The Grass Is Greener

1960 US
Dir: Stanley Donen
Str: Cary Grant, Deborah Kerr, Robert Mitchum, Jean Simmons

Sometimes, I, as a Japanese, wonder how British people and
American people feel each other.
As I am a Japanese, I sometimes wonder how British people and American people feel each other. Please don't say that is none of my business. After all, I am a very nosy fellow. Obviously, they are speaking the same language; that is, of course, English, which I've been trying to master with years after years of practices, but still can't grasp entirely. According to many eminent linguists such as F. Saussure or B. L. Warf, a considerable amount of people's way of thinking is molded by their own mother languages. But, both are speaking the same one. So, I'm very curious about this subject. The Grass Is Greener is one of those by which, I assume, we can get several ideas about this subject, even if the ideas shown might be just stereotyped ones. "Stereotyped" doesn't necessarily mean they are worthless, for the mechanism of producing stereotyped views might be also molded by a particular culture and language, though, in this movie's case, language is irrelevant due to the fact they are speaking the same one.
Cary Grant, as an Englishman, and Robert Mitchum, as an American
vie for Deborah Kerr's attention. Do you want to join them? Please
don't if you don't want to put your life into jeorpady. Because,
astonishingly they duel with pistols.
In this movie, Cary Grant and Deborah Kerr (As you might know well, they are actually British actors) play a British married couple who owns a vast mansion in England, where occasionary tourists walk around all over it. They seem to be living a life of a kind of aristocrat's pedigree. But, as the aristocracy has long been gone, their status might not be so good as it seems to be, even though they can afford to hire a classy butler. As a proof of this, Kerr is growing mashrooms. One day, among those tourists, especially inquisitive one enters into a private domain by pushing aside the sign hung on the entrance of the room notifying the room is private. He is an American, and a millionaire (played by Robert Mitchum, of course, actually he is an American). As you might expect rather easily, they are attracted to each other. So, they begin to exchange harmless conversations usually preceding serious involvement. But, of course, as her husband is also living in the same mansion, there is no wonder he comes into the room while Kerr and Mitchum are making an intimate conversation, and instantly knows what's going on there. Although Mitchum leaves the mansion soon after that, Mitchum and Kerr meet again in London. After this meeting, usual traiangular relationship ensues. But, in this movie's case, it's not traiangular, but square. Because there is another girl (played by Jean Simmons) who is a friend of Kerr's, and, at the same time, seems to have long been falling for Grant who, in turn, seems to hold not so much enthusiasm for Simmons (Oh! poor Simmons). Anyway, after having made several obligatory banterings and deceivings, Grant and Mitchum decide to make a duel using pistols to decide which one should get Kerr, and actually practice it. However, as you might easily guess, both have no intention of killing the other (After all, this movie is a comedy. If one of them were actually killed, it wouldn't be a comedy at all.), so, knowing Mitchum has no intention of actually shooting at him, Grant decides to produce a trick and get on his arm the bullet which has been shot by his butler who was ordered in advance by Grant to do so. Finally, Grant succeeds in getting back his wife, the reason of which, Mitchum guesses, would be because his wounded state has succeeded in eliciting her compassion. Mitchum, therefore, leaves the mansion with Simmons, which, I dare say, is rather a predictable result. Even I consider the presence of Simmons might be mainly for this last scene, for, Mitchum might have been a complete loser had it not been for her presence, which wouldn't have been so much a confortable scene to watch for this kind of comedies.
Cary Grant's tendency of leaving everything obscure seems to be
making the situation even worse for him.
Of course, I know it would be an exaggeration if I said the movie's intention was to explicate differences between an American culture and a British one. Even so, at least, it seems to be one element of comedic ingredients of the movie. However, as I am a Japanese, sometimes it is rather difficult to grasp subtle nuances arising from the differences between them. For example, in a scene, when Jean Simmons tries to remember what Cary Grant said in the previous night, she says "He said, it is high time England had a Statue of Liberty of her own". Soon she notices something, and rephrase it as "Or, he said, Libertine?". Then, Deborah Kerr respond to it without any delay by saying "dreary, pompous Englishmen". It's very difficult for me to understand such a subtle level of a difference, even though, for those who are living either in the United States or in England, it might not be subtle at all. Probably, there must be other examples of this kind of allusions concerning the differences between these two countries which I can't even notice. Anyway, I presume it wouldn't be so wrong if I said usually Englishmen are regarded as rather pompous people by Americans as described above. In another scene, Kerr says that, when a man tells a married woman she is lovely, Frenchmen never hesitate to say it, and Americans hesitate before they say it, but Englishmen tell the husband of that woman first, because they know the husband will surely tell his wife. What is funny in this statement is the premise that Englishmen take it for granted husbands would obligatorily tell their wives about every last bit of information even if it, considering a given situation, needn't be mentioned at all. In this movie, the depiction of pompousness of Englishmen culminates in the aforementioned scene where Cary Grant offers