It's more common now, but 1963's Hud kind of broke the rules with its irredeemable lead character, Hud Bannon. For the most part, fiction is transformative. We're looking at characters' lives during a crisis moment where they will "arc", learn something, suffer a change, etc. Hud's world changes (by emptying, mostly), but he doesn't, not a jot. He's a jerk at the start, and he stays a jerk. We know him better, so maybe he's even worse. Hud has a lot in common with Martin Ritt and Paul Newman's later production of Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, but that one has a transformation in store for the lead. The crisis in this case is the potential loss of a ranch's cattle to disease and how it could destroy the fortunes of three men, all that is left of a ranching family. The youngest (Brandon De Wilde) is caught between his grandfather (Melvyn Douglas), a proud and ethical rancher, and his uncle Hud (Newman), who is ready to break all the rules to ensure his inheritance. There's a line that resonates strongly: "Little by little the look of the country changes because of the men we admire." That's De Wilde's dilemma, and one gets the feeling it is also America's as a whole. It's interesting that by 1963 standards, the movie seems to exalt conservative values and condemn Hud as a liberal libertine, but today, Hud's greed and corruption would be better recognized as one of the worst strands of modern conservatism. Whatever it's saying, the best reason to watch Hud is Patricia Neal's turn as the family's earthy housekeeper, a wonderful performance that has you sit up every time she's on screen. She's captivating in whatever role she must play with each of the Bannons.
Very high quality family drama set on a ranch near small town Texas - the screenplay, cinematography, direction and performances from the four central characters are all first rate. The only negative is the sheer bleakness of the story - it doesn't end well for anybody, and there's no lightness to relieve the gloom apart from the pleasure of watching a story well told.
Great stuff. The terrific script and Newman's charisma make a much more complex central character than in most Hollywood films, even "prestige" flicks--the movie does a great job of seesawing you between liking Hud and despising him.
Like someone already mentioned it: there is a lot of fast-forwarding for the sensitive type (like me). But the story is really amazing, everyone's very good - I think Patricia Neal is the best.
Add your comment
Comments 1 - 13 of 13
Siskoid
It's more common now, but 1963's Hud kind of broke the rules with its irredeemable lead character, Hud Bannon. For the most part, fiction is transformative. We're looking at characters' lives during a crisis moment where they will "arc", learn something, suffer a change, etc. Hud's world changes (by emptying, mostly), but he doesn't, not a jot. He's a jerk at the start, and he stays a jerk. We know him better, so maybe he's even worse. Hud has a lot in common with Martin Ritt and Paul Newman's later production of Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, but that one has a transformation in store for the lead. The crisis in this case is the potential loss of a ranch's cattle to disease and how it could destroy the fortunes of three men, all that is left of a ranching family. The youngest (Brandon De Wilde) is caught between his grandfather (Melvyn Douglas), a proud and ethical rancher, and his uncle Hud (Newman), who is ready to break all the rules to ensure his inheritance. There's a line that resonates strongly: "Little by little the look of the country changes because of the men we admire." That's De Wilde's dilemma, and one gets the feeling it is also America's as a whole. It's interesting that by 1963 standards, the movie seems to exalt conservative values and condemn Hud as a liberal libertine, but today, Hud's greed and corruption would be better recognized as one of the worst strands of modern conservatism. Whatever it's saying, the best reason to watch Hud is Patricia Neal's turn as the family's earthy housekeeper, a wonderful performance that has you sit up every time she's on screen. She's captivating in whatever role she must play with each of the Bannons.dombrewer
Very high quality family drama set on a ranch near small town Texas - the screenplay, cinematography, direction and performances from the four central characters are all first rate. The only negative is the sheer bleakness of the story - it doesn't end well for anybody, and there's no lightness to relieve the gloom apart from the pleasure of watching a story well told.Ebbywebby
The Last Pasture Showcorchap
Gorgeous black and white print on PanavisionDieguito
Great movie with impressive performances! Good drama in Western.Shazaaaam
Great stuff. The terrific script and Newman's charisma make a much more complex central character than in most Hollywood films, even "prestige" flicks--the movie does a great job of seesawing you between liking Hud and despising him.computer
Really terrific, I'm very glad I watched thisTimVollkommer
Stunning performances by all 3 leads!Forzelius
the dark side of the cowboy mythosCamille Deadpan
Like someone already mentioned it: there is a lot of fast-forwarding for the sensitive type (like me). But the story is really amazing, everyone's very good - I think Patricia Neal is the best.Limbesdautomne
In Texas, we have no more Indians, but we have oil. Far now on, the cattle will feed with oil and its consumerist fever will make our fortune.Read more in French on La Saveur des goûts amers.
caley
Good performances though it was a little overwrought, also as a sensitive vegetarian, there was quite a lot of stuff to fast-forward.nicolaskrizan
male failhttp://beyond1001movies.wordpress.com/2014/09/30/backtrack-hud-1963/