Sergio Leone Web Board

Films of Sergio Leone => Other Films => Topic started by: tucumcari bound on June 17, 2008, 02:05:08 AM



Title: Hud (1963)
Post by: tucumcari bound on June 17, 2008, 02:05:08 AM
What's your opinion of this Paul Newman western?


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: mike siegel on June 17, 2008, 04:03:27 AM
One of my favorites. Excellent year with RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY, LIBERTY VALANCE, LONELY ARE THE BRAVE (RIDE being the only one shot in color!).
For me the LAST HURRAH of US westerns. Then the Italians took over (and when they lost it, America was back with WILD BUNCH, TRUE GRIT, LITTLE BIG MAN...)

Martin Ritt & Newman made 5 films together, this was the third as I recall. THE LONG HOT SUMMER is another one of my favorites.
HUD always seemed to me as a forerunner to THE LAST PICTURE SHOW. Excellent acting & story telling. Done with taste and ambition. The anti-hero really got established in the 70's, HUD was quite early on the surface then. A brillant film.


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: tucumcari bound on June 17, 2008, 01:48:02 PM
One of my favorites. Excellent year with RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY, LIBERTY VALANCE, LONELY ARE THE BRAVE (RIDE being the only one shot in color!).
For me the LAST HURRAH of US westerns. Then the Italians took over (and when they lost it, America was back with WILD BUNCH, TRUE GRIT, LITTLE BIG MAN...)

Martin Ritt & Newman made 5 films together, this was the third as I recall. THE LONG HOT SUMMER is another one of my favorites.
HUD always seemed to me as a forerunner to THE LAST PICTURE SHOW. Excellent acting & story telling. Done with taste and ambition. The anti-hero really got established in the 70's, HUD was quite early on the surface then. A brillant film.


I can't wait to see it. This is one of those westers that I haven't gotten around to viewing, unfortunately.


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: dave jenkins on June 19, 2008, 12:12:54 AM
Fantastic film. It's not a Western, though.


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: PowerRR on August 10, 2008, 01:44:17 PM
Absolute motherfucking masterpiece. Maybe even Newman's greatest film. A modern day western.

(http://www.extrememortman.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/Paul%20Newman%20is%20HUD.jpg)


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 10, 2008, 02:24:34 PM
If it's a Western, why isn't this thread over in "Other Films." Oh, that's right, it already is: http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=7448.0


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: tucumcari bound on August 10, 2008, 02:49:54 PM
Fantastic film. It's not a Western, though.

Well, it is a modern-day western and belongs over here in Other Films.  O0


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 10, 2008, 03:02:53 PM
There is no such thing as a "modern day Western." A Western, by definition, is set in the 19th Century (or anyway, before the First World War).


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: Atlas2112 on August 10, 2008, 03:08:52 PM
ZING!


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: tucumcari bound on August 10, 2008, 03:23:41 PM
There is no such thing as a "modern day Western." A Western, by definition, is set in the 19th Century (or anyway, before the First World War).

I dunno about that. There's no exact definition of a western. Films like "The Three Burials of Melquides Estrada" in my opinion have strong western influences. It's just set in modern-day. To me, you wouldn't just call that film a drama.


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: Atlas2112 on August 10, 2008, 06:43:33 PM
I dunno about that. There's no exact definition of a western. Films like "The Three Burials of Melquides Estrada" in my opinion have strong western influences. It's just set in modern-day. To me, you wouldn't just call that film a drama.
why not? that like me calling an asian movie a kung fu movie. Hard Boiled has what i would percieve as martial arts influence but at the end of the day its still a cop movie.


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 10, 2008, 07:14:45 PM
What does the word "Western" connote? Something that happens in "the West", a semi-fictional land that ceased to exist in U.S. history in Feb. 1912 when Arizona became the 48th--and last (continental)--state. If you have stories or films that don't occur in that setting, yet incorporate some of the conventions of the Western--conventions that occur in other genres as well--you don't have a Western, you have an adventure story.


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: tucumcari bound on August 10, 2008, 07:18:08 PM
What does the word "Western" connote? Something that happens in "the West", a semi-fictional land that ceased to exist in U.S. history in Feb. 1912 when Arizona became the 48th--and last (continental)--state. If you have stories or films that don't occur in that setting, yet incorporate some of the conventions of the Western--conventions that occur in other genres as well--you don't have a Western, you have an adventure story.

Well, a lot of writers refer to some films as "modern" day westerns. I've seen it numerous times. I'm not saying I disagree with you on everything you said but that term is commonly used.


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 10, 2008, 07:47:20 PM
Understood, but I don't accept false categories, even when commonly used.


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: PowerRR on August 10, 2008, 10:06:09 PM
If it's a Western, why isn't this thread over in "Other Films." Oh, that's right, it already is: http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=7448.0
oh shut up.


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: titoli on August 10, 2008, 10:32:59 PM
Jenkins, who did wake you up?


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 10, 2008, 11:02:56 PM
Hey, I didn't object when you wanted to parse the word "trilogy." ;)


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: titoli on August 11, 2008, 03:37:56 PM
Who's objecting? Quite the contrary, as I think that the only western element in this movie is Newman's Stetson. Only that people have been posting here movies of all kinds with only a weak relationship to western and you never said a word (as far as I can remember). So why ripvanwinkling now?


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 11, 2008, 05:05:26 PM
Usually the mods take care of re-directing erroneous posts so there is no reason to speak up. But the issue of "modern Westerns" isn't, apparently, obvious to everyone, so it might as well be dealt with now.


