I caught this movie yesterday afternoon for the first time and it really stuck with me. The performances from all four leads are exceptional, and given that the plot IMO is secondary to the melodrama and our characters inhabiting the screen, that leaves a lot of heavy lifting to be done. I know the studio didn't want Melvyn Douglas, but I am so happy Ritt fought for him. His subtle performance of reaction to Hud creates a perfect tension without being completely excessive. Even the confrontation between the two of them at the end of the second act has all of the components of being overstated, but is somehow restrained mostly from Newman's nuanced performance here. He doesn't go into an explosive rage though you can see the anger and sorrow (reckoning) in his eyes and face. Patricia Neal IMO opinion is the real MVP here though. She gives such a three dimensional performance and always surprises when her character could easily fall into a routine archetype. For example, her interplay with Newman at the bus station where she admits to him that she found him attractive after the "incident"* is harrowing and unexpected. But, she is so lovely and "human" throughout much of the film that she still manages to have a voice despite her submissive demeanor. She's tough, tender, and fair. Absolutely someone I assume anyone would want to spend some time with. Newman's performance is much more complicated here upon a deeper analysis, and I think the stairwell scene with his father summarizes up this complexity. The only scene that I really don't know how I feel about is the
Spoiler
attempted rape*
Spoiler
attempted rape
This isn't a movie about a man who wins but loses everything. It's a movie about a man who doesn't lose, but loses everything. What I mean by that is his connections to humanity: Homer, Alma, and Lonnie. Sure, he keeps the farm, will keep drinking, will still be the cock-of-the-walk in town, will probably sleep with more women in town (even ones he shouldn't), get into fights, go to rodeos but he will then have to face empty loneliness for the remainder of his life...and that's the tragedy here.
Throughout the film, I kept thinking of The Last Picture Show and I sure got quite a giggle when I found out that both books that are the source material were by the same author. These two films would make a good double feature.
Finally, the last component that really needs to be acknowledged here is James Wong Howe's cinematography (and he won the Oscar for this film). It might not be as strong as something like his Sweet Smell of Success, but what is really incredible here is how he was still able to get so many layers of light contrasted onto the negative despite being in Texas where there are no trees in the middle of direct sunlight. It's quite an achievement.
I searched the board and there is almost no discussion about this movie (another shocker). I even went into the old Academy Awards threads. Searched for "Hud"; nothing. Searched for "1964"; nothing. It was then to my surprise that this film was nominated for many of the heavyweights (and indeed Neal rightfully took home her statuette), but not Best Picture. I don't think that has happened many times where a film gets so many nominations and wins, including Director, but doesn't secure a Best Pic nom. Any insight on this point? I hope this sparks some discussion of a film that doesn't seem to have had any here.
I suppose other points of discussion are how does this film fit into the early 60s, and how does this film fit into "new" modern westerns?
I still haven't seen the movie Giant with James Dean, but outside of certain settings and tropes, are these comparable? Are they both terrible? Are they both complex classics? I was going to move onto that next. I know some of you around here had Giant and find it bloated.
