User reviews

This is a fine movie, with a great screenplay by William Inge, director Elia Kazan's ability to convey powerful emotions, and a marvelous performance by Natalie Wood.

Typically relegated to the second ranks among playwrights, Inge deserves more critical respect than he receives. Here, as in "Picnic," he celebrates romantic love, shows how inseparable it is from sex, and portrays the damage done by a conventional world that insists on separating them.

We belittle the small-town characters in the film, who see the world in terms of "good" girls and "bad" girls, but many reviewers have shown a similarly reductionist outlook on a more sophisticated level. They have seen this movie as "Freudian," showing love to be a sublimation of sex. Or they have belittled it as just another "rebellious youth" film of the type that was so popular in the 1950s and early 1960s. Pauline Kael wrote about Natalie Wood's apparently too active "behind," and on TCM, Robert Osborne introduced the movie as one in which the young couple is motivated by "hormones."

In the movie, it is plain that the young couple truly love each other, and it is also plain that they desire each other sexually. So it always will be with young people in love. This is the glory of romance. People frequently love without a sexual involvement, and people frequently have sex without love. But romantic love is a matter of both "body" and "soul" acting as one.

So poignant, it hurts. And I'm a heterosexual male who enjoys football and grunge. Though some of the attitudes toward sex have been tempered in the intervening years, the turmoils and pressures of being a teen ring just as true today 42 years after this film's release. Kazan is a master at capturing those wrenching angsty adolescent and post-adolescent moments of emotional vulnerability and doubt, especially concerning the love/hate between children and their parents, and this is among his best work. A reminder that wistful remembrances of the seeming innocence and happiness of youth are probably wishful thinking, and also an ironic prodding that there is seemingly something idealistic lost or compromised when we enter adulthood. Kudos to the entire cast but in particular, Natalie Wood is scintillating, perfectly encapsulating the joys and horrors of someone caught up in the dizzying power and raging hormones of teen love. Beatty is solid, too, if a bit overly earnest.

All of the twists and turns of the plot work, though ultimately Bud's family's economic setbacks and deaths and Didi's family's successes are mere soap operatic window dressing to the "A" plot line, which is the heart tugging reality of "nothing bringing back the hour of the Splendor In The Grass" for Bud and Didi, though both obviously still share the feeling. This is the kind of movie that doesn't get made in America now because of the non-commercial (but accurate) ending. Okay, they broached it in the less psychologically challenging CASTAWAY, but slapped on a happy ending afterwards.

SPLENDOR is not perfect; Bud's father (Pat Hingle) is a little overwrought and stereotypically drawn as the socioeconomic snob with castratingly ambitious designs on Bud's future. Bud's sister (Barbara Loden) is similarly too pat as the troubled, neglected child who does all she can to get daddy's disapproval. Still, any of the soapy aspects of the plot just fall away when the Beatty / Wood romance plot line gets cooking. They got the meat of this movie just right and the result is one of the most memorable and vivid examples of young romance ever set down on celluloid. Don't miss it!

This is a beautiful and powerful film - flawlessly acted, directed and written. It is easily the best of the sexual awakening movies that were so popular in the late fifties, early sixties. And why wouldn't it be - with Kazan at the helm and an original screenplay by William Inge.

The film begins with a similar theme to "Rebel Without a Cause" - that is why won't parents treat their children like human beings and really help them come to terms with becoming adults? But halfway through Inge does a clever turn-around and allows the kids to discover that their parents are human beings too, with all the weaknesses and frailties that go with being human. At the same time Inge portrays the coming of age of America as the joy of the roaring twenties moves into the gloom of the Depression.

The story is about how prejudice and blind morality destroys a great love - sex shouldn't be such a huge issue between two people who love each other, but the enormous pressures from outside to either do it or refrain from doing it cause confusion, pain and hurt. Who will ever forget Natalie Wood leaping naked from a bath screaming at her mother that she is not "spoiled"? Wood gives the performance of her life here, convincingly portraying adolescent love, a nervous breakdown, and the blossoming into woman-hood. Beatty too is splendid as the confused Bud. And both are so achingly beautiful!

