Absolutely great film in every way. Pat Neal's performance is amazing. I saw this recently on the big screen in a double feature with another Texas tale: THE LAST PICTURE SHOW.
"....The only thing I ever ask a woman is what time does your husband get home." HUD is the least likeable character Paul Newman ever portrayed and is the favorite character of his for me. HUD is my favorite Martin Ritt film and it's my favorite film of of all of 1963. (After I got rid of all my laserdiscs in 2007 when I left New York, 'HUD' was the only one I kept for it's....smoldering artwork on the cover. I can't praise the film enough, every single technical category is perfection.
Here's a little something I wrote a few years ago about Larry McMurtry's novel in comparison to the film -
I had assumed that most of the plot and the witty, colloquial dialogue from the film would be found within the book. Instead, I was fascinated to learn that the book bears little resemblance to the film at all. Whereas Hud is the main character of the film, he’s a mere side character in the book, which is written first person from the point of view of Lonnie Bannon - Hud’s nephew in the film, cousin by marriage in the book.
And since Lon is just a boy, much of the film’s plot - the destruction of the Bannon cattle due to foot & mouth disease, the conflict between Hud and Lon’s grandfather - is seen from a distance in the book.
Instead, the book is an intimate look at Lon’s thoughts and feelings as his world crumbles around him. Even as a novice, McMurtry’s talents were already fully developed. His prose is concise and poetic. The world he depicts is authentic and harsh, yet beautiful. And somehow he manages to imbue his plot and characters with a Shakespearean dimension while keeping everything firmly rooted in the immaculate reality of a ranch in Texas.
The other major difference between the book and the film is the character of Alma, the house maid Hud relentlessly tries to seduce, played brilliantly by Patricia Neal in the film. In the book, this character is black, and Hud’s advances are far more brutal.
So did I like the book? Yes I did, and it made me appreciate the film all the more. If I were given the task of translating Horseman, Pass By into a screenplay, I wouldn’t even know where to begin - but the filmmakers expanded and built upon McMurtry’s novel brilliantly.
"Hud doesn’t care about people, he hates them. He is a miserable creature from without and from within: from the outside, from what others, besides his father, can see, he is callous in the extreme, a drunk and a womanizer, irreverent, amoral; and from the inside, in that gut awareness of self each of us has, for however long the subconscious can rationalize or suppress it, Hud must be—has to be—filled with an incendiary self-loathing."
Agreed, Broo-tay. What I love about Hud is its "1963-ness"; It's the cusp of a new era. I don't believe there was another protagonist--at least in American films--who was so transparently odious (who wasn't a politician.)
"Allegedly?" No doubt about it. Love both Newman and Bernstein. Also, I have followed this topic.
There is very little music in the film. It fits, but nothing about the score really grabs me.
The actors are great! It is a film that I admire, but it is a downer to watch. It is hard to watch Newman being such a nasty jerk. I prefer him in Cool Hand Luke. Still, Newman was gutsy about the roles he accepted. Many leading men didn't want to be cast as villains; they only wanted to be the noble heroes. When I first saw the movie, I was sure Hud would somehow be redeemed. Nope! This was a movie that had the guts to not whitewash the story.
"Allegedly?" No doubt about it. Love both Newman and Bernstein. Also, I have followed this topic.
There is very little music in the film. It fits, but nothing about the score really grabs me.
The actors are great! It is a film that I admire, but it is a downer to watch. It is hard to watch Newman being such a nasty jerk. I prefer him in Cool Hand Luke. Still, Newman was gutsy about the roles he accepted. Many leading men didn't want to be cast as villains; they only wanted to be the noble heroes. When I first saw the movie, I was sure Hud would somehow be redeemed. Nope! This was a movie that had the guts to not whitewash the story.
Excellent observations as usual Joan! Someone like Tom Hanks , a fine actor, would never play a role like this. Brm
I saw HUD, in the summer of 1963, on a double bill with DONOVAN'S REEF. Love both of them. Those were the days!
Those are two disparate movies! What a "tonal shift" of a double feature that was! I wonder which film was the first shown on the bill. PhillySon rarely posts anymore, so do any other Boomers recall if HUD and DONOVAN'S REEF were shown at your Anytown, USA cinema? Joan? Howard L? Chris Kinsinger? Ray Faiola? Ron Pulliam?
Jim, you are asking for too much "recall" from we Boomers. I have no idea if they were shown together. I remember seeing HUD in a theater. I only remember seeing DONOVAN'S REEF on TV over and over and over. You see, even though my dad was a well-educated man, he loved DONOVAN'S REEF. I think that corny movie was his favorite movie, and he never tired of watching it or dragging his kids over to the TV to watch it. That silly movie holds a special place in my heart because it reminds me of my loving father.