a proposition to Robert Mitchum they ought to duel using pistols in order to determine which one should get Kerr. As Mitcum is saying in that scene, dueling is not only unconventional, but also unheard of in 20th century. Nevertheless, they practice it. This scene is funny because they actually practice it in spite of the fact they both know it's absurd, but Grant thinks there is no other way out of the situation, though, as I said before, he has a plan to deceive Mitchum. In other words, Grant's pompousness and inflexibility never allow him to just say "No!" to Mitchum. If he said so, it could solve the problem, I presume. After all, he is the one married to her. Saying in one word, his tendency of leaving everything obscure, which is proved in the scene with Simmons where when Simmons tells him he should talk the whole thing over with his wife, he answers to it by saying the spoken word is like a lost opportunity, and it will ruin everything, is making the situation even worse for him. Notwithstanding this, as The Grass Is Greener is a comedy, finally he gets her back by the willpower of hers, not his. So, I boldly guess he couldn't have got her back had the movie not been a comedy.
The primary aim of this movie isn't to make a character study for
each indivisual character concerned, but to create comedic scenes
out of stereotyped views toward those two cultures.
Compared to Cary Grant, Robert Mitchum is depicted as a straightforward American guy, even though American guys should hesitate one moment to say something flattering to women. After all, he is such kind of person whose curiosity drives him to trespass other person's private domain by pretending an innocent. Moreover, he is hanging a camera around his neck (Oh! Isn't this Westerner's stereotyped image for Japanese tourists?). It should be noticed a camera is a very obtrusive equipment, a kind of intruder. Because, it always catch something, something belonging to other persons. As a matter of fact, he shoots Kerr with his camera. Thus, it wouldn't be an exaggeration if I said the camera around his neck would certainly symbolize his aggresiveness and straightfowardness. As he says in a scene, he obviously believes cameras never lie. Even he asks her to marry him extremely straightfowardedly, which is quite an opposite attitude to Grant's. So, the question is whether Mitchum will be able to succeed in acquiring her with his aggresiveness and straightforwardness. The answer is, according to the movie, he won't. But, I should say this answer shouldn't be stressed so loudly, for the movie is a comedy, and, therefore, the primary aim of it isn't to make a character study for each indivisual character concerned, but to create comedic scenes out of stereotyped views toward those two cultures. Though I'm not sure this movie is consiously making fun of stereotyped notions usually associated with the issue of cultural differences between an American culture and a British one, nevertheless it's fun to watch those eminent players playing characters strongly motivated by such stereotyped schemes. Besides, as I said in the first paragraph, the mechanism of producing stereotyped views might be also molded by a particular culture. Moreover, I, as a Japanese, can know, at least, what they are thinking about each other in the stereotyped way. It's not just an accident Mitchum and Kerr refers to each other as perfectly typecasting, for The Grass Is Greener is about typecatings which have been created by their own cultures.
It might have been very difficult to make such a comedy movie
most of whose scenes takes place in a very limited space.
Another thing I want to say relating to this movie is, it might have been very difficult to make such a comedy movie most of whose scenes takes place in a very limited space (most of scenes of The Grass Is Greener takes place in a mansion) . I guess such a comedy movie would be far more difficult to make than such kind of intense drama movies most of whose scenes takes place in a limited space, such as 12 angry men or Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. Because, without the presence of either intensity; in other words suspense elements or altaration of situations, it would be difficult to keep the audience sit tight for long time. This same thing could be applied to many of the movies based upon Neil Simon's plays. This kind of movies must get their own strength mainly from carefully constructed conversations, for there aren't so many other sources they can draw on. You may consider the fact three of the movies based upon Neil Simon's plays are constructed rather like omnibus movies, though they aren't exactly omnibus movies; that is, Plaza Suite, Last of the Red Hot Lovers, and California Suite. This fact might be suggesting it's difficult to make a 2-hours movie out of these materials, though I'm not sure original plays are, likewise, structured like omnibus movies. I assume The Odd Couple is rather successful one, and also Barefoot in the Park. I also like these two movies, even if we should take into account overdosing use of so-called one liners. Likewise, I'm thinking The Grass Is Greener is a good example (but not the best one either) of this kind of movies even though there are many awkard dialogs such as the story of Beauler and Angela told by Deborah Kerr, and many reviewers regard this one as another Stanley Donen's insipid comedy movie. I've never been bored of this movie, though so far I've watched it more than 10 times. As I mentioned in another review (Same Time, Next Year), I must admit the reason why I like this kind of conversation oriented movies might be more or less affected by the fact I am a Japanese, for I might feel fresh for what wouldn't be fresh at all from the eyes of native English speakers. But, anyway, besides all of what I've mentioned, I consider still the movie is worth watching. Because, it's certainly fun to watch those four eminent actors and actresses acting together joyfully.

Go Back to Movie Reviews Main Page