Hud (Martin Ritt, 1963)
Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2020 8:59 pm
I noticed that this film isn't wildly available on BD, and was wondering if there was any good reason. I had always heard of it (Paul Newman), and given its Oscar nomination haul, I always assumed it was a big film in the early 1960s. I'm sure there are many examples of big movies from that time that haven't made it over yet or aren't wildly available. Hud doesn't seem to get as much chatter as I would have assumed up until this week.
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. I keep going back and forth on it. I'm not 100% we needed this. Obviously the seeds were planted earlier when Newman tells her his intentions. I hate projecting modern "woke" feminist values on movies from the 1960s, but wasn't that interaction creepy enough? I'm not sure the escalation was needed, but then again, maybe this is a form of realism that makes a film about 1960s rural Texas (and a smart, beautiful, damaged woman with nowhere to go) authentic. I grew up in rural Oklahoma in the 1980s and 1990s, and I feel like I knew people much like the characters who grace this screen, including Hud. So, for me there is an (terrible?) authenticity on display here. Hud is incredibly complex because he is a "likable" monster fueled and obsessed only with self-interest and alcohol. The great American "boy" or "man"? And that's why this movie felt like an exercise of yin and yang. While Homer could be seen as a one dimensional, albeit good, character, he and Lonnie serve as the moral anchors against a human wild animal. Hud is ambiguous in a way, though the scene tips the scales a bit here, which is why I am having difficulty with this movie. One detail that really stuck out to me was when Lonnie reveals that Hud was not only a draft dodger, but I assume for the Korean War and not WW2 which isn't a huge point in history but is a nice detail to illustrate his philosophy. He certainly isn't a conscientious objector under any metric. He's selfish plain and simple.
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.
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.