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: titoli on August 11, 2008, 06:47:05 PM
Still you didn't take the chance to expand on the subject when it was offered to you by CJ:
 
http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=6539.60


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 11, 2008, 07:21:30 PM
I said call NCFOM a crime film! Which is what it is. BTW, I'd call Hud a drama, which is what IT is.


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: titoli on August 11, 2008, 07:28:45 PM
I said call NCFOM a crime film!

And there you stopped.


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 11, 2008, 07:35:12 PM
It was the No Country For Old Men thread, fer cryin' out loud! It wasn't the Let's Debate Semantics thread. I seem to remember that your trilogy remarks went into a thread made especially for them.


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: titoli on August 11, 2008, 07:40:06 PM
Well, let me remind you this is the Hud thread!


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 11, 2008, 07:58:26 PM
Right, and except for responding to your hectoring ;D, I've tried to keep my remarks germane to the topic.


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: titoli on August 11, 2008, 08:15:55 PM
Right, and except for responding to your hectoring ;D, I've tried to keep my remarks germane to the topic.

And I was pointing out  at the fact that you didn't germinate so much in NCFOM.  :-[


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 02, 2008, 07:01:57 PM
It's funny that jenkins doesn't think this is a western, yet it's listed in The Rough Guide to Westerns book. Great book by the way with a lot of western film information. This is perfect for anybody's library.

http://www.amazon.com/Rough-Guide-Westerns-Reference/dp/1843536498/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220403700&sr=1-10


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: sargatanas on September 03, 2008, 08:06:22 AM
ever notice the films of newman start with the letter H.
hud
hombre
hustler
harper
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
hud bannon is a brown bag burbon drinking pink cadilac driving cowboy who specializes in sleeping with other men's wives just to lie to the husbands. a cad in a cady 8).     on an empty farm owned by his ailing father who despises hud for his womanizing ( your an unprincipaled man / how'd a man like you become a son to me ) to which hud replys  >:(" you get the same feeling below your belt everyone else gets old man " !!!  >:D




Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: dave jenkins on September 04, 2008, 03:48:48 PM
I don't think you understand the film. The father is vindicated, Hud is shown up. The key is Patricia Neal's final take on the guy at the end. The film is interesting because you think it's going to take Hud's side but ends up turning on him.

And it's not a Western.


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: Atlas2112 on September 04, 2008, 07:25:02 PM
It's funny that jenkins doesn't think this is a western, yet it's listed in The Rough Guide to Westerns book
Tom Jones (1966) is mentioned substantially in several chapters of a Literary Criticism book i have (as much as the book, possibly more so), as well as mentions of OUATITW.

Now i don't think i would consider either of them "Literature".


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: sargatanas on September 05, 2008, 09:16:30 AM
not a western. where do you draw the line. the story takes place in the present day west w/ present day cowboys.   the heavy is the foot and mouth disease hud's father finds. of course hud warns his father not to let this get out, but the father takes a dim view of hud " you're a unprincipled man hud " then tells the government vet the awful truth that he will have to shoot all his herd.  the way the old man's cow's are done away with is much like the jews in Nazi death camps. that is they're taken into a mas grave and shot until the last cow is standing. very gut wrenching scene. the old man suffers a heart attach from seeing his herd  gone but there's oil under the bannon property hud wants to get his greasy little mit's on. hud's question to his father is where he finally

hud shows up at the bus station to apologize to Patricia Neal. " i don't usually get that rough w/ my women, of course i don't usually have to. i guess you're the one who got away".

i agree. this definitely is not a western. 


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: dave jenkins on September 05, 2008, 02:02:42 PM
hud shows up at the bus station to apologize to Patricia Neal. " i don't usually get that rough w/ my women, of course i don't usually have to. i guess you're the one who got away".
It's entirely self-serving, in no way a true apology. Look at the expression on Neal's face as he says it. She's the conscience of the film, and she calls Hud on his lack of character. Hud is a dud.


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: sargatanas on September 05, 2008, 08:07:46 PM
It's entirely self-serving, in no way a true apology. Look at the expression on Neal's face as he says it. She's the conscience of the film, and she calls Hud on his lack of character. Hud is a dud.
it was hud who was drunk at the wheel in the car crash that killed his father's brother.  hud's nephew lon admires hud's cheating ways. he soon becomes aware of hud's recklessness.

You don't care about people Hud. You don't give a damn about 'em. Oh, you got all that charm goin' for ya. And it makes the youngsters want to be like ya. That's the shame of it because you don't value anything. You don't respect nothing. You keep no check on your appetites at all. You live just for yourself. And that makes you not fit to live with.
 


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: PowerRR on September 07, 2008, 01:49:29 PM
Hud is a dud.
I'm all for opinions and everything, but that is literally a false statement.


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: dave jenkins on September 07, 2008, 02:29:03 PM
I was of course speaking of the character. The movie is great, a personal fave.


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: PowerRR on September 07, 2008, 05:05:25 PM
I was of course speaking of the character. The movie is great, a personal fave.
Oh, lol,  TB was telling me how you hated the movie.


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 07, 2008, 05:31:56 PM
Oh, lol,  TB was telling me how you hated the movie.

haha, I thought he did hate the movie.


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: tucumcari bound on October 14, 2008, 03:43:25 PM

I just watched this, finally for the first time. This is one of the essential Paul Newman performances not to be missed.


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: Dust Devil on May 12, 2009, 12:02:41 PM
While I believe there are movies that fit under the umbrella term ''Modern-day Western'', I don't think Hud qualifies. Sure, