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

Viva Zapata! (1952)

THE FILM:
Viva Zapata! translates to "Long Live Zapata!". The film is in English, the title is in Spanish however. This film is not an unknown film, however it is a hard film to find. Viva Zapata! is the least renowned film with both Marlon Brando and Elia Kazan's collaboration.

There are two stories about Viva Zapata! that I find to be both more fascinating than the film itself. Here is the first. During the shooting of Viva Zapata!, Marlon Brando decided to get into some strange stunts. At one point while in Texas, Marlon Brando set off a firecracker in the hotel. Then later on he sat at the top of a tree at three in the morning and sang to Jean Peters. When a group of reporters bumped into Brando while on set he told them he ate grasshopper and gazelle eyes. Finally, The following include a minor spoiler to the end of the film. If you know anything about history, this will not be a spoiler. After shooting the scene when Zapata is shot down by a large fire of bullets, Brando pretended to be dead for a long time. This terrified the entire cast and crew.

The second tale that occurred on the set of Viva Zapata was after it was revealed that Marlon Brando would play Zapata. Anthony Quinn believed he should have received the role as he looked more Latin American. He brought this point to Marlon Brando. They decided they would have a contest to see who could urinate farther into Rio Grande. Should Quinn lose the bet, Brando would keep the role of Zapata. Should Quinn win the bet, the role of Zapata would go to Anthony Quinn. In the end, Brando's urine traveled a farther distance and Quinn had to settle for the role of Zapata's brother, which he later won an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor for. All in all, I think he could live with losing the bet.

Elia Kazan worked on the script for Viva Zapata! with John Steinbeck. Apparently as the two would sit around in his New York apartment, Steinbeck would sit opposite Kazan and would whittle. After this, they had a long-lasting friendship.

THE PLOT:
Zapata is the leader of a delegation to report their injustices to the corrupt president, Porfirio Diaz. Time after time, Zapata is dismissed without begin given any thought. With no hope Zapata and his brother begin a rebellion with the help of the North (them being from the South).

Porfirio Diaz is removed from his power by the rebellion and the head of the North, Madero is put in charge.  However, much to Zapata's terror, nothing is different. Madero is just as corrupt in allowing injustices to occur. Even Zapata's own brother is disobeying everything Zapata agrees in. As time passes his world begins to collapse into nothing. The following include a minor spoiler to the end of the film. If you know anything about history, this will not be a spoiler. In the end, the new general who has just been appointed by Madero takes Madero captive and murders him. He then orders an ambush on Zapata and has him killed.

THE CRITICISM:
Viva Zapata! is the kind of film the out-right lies to you and a few Google searches can prove that. This is a film that shows Zapata as a brave rebellion leader... when really, he was a cowardice tyrant to his people. I have no issues with changing appearances of the characters, but Viva Zapata! overdid it. For the film that claims to biographical, it sure does do a lot of lying.

Marlon Brando (as usually) delivers a bewildering performance as Zapata. He combines the rebel character he would play in On The Waterfront with Mexican leader. Make-up did a great job making Brando look as if he were indeed Mexican. However, Brando did not deliver the sole brilliant performance in the film. Anthony Quinn (who as I said earlier did win an Academy Award for this) makes such an unexpected story of sudden corruption seem plausible. There is a great deal of chemistry between Brando and Quinn. This deal of chemistry is essential for the story as the two of them are supposed to pass for brothers. In watching Viva Zapata! it seems as if Brando and Quinn spent a long amount of time together off the set (and not all of that was spent urinating into Rio Grande). However, acting was not the greatest part of Viva Zapata!. Perhaps, it would have been if it weren't for Jean Peters had not starred in it. Her acting skills failed to help her elicit human emotion. Thankfully she does not have a great deal of lines as a lengthy amount of her screen time is spent starring at Marlon Brando as he walks around dramatically.

Viva Zapata is essentially and action-drama. There are multiple sequences of battle scenes followed by long scenes of human drama. This was Kazan only attempt at anything even slightly considerable to being an action film. This is a very bizarre selection for Elia Kazan as this is more of an adventure film than the films he made where the main character in a likable rebel. I'll just say it was enjoyable to see Kazan attempt something different.

By watching the first five or so minutes of Viva Zapata one can easily learn the film is an allegory for the corruption of power. However, as more and more time passes in the film they make this allegory less and less subtle. By the end of the film it can barely be called an allegory. I have said this in previous reviews: if there is one single thing I look for in a film - that is subtly. Viva Zapata! seems at times as if the word 'subtle' is a foreign concept. Partially, as Viva Zapata! is a melodrama at times. However, being a melodrama is no excuse for so overt with no chance for us to stop and think.

The film itself as a great deal of ups and downs. By the end of the film it balances out to an alright score.

Viva Zapata,
1952,
Directed by Elia Kazan
Starring: Marlon Brando, Anthony Quinn and Jean Peters
7/10 (B-)

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. The Arrangement

Wild River (1960)

THE FILM:
Wild River is the kind of film I would never have watched if it weren't for Cinema Stripped Down. Not because it has a negative reputation, but because it's reputation is practically absent. The film was released in 1960, making it one of Elia Kazan's later films. Wild River stars Montgomery Clift and I want say it was a terrible performance but I would be offending a man who went through a terrible accident. In the late 1950s Clift was a victim of a very dangerous car crash that he never healed from - emotionally or physically. He went on to make films for another ten or so years. However he never delivered another good performance after his accident (no that he was too good an actor to begin with, see: I, Confess). Also starring in Wild River is Lee Remick who claimed Wild River was her personal favourite of her own films. She wasn't the only one who was awfully fond of Wild River, Kazan considered it to be his greatest of his own films as well. In fact, at one point in the 1970s, Elia Kazan attempted to buy the film's rights so it could be re-released to the public. However, the studio would only sell the rights to Wild River at too high a price for Kazan to purchase.

Bruce Dern made his film debut in a minimal part is Wild River. However, it was still a long time before he became a big name. Speaking of big names, June Carter Cash (Johnny Cash's wife) auditioned for the lead role. However, as you know the part was given to Lee Remick. Lee Remick selected the two actors to play her two children. The fact was selected since it looked like her at the age of seven. The other, the boy, was selected since he loved hugging and kissing Lee Remick. One final thought on big names, Marlon Brandon was Kazan's first choice for the role of Chuck. Marlon Brandon would have been beneficial for the film as he would have delivered a superior performance and being a larger name, a larger quantity of people would have seen Wild River.

Today, Wild River is Elia Kazan's second highest rated film on Rotten Tomatoes with 100% of critic's appreciation. As well, it receives a 7.6 on IMDb.

THE PLOT:
Wild River takes place around the Tennessee Valley in the early 1930s. For too long islands have been flooded by the overflowing river. TVA is a program that plans to build a dam so that the water will no longer cause havoc. However, in order for this dam to be built everyone living on a small island will need to vacate.

An agent named Chuck is sent to help evacuate the island. When he arrives he notices that they're giving him the cold shoulder. It seems nobody wants to leave. The island is run by an old woman named Ella. She has lived on the island her entire life. Her family was buried there and she will not leave. Chuck then meets Carol, Ella's granddaughter who is burdened with two children and no father. For a short time, Chuck becomes father to those two children as he falls in love with Carol.

And still Ella will not budge. It is not long before everyone has been convinced to leave by Chuck. In fact, everyone is ready to turn their backs to Ella and leave. However, Ella will not allow this.

THE  CRITICISM:
Wild River seems like that environmental film from before everyone was running around screaming about the environment. Of course, that does not last. Wild River has absolutely nothing not say about the world's environmental state, it is about the humanity's state. What I mean by that is rather than commenting on the environment on comments on anti-progress. It is never a question of whether destroying the island to build a dam is the right thing. It discuss if giving into the demands of those who wish to relocate their life and build the dam is the right thing. It was an interesting perspective, but the film would have been superior to it's current state should it have tackled more important issues.

As I quickly mentioned earlier, Montgomery Clift is terrible in this. I'll come right out and say it. He never shows emotion and ever line he reads sounds unnatural. Both truth be told, how can you blame a man who is slowly decaying for delivering a bad performance? Still, if you compare Wild River to I, Confess one could make a statement such as "Montgomery Clift's accident improved his acting skills." This is not the worst performance given by Montgomery Clift. It's one of them. This is also not the worst performance given by someone in a Kazan film. It is one of them. Montgomery Clift wasn't alone in bad acting. Lee Remick was close behind him. I felt like I was watching a sop opera every time the camera zoomed into to her large eyes. The character was not well written, nor was it well played. Finally, to top things off, Jo Van Fleet was fabulous as the elderly woman who runs the island and refuses to see it be taken away from her. At times her acting allows us to look at her as a senile woman who is in the way of progress. But by the end of the film we see everything through her eyes and want everyone to leave her alone.

As I have been working on this site I have began to notice that Elia Kazan's films are much more melodramatic than I expected. So far, if I had to choose one of Kazan's films to best represent melodrama, Wild River is at the top. From the ridiculous and cliche love story between Chuck and Carol to the over dramatic and predictable ending, I felt as if I spent a long time watching Wild River with my head in my hand.  By the end of the film you are wondering how many more times Carol will burst into tears and embraces Chuck as she whines about how bad her life is. How many more times will you have to sit through Chuck's emotionless yelling as he tries to convince people to leave the island? Melodrama can be done well, and it can be done poorly. It has been done poorly in Wild River.

If there's one thing I hate in classic films it is when Technicolor is used... but only because the film has a big budget. Not because it would enhance the film or anything. For example, Rear Window would have worked just as well should it have been in black and white. Don't get me wrong though, I love Rear Window. However, how can you compare it's use of Technicolor to how colour was used in Lawrence of Arabia. I will tell you this, Wild River uses Technicolor beautifully to illustrate the island's beauty and lush. Kazan's first Technicolor picture, East of Eden (which I have been working on my review for a while now) uses Technicolor uselessly as well. It is a story of characters and emotion. In the 50s and early to mid 60s, Technicolor made their films look too unnatural. To this day, I swear, Cary Grant's face looked orange in North by Northwest. However Kazan proved to be master of using colour in film with Wild River as he was able to present both dull and beautiful shades of colour.

As you have probably guessed, I did not like Wild River very much. But I can certainly understand how it would appeal to others. I will suggest it, as it was the kind of film that did not work for me personally.

Wild River,
1960,
Directed by Elia Kazan
Starring: Montgomery Clift, Lee Remick and Jo Van Fleet
6/10 (C-)

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

The Last Tycoon (1976)

THE FILM:
In 1976 Elia Kazan was prepared to release his final film, The Last Tycoon. His previous two films, The Arrangement and The Visitors were not well received. Unfortunately, neither was The Last Tycoon. The film was based on a novel by F. Scott Fitzgerald of the same title. This was a difficult adaptation as Fitzgerald had died before the novel could be completed. Luckily for any fans the entire plot was mapped out.

Peter Bogdanovich turned down a chance to direct. After that, Mike Nicholas was hired to direct and he intended to hire Dustin Hoffman in the lead role as Monroe Stahr. After Nicholas was removed from directing The Last Tycoon, producer Sam Spiegel was left with no option but to track down an old friend who was practically retired. That old friend was Elia Kazan who never expected to be making anymore films.

The Last Tycoon currently holds a 47% on Rotten Tomatoes and a 6.3 on IMDb (putting it as Kazan's lowest ranking film. In Kazan's autobiography he wrote that part of the film's considered lack of quality was due to Sam Spiegel. It is said that Spiegel had a father respectful "father and son" relationship with the film's screenwriter, Harold Pinter. Perhaps it was respect and common decency among filmmakers that tore The Last Tycoon apart. Actually, I shouldn't say that because I felt it was an alright film.

Monroe Stahr was based off a close friend of F. Scott Fitzgerald, Irving Thalberg. He was a film producer who had his hay-day in the 20s. He is best known for Laugh, Clown, Laugh. It seems that Kazan and De Niro tried to keep The Last Tycoon as close as possible to what F. Scott Fitzgerald wanted. In fact, the final note that Fitzgerald ever wrote on the topic of "The Last Tycoon" (the novel that is) was the following "ACTION IS CHARACTER". Kazan and De Niro tried as hard as possible to follow this code, and personally I feel they succeeded.