The supporting cast is superb down to the smallest role. Barbara Loden is particularly memorable as Beatty's wild flapper sister, but Pat Hingle as his father, and Audrey Christie and Fred Stewart as Wood's parents are also unforgettable.

This is a resonant film that I believe will be more and more appreciated with the passing of time.

Young lovers in 1928 Kansas break up, with wrenching consequences for the girl. Troubled teens vehicle garnered an Academy Award nomination for Natalie Wood, also introducing Warren Beatty as her fading beau (he seems encumbered a bit by his pretty masculinity but otherwise does solid work). Wood is also attractive, though her voice hasn't much range--she stays on the same sweetly-dazed monotone throughout--and even when she's freaking out in the bathtub, crying "I'm a good girl, mama!", Wood's delivery is dreamy-flat. The plot strays on occasion, and we never learn exactly why Beatty breaks it off with Nat (we get the impression his wanton sister embarrasses him, and the stronghold on Wood's virginity frustrates him, but it's awfully quick and cold). The 1920s scenario wasn't really necessary except to shoehorn in the business dealings of Beatty's family (and the Stock Market crash), yet the writing by William Inge and Elia Kazan's direction are both sincere. A few terrific moments: Natalie trying to drown herself in the river; Natalie breaking down in the classroom (both scenes utilize Wood's vulnerability to her advantage); Sandy Dennis popping up in a supporting bit; and Zohra Lampert's brief but intriguing work as a new lady in Warren's life. *** from ****

There are movies, and then there are sensorial experiences like SPLENDOR IN THE GRASS. The sound of the water in the first scene, the color of Natalie Wood skin, the absolutely black of Warren Beaty's hair, the smell of champagne in the "crazy party"... SPLENDOR IN THE GRASS is not only a movie, it's an experience that anyone that was once young can understand and feel. The characters go through love, sexual arousing, separation, and pain... not because of a villain, but because of life, and ultimately, because of themselves. The splendor of the title is that rare moment in life where everything clicks, the moment that you will remember forever from your youth. See it. You won't forget.

Warren Beatty made his screen debut in Hollywood with this treasure of a film. One of the best ever made. For me, I can barely make it through without shedding a tear. It's probably the most emotionally devastating film I've seen and somehow struck a chord with me like few other films have. The Shootist and The Bridges of Madison County are two other movies that bring out the Kleenex, but not the way Kazan's film can. The setting is a dim rural Kansas farming community in the days just prior to the Great Depression. Yet things are good in the beginning. The Stamper family is making a fortune off their stocks and the Loomis family has recently invested and stands to make money as well. Warren Beatty and Natalie Wood play two of the children of the families who go together in high school and are desperately in love. Beatty is Bud Stamper and Wood is Deannie Loomis. Both are in their teenage years and their hormones are raging. Sexual repression and it's consequences are examined in the film and why such conservatism and restraint exists. Bud and Deannie do not have sex, though both feel extremely uncomfortable from the tension that arises when they mutually suppress their instincts. Deannie is told by her mother that good girls don't do things like that, nor should they enjoy it. Bud on the otherhand is told by his freewheeling father, played excellently by Pat Hingle, that there's two kinds of girls in the world. Those that put out and those that don't. His only advice for his son is to not get into trouble, by which he means get a girl pregnant. Bud knows all too well about the "other" kind of girl, as his sister has become one of them. Bud fights pressures on all sides of his life including sports, his relationship with Deannie, finding a college, and sexual repression. Yet he is emotionally stable enough to take it. Deannie on the otherhand makes an altar to Bud and her entire existence seems to revolve around him. What makes the film so compelling is watching these wonderful characters who are not cliché' even if their problems sometimes are. Warren Beatty plays his role naturally sensitive but conflicted with his father and peer's advice that he "man-up." Deannie is quiet, shy, beautiful, and sensitive. When Bud's need can no longer remain in check he sleeps with another girl. This news sends Deannie into complete shock. Natalie Wood brings so much depth to the character. I can vision a thousand places where her scenes could have gone wrong, but somehow it works. Even the most difficult and infamous scene in the movie where Wood is soaking in the tub and then stands up screaming at her mother before running out of the bathroom. Deannie's mother only wants the best for her, but it's the old fashioned values, restraint, and the pain of Bud with another girl, which eventually snowball into Deannie being sent to a mental institution after a nervous breakdown and suicide attempt (ironically Wood attempts suicide by drowning in the movie, years later the real life Wood died from drowning. She carried a fear of water with her through her entire life). From this point in the movie the stock market crashes and Bud moves past Deannie but fails college before continuing his personal dream of becoming a farmer. William Wordsworth wrote the poem from which the film takes its name. The film deals with first love in a way few other films have. Certainly a movie of today examining the issue would not be so foreboding. One might think the film is unrealistic because of the outbursts and almost too fragile teens. It is easy to laugh and say how stupid and ignorant love is at that age, but for those who've lived and felt it, I think it'd be difficult to see this movie as far fetched in anyway. Or even scoff at the characters and their desperate behavior. Afterall, we're dealing with an age and time where suicide is among the leading causes of death for teenagers and 20-year olds and one of the major factors are breakups with first loves. Natalie Wood gives one of the finest, most powerful performances in all of cinema. She'll break your heart and make you feel as much for her character as possible with the medium. Warren Beatty is also good as Bud, the confused and repressed young man who just wants things to make sense. There are few films as fine as Elia Kazan's 1961 picture that tackles these subjects and can deal with them in such a sincere and emotional way.

Splendor in the Grass is jammed packed with 2 hours of eye candy. Warren Beatty and Natalie Wood are not only fun to look at, they both give amazing performances as 2 youths growing up under their parent's ideals. Pat Hingle, who plays Bud's father is the true star of the film. Is crude, yet true performance as the 'big headed' as a strong willed parent is the backbone of the movie. The eye candy of beautiful people and outrageous 20's behavior is the film's setting. The overall moral, let kids grow up and do what they want to do. As parents control too much of their children's lives, the end result is a breakdown. Many find it hard to accept Natalie Woods nervous breakdown over having her heart broke and her pride lost. Still, if you look at how many American teenagers are on medication for depression today, it's easier to accept Wood's situation. The movie is filled with sexual tones that keep the audience interested in this romantic drama that builds and builds until the final scene. Said to have had the first french kiss shown on 'the big screen', Splendor in the Grass begins with the make-out scene with Beatty and Wood. Before we see what year it is, we are present to a universal truth among the ages. Young kids experiencing with sex. Before we know it is 1928, the scene could be happening anytime between 1880-2005! The truth of relationships and peer pressure are true throughout the years.

The movie "Splendor in the Grass (1961)," is one of the best movies I have seen so far. I am a male in my early thirties and the film has touched me in such a way that I have never been touched by an old movie before. Even though I have not lived in that time era the film portrays. However, I have seen many old films that are from the "older" version, and I have yet to see a film that projects human feeling as much as this film has done it for me.

Genuine love between two youngsters who have yet to experience the world's bad side, a side that affects plenty of flowers from blossoming; went astray. Discrimination on the basis of wealth is the main cause for Deanie's bad end, which is no different than other forms of discrimination that Bud's family put on the not-so well to do young lady, Deannie. It is unfortunate that Bud ended up having a "normal" traditional life that rich and well to do young ladies longed for at the time. The character played as Deanie longed for basic love from Bud to which he was unable to deliver due to his family's constant intervention on his son's personal life; it is his father that denied him pleasure of having 'happiness' with his high school sweetheart. Happiness, which he would have preferred over controlling his family's business could bring him.

Unfortunately, not all people have the same lens of view of seeing life from different angle. In the opinion of the writer of this comment, wealth is not only gained from money, wealth is gained from all the riches of satisfying life, life that is fulfilled with little achievements. In this particular film, the young man's family translated wealth as a source of pride and happiness. Despite, in the eye of a capitalist's vision of happiness, his father did what he thought was best for his son. After all, who wouldn't wish the best for his or her child? It was also sad to see Deannies' father unable to do anything to counter the rejection of his daughter, except resent his inablity to supply his family with the riches other men do.

The writer/director played Deanie's character in a very exposed emotion laid for the audience to smash it open and be ashamed of it to its end. I was close to tears at times, especially at the end when she discovered that her Bud was married with a toddler and pregnant wife. It made his new wife cry with envy, as to who he gave up to be with her. It is visible to see from Deanie's eyes the disappointments, it just reminds me of my other favorite movie seen, "Carlito's Way," the character played by Al Pacino, when he was attempting to convince his love interest played as "Gail." In that seen, he meets her at a place of her work and very disturbed by what she does for living, strip joint dancer. He tries to hide his feeling of disappointment, but she learns his judgment when her fans came to express their joy for having to see her dance. Right at that moment, when she mentioned something he has been dodging to avoid, his eyes tell it all. In my view the seen captured is by far the best of all movies I have seen capturing the emotional disappointment visually being captured. "Splendor In The Grass," has captured that sort of emotion from a female perspective, the writer/director added dignity to the expression of disappointment. That was heartbreaking to have to witness such devastating reality Deanie has to swallow. Her eyes tell it all, as they were hungry to see her own life find that very end, an end she would have been very pleased to see.

It teaches the audience that time is a river, unlike a lake (pond) it travels, Bud did what was normal for him to do, find another girl and fall in love with. It also shows that no two loves are equal, the love Deanie and Bud had for each other was not at equilibrium. If it was, he would have married her after discovering of his father's death. At the end when she came out of her madness to remember him as he was, while he has forgotten all about her and moved on. I find the film very soothing to the soul, and took me back to reminisce my own past life.

This turgid melodrama is not worthy of Elia Kazan, who abandons completely his restrained, disciplined directorial style to deliver this "Rebel Without a Cause" wannabe.

Natalie Wood does what she did best in this film -- look gorgeous. But her performance, lauded in its day, is nearly embarrassing now, as she overacts her way through one emotional freak out after another as a hot and bothered teen trying to deal with raging hormones. Warren Beatty appears in an early film role, but doesn't do much more beyond giving the ladies something to look at.

The teen angst films that dominated in the mid-1950s blow this film out of the water.

Grade: C+

I think this might be one of the most overrated films I've ever seen. To begin with, thank goodness nobody hurt themselves trying to make 1961 look like 1929--I think all they did was borrow some old cars.

This hypersexualized and ridiculous movie falls into the _Romeo and Juliet_ trap of confusing hormone- and boredom-driven teenaged lust with love. Bud and Deanie aren't loves-of-a-lifetime: They're first infatuations. Bud is handsome but there is nothing in Beatty's portrayal that suggests he actually loves Deanie instead of just being afraid that he might lose his adorable possession to some other dead-eyed high school boy. His adult love for Angelina, who took him in when he was depressed, displaced, and lonely, seems far more believable even though the movie makes it clear we're supposed to think he settled and gave up his true love for something practical.

There is nothing emotionally gripping or even interesting in any of the acting, either. Warren Beatty is wooden and expressionless. Natalie wood swings from dim-witted, overwrought, childishness to overwrought hysterics, but after awhile you just want her to be quiet and go away. I suppose this had its place in 1961 but it hasn't aged very well.

I watched Splendor In The Grass today in its entirety for the first time. I had seen bits and pieces of it on late night TV before, and had planned to try and see the whole movie for many years. I must say that I strongly disagree with the notion that this movie is "dated" and has lost its power over the last 40 years. This movie is not about un-requited love, but rather about two people who are deeply in love with each other. Unfortunately, due to various external forces such as their parents, their peers, the pressure to fit in with the rest of "normal" society, their fears, their innocent lack of understanding of how special their feelings are for each other, etc. all lead to one screwed up attempt after another to open up to each other and try to act on what they feel in their hearts. While some of the dialogue may be "dated", these two people struggling with love together is in my opinion as timeless as love itself.

This is one of those rare movies that while brilliant in its day, is somehow enhanced further by its age (it was filed 40 years ago in 1961). The age of the movie seems to make its message even more powerful. Lost love, time marching on, people trying to leave the past in the past and move forward, these messages are somehow made more realistic and more moving by the knowledge of the passage of time that has occurred since this film was made. Am I making any sense here?

My gosh, Natalie Wood was a flower in full bloom when she appeared in this film. What a beautiful young woman she was and she gave a wonderful performance as Deannie. Warren Beatty was good too as Bud, her high school sweetheart, but Natalie Wood stole the show. What a lucky guy Robert Wagner was for being married twice to this beautiful and talented woman. What is it about this film, that in spite of the fact that I never knew Natalie Wood in real life, just watching her in this film and realizing she is gone from this world brings me deep feelings of sadness. She would be 63 years old now, the same age as my mother, had she not been tragically killed in a drowning accident in California.

I am not educated in the art of film making or acting. However, I am a lover of good movies. This film makes we wish I had studied acting or directing or film or whatever, so that I could be involved in the production of movies like Splendor in The Grass.

I am babbling and jumping around all over the place here but I want to add a couple more thoughts. I disagree with the notion that this movie tries to sell the message that one must forget about the past and move on. To the contrary, I think the true message delivered by this film is that you only have one life on this planet, one chance, and if you are lucky enough to find someone that makes you feel the way Deannie and Bud felt for each other, you should do your best to explore it for what it is and not throw it away, because you are young. The future may not always bring someone else along that makes you feel the same way again. Also, parent's may think they know what is best for their children at all times, especially about who they should go out with or become involved with. But parent's have to let their children live their own lives, or their meddling may do way more harm and none of the good they intended.

This is a most beautiful film in all senses ; picture quality and colors which they don't seem capable of making any more in spite of all the modern technology, beautiful scenery, and above all two beautiful actors. I also loved the clothes Nathalie Wood wore during the film. Pat Hingle plays a character almost unbelievable today. Although this " frustrated love " is sad and brings tears to my eyes, I still cannot help watching the film quite regularly even though I know the end will leave me frustrated. There is a lot if implied rather than visible passion in this film ( its French title is - " la fièvre dans le sang " or fever in the blood ). This hidden, repressed passion is more gripping than if we had seen the couple simply lie down and get on with it !! But perhaps the passion is a little too stifled and a few short scences with more passionate physical contact might have satisfied the spectator ! But that's a very subjective matter. But I end as I started by reiterating the total beauty of the film at all levels.

I found the film beautiful. Perhaps the best film ever to show the consequences of sexual repression. Natalie Wood is absolutely superb, both in terms of beauty and in terms of her fantastic performance. Warren Beatty, in his first film role, is fine too. Elia Kazan knew how to make movies. This "splendor in the grass", "on the waterfront", "a streetcar named desire", among others, are movies that remain in our memory, which made us experience sensations and feelings, which "touched" us in our soul.

I watched Splendor in the Grass for the fourth time last night. I saw it when it first came out and thought it was a masterpiece. I saw in ten year later at a college film festival and it was already starting to show signs of age, largely because of the social changes between 1961 and 1971. Even then the audience was starting to make fun of the movie. What looked bold in 1961 looked dated and repressed in 1971. I saw it perhaps a decade later and it left no memorable impression. Last night I could barely make it through. The characters felt intense to me when I was young. Now it seems to me that they seemed intense only because there was a lack of any real substance to dilute their one emotion. Each character has one defining emotion – Deanie is fragile, all the boys are sexually obsessed, Bud's father in a blow-hard who never stops talking, etc. The characters are so lacking in nuance. Bud is laughable and pathetic in his longing and frustration. The silliness of the high-school girls, squealing and jumping whenever they met was a ridiculous stereotype. These were one dimensional stereotypes not real people. The only black characters are shown learning, wide-eyed at the prospect of witnessing Ginny Stamper's gang rape. I found myself wondering if this could really have been done by Elia Kazan. I even cringed at the things Natalie Wood did to convey youth. It had all the subtly of vaudeville melodrama. On the plus side, I enjoyed Deanie's mother's obsession with the stock market. I understand that this was typical of the 1920's when average people played the market naively, believing they could be come rich, fooled by the market into thinking they were smart when they were only lucky. The portrayal of this aspect of society was more interesting last night than fifty years ago. I also enjoyed Bud's introduction to pizza. We take pizza for granted, forgetting that it did not become common in the US until the 1950s. Bud learns of pizza as a college student when he's living in New Haven. Fifty years ago someone's hearing of pizza for the first time would not have seemed surprising, but it was bit of a treat. Overall, the movie is still interesting because of the time it portrays, but the characters are crudely drawn by current standards, the better movies of its era, or even Kazan's body of work.

