role that doesn't necessarily demonstrate acting the rises above and beyond. However, Julie Harris adds a simple twist to make her character both realistic and sympathetic. Her character, Abra, apples a new side to Cal that we would not get from any other type of character. Abra's character is more essential than more people give it credit for. Julie Harris nails it. 

The novel, "East of Eden" is more a competition between brothers than it is in the film. I find that the film, East of Eden, cycles around Cal's need for respect from his father, not so much his rivalry between his brother. That said, Raymond Massey does a great job acting like he hates his son, but not acting like he really loves his son (which (this isn't a spoiler) he really does). This is probably because he truly hated James Dean, as I mentioned earlier.

Burl Ives is a great character actor. He gives us a moment to smile and think, "Hey! That's Burl Ives!", but he really does not deliver a great performance like he did in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. 

Finally, the only character that got themselves an Oscar for this film, Jo Van Fleet. She seemed to understand not only her character completely but also Cal's character completely. This was a difficult part to play as she has to find the connection between herself and James Dean to make us believe that she really is the character she plays. She delivers a fabulous performances. 

Finally, I can understand how some people can really dive into East of Eden, but the film in it's entirety did not appeal to myself as much as it did to others. Still, a very strong film.

East of Eden,
1955,
Directed by Elia Kazan
Starring: James Dean, Julie Harris and Jo Van Fleet
8/10 (A-)

Ranked:
1. Baby Doll
2. Panic in the Streets
3. Splendor in the Grass
4. East of Eden
5. The Last Tycoon
6. Boomerang!
7. Viva Zapata!
8. Pinky
9. Wild River
10. America, America
11. The Arrangement

America, America (1963)

THE FILM:

America, America is Elia Kazan's personal favourite of his own films. The reason for this is it is clearly an extraordinarily personal film for Kazan. The film is the true story of how Kazan's uncle made it to America. America, America is about the struggle he went through to get to the place of his dreams. Stating that he succeeded is in no way a spoiler as the first line of America, America is "My name is Elias Kazan, I am a Turk by Birth, Greek by origin and American because my uncle made a trip." America, America

America, America was originally very well received  It was nominated for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Screenplay and Bet Art Direction (which it won) at the Academy Awards. However, over time the film's reputation has slightly decreased in quality. Perhaps this is due to the now considered 'wooden' acting. Or, it could be due to the fact that Elia Kazan failed to show flaws in any of the characters of his family. All of that will be discussed later. America, America  currently holds a 67% on Rotten Tomatoes (a score that is just over being "fresh"). However it is still highly regarded on IMDb (Internet Movie Database), where is currently has a 7.7.

America, America's cast is completely unknown. There were some talented actors, and some un-talented actors in the crew. But they were all unheard of. After the film was released there was lots of talk for a future career for Stathis Giallelis. Have you heard of him? If it weren't for this film, I certainly would not have. As I wrote earlier, this film is now considered somewhat... laughable. A portion of that is due to the wooden acting.

THE PLOT:
Elia Kazan narrates at the very opening of the film that the reason for his American nationality is because of his uncle. That is the basis for America, America. His uncle, Stavros lived in Anatolia. After a long Stavros decided he'd had enough of his miserable life. For a long time he'd dreamed of America, and now it was time to go there.

Stavros embarks on his journey, only to find that matters are more difficult that he believed. At one point he retires into the life of a wealthy newly-wed only to find that he is not ready to abandon his dream.

America, America is the opposite of subtle. It is perhaps the most blunt melodrama Kazan ever brought us.

THE CRITICISM:
I first logged America, America as a 8.5/10. A short amount of time later I was staring at a film that I would rate 6/10. Once you've cracked America, America's outer layer, you find that the goo oozes from the inner pustule - and you find a rather large mess upon your hand.

I saw America, America nine days from when I wrote this very sentence, and I can tell you now: there are several moments in the film that have escaped my mind. I see America, America as a film in chapters. This is a reasonable concept considering the film spawns a very long length of time. It is a story that twists and turns, where characters progress and jump backwards. I cannot stand how people express that that is not a problem of the film considering its a true story. "The film is a true story, therefor any problems with the story or script do not count considering the fact that it is a true story" is most likely the most ludicrous opinion the human race has adopted into consideration. It takes more than text stating 'a true story' to make me believe in your film. With that point placed into focus, America, America suffers. Elia Kazan spent time paying homage to his family that he forgot to focus on crafting a well-built story.

The entire deal behind America, America is Elia Kazan giving himself a big hug. The heroes (Kazan's family members) are written perfectly. They are innocent and brave. They are victims of such misfortune and never do they crack. I highly doubt that anyone who is a victim mistreatment every single day of their life would still be so perfect. As well, these characters (especially Kazan's uncle, Stavros) are written terribly. They speak like every single poorly written character we've seen in the cinema for decades and decades.

Perhaps it is a large portion of  the poor writing that makes America, America so wooden. However, another major factor is the emotionless performances from the array of unknown performers. These actors act as if their characters deserve to elicit our sympathy when really, how are we intended to sympathize a group of people whose expression never changes? Why should I care about a group of people who barely appear human?

In approaching America, America I figured that my main problem with the film would be the "flag-waving" factor of promoting America. I was wrong. That was without a doubt the most emotional and well done aspect of the film. At the end of the film, Stavros arrives in America. It appears to be very rundown but it is  Stavros' haven. In exiting the immigration office, he trip and falls on the steps leading out. A man steps out and yells at him to get off the ground. He does not notice, because he is distracted by America. To me, Kazan was trying to say that America did save his family, but he does comment on how harsh the city is. To me, this is Kazan's most complicated message. It is a film that spends the entire film promoting the American country... when really it's doing the opposite.

America, America
1963,
Directed by Elia Kazan
Starring: Stathis Giallelis, Frank Wolff and Harry Davis
6/10 (C-)

Ranked:
1. Baby Doll
2. Panic in the Streets
3. Splendor in the Grass
4. The Last Tycoon
5. Boomerang!
6. Viva Zapata!
7. Pinky
8. Wild River
9. America, America
10. The Arrangement