The Last Tycoon is driven by a legendary cast. In the lead role we have Robert De Niro. In supporting roles we have the legendary Robert Mitchum and Ingrid Boulting. The rest of The Last Tycoon's cast were mainly extended cameos. Tony Curtis and Jeanne Moreau play the aging actors in a film Monroe is producing. Donald Pleasence is in one short scene as a alcoholic screenwriter who gets fired. Ray Milland, Dana Andrews and Anjelica Huston also star in this greatly acted drama.

THE PLOT:
The Last Tycoon takes place in the golden age of cinema. Monroe Stahr is a young and handsome film producer. His life seems to revolve solely around his work. He lives in the constant battle between actors, directors and screenwriters. One day while attending a high-class party he notices a woman who he is suddenly struck by as looking like someone from his past.

And so begins a short-lived romance between Monroe and this woman, Kathleen Moore. After learning that she is really engaged to be married to another man, Monroe enters a state of depression. As he begins to drink his life slowly falls apart. There is no more order in his life. Monroe finally snaps in a well-acted climactic scene where he beats up a screenwriter.

THE CRITICISM:
The Last Tycoon suffers from a clearly emotionless love story. the film is driven by this love story, that never feels sincere. However, I wouldn't call this a flaw of the film as it was writen that way in the original novel. That stort of unrealistic romance is common in Fitzgerald's novels (see "This Side of Paradise). What doesn't work about the romance in The Last Tycoon is perhaps the suddenness or perhaps it is the lack of character development in the character of Kathleen Moore (played mediocorely by Ingrid Boulting). We see her only in scenes with De Niro where she acts as if she just watched a bunch of Tallulah Bankhead  films and thought that is how you act. There is no realism in Ingrid Boulting's potrayl, only class.

I would very much like to congragulate Elia Kazan on bringing back acspects on classic films. For example, there are several scenes where we watch as Monroe carefully watches the black and white film that stars Tony Curtis and Jeanne Moreau. It was an entertaining tribute that I do not beleive was in that book, at least not in the same way as it it shown in the film.

Action is character. A perfect role that was perfectly followed in this film... in the case of De Niro's character. He is the only actor that does not seem like he is being acted. I am not desputing the talent of the cast, I am desputing the talent of screenwriter Harold Pinter. In writing The  Last Tycoon he failed to add any emotion aside from Monroe. Perhaps Kathleen was also an attempt to add realism, if so, Pinter failed even more. The Last Tycoon never digs as deep as everyone on the set was trying hard for it to. Perhaps The Last Tycoon would be a smarter film if it were an hour or so longer. The films as it is is too simple. It feels like it should be some sort of epic on the topic of film production. As well, adding more time to the film would allow for Kazan to add character development and maybe even more great cameos.

There is a fair degree of bad writing in the film. However, that is made up for by great cameos. There are many moments when you look at the screen and say "Ha! That's Jack Nicholson!" or "...oh my! Is that Tony Curtis?". Elia Kazan knew what he was doing when he hired actors. Every actor who was cast best defines that role they were hired for (even though Harold Pinter barely lets us understand each character).

I would like to say that The Last Tycoon is not this massive cinematic dissapointment it's reputatino has taken. Perhaps it was not exactly The Godfather-esque film everyone seemed to be hoping for. However, Elia Kazan clearly put a lot into maknig his last film a meomerable one. Still I can't help but think he sold out... slighly. From hiring all major actors to big extravangte sets it seems as if Kazan may have been after the same thing as all the other producers in The Last Tycoon. Money.

The Last Tycoon,
1976,
Directed by: Elia Kazan,
Starring: Robert De Niro, Robert Mitchum and  Ingrid Boulting
7.5/10 (B+)

Ranked:
1. Baby Doll
2. Panic in the Streets
3. Splendor in the Grass
4. The Last Tycoon
5. Boomerang!
6. Pinky
7. The Arrangement