Splendor in the Grass is my fourth Elia Kazan film, the other three being A Streetcar Named Desire, On the Waterfront and East of Eden. All three of those are wonderful films, On the Waterfront even being one of the best films of the 50s, and-apart from it being a little too long and psychologically simplistic in places-so is Splendor in the Grass. It looks absolutely beautiful and is technically accomplished, with the 20s setting actually looking like the 20s, and David Amram's score is romantic, lyrical and emotionally searing while allowing the drama to speak for itself. The script rightly won an Oscar, it is a very intelligently written film with no padding, it's both thought-provoking and poignant and it draws and develops the characters remarkably- bringing humanity and flesh-and-blood-quality to potential stereotypes- the most interesting being Deanie. The story takes its time to unfold but it's all worth it, it is done so gracefully, the romantic elements are sweet without being cloyingly so and it is also one of the most moving films I've seen. Especially the ending which is heart-breaking. Kazan's direction is remarkably sensitive, more so than his occasionally heavy-handed direction in East of Eden. The powerful performances in Splendor in the Grass also help, the standouts being Pat Hingle and especially Natalie Wood. Hingle is quite terrifying as the formidable father figure and Wood has never been more tender and it is a contender for her best performance(the bath-tub breakdown was another truly moving moment in the film, and the emotion felt genuine and not forced). Warren Beatty makes a most credible feature debut, acting with understated poise, while Audrey Christie dominates the screen while giving her maternal character depth and Barbara Lodon relishes her role too. All in all, a splendid film that is beautifully made and really tugging at the heart-strings. 9/10 Bethany Cox

A fragile Kansas girl (Natalie Wood)'s love for a handsome young man (Warren Beatty) from the town's most powerful family drives her to heartbreak and madness.

Natalie Wood was a great actress, especially in her younger days (she seemed to excel at being a love interest). And the film debut of Warren Beatty? Nice. It is hard to believe he has been acting since 1961 and is still around today (2016), albeit in a diminished capacity.

This seems like the essential cliché story about the difference between girls that guys want to date and girls that guys want to marry. I don't know if this is still true (morality has shifted since 1961), but the cliché has not changed.

Elia Kazan's wonderful and tearful story about two young lovers fighting their own urges and everyone around them is certainly a film that is hard to watch at times. The simple reason for that is the writing is so spot-on and the direction flawless it becomes more than a movie in the traditional sense but more of a inner look into the intertwining of a relationship on the ends of its life. This can only be accomplished with two wonderful actors capable of carrying the material farther than it could be on paper alone. Natalie Wood was one of the finest young actresses of her generation and this showcases her talent better than perhaps any other film she did. She conveys such incredibly strong feelings of remorse, desperation and sadness as the fragile Deanie, it takes the audience into the world of this character and we can feel nothing but sympathy for her. The same is true with Bud, played here by a very young Warren Beatty.

Perhaps the one true problem I saw with this film is that the story doesn't go far enough. I understand they were already under fire from the censors for their portrayal of young people trying to repress sexual urges, but I'm sure Kazan could have come up with a way to show not just how Bud and Deanie felt about each other but to better examine the relationship with their respective parents. There are several scenes I thought and hoped would go even further in-depth to the problems being faced here, but instead it pulls back and we are left to wonder. If there is one thing that saves the movie it is the final sequence, showing what happens to the two lovers and what this means for them now. This is absolutely touching and beautiful and a great ending to an other wise uncomfortable story.

Still, to think of the film in retrospect is to take it seriously and understand that this is not just a story about two people in love at a time when everybody was telling them to not be. It is in fact, a symbol of the restraints that pull on any of us that have ever been involved seriously with somebody. It speaks to us not just as lovers but also as human beings desiring companionship and the great pains we will go through to make that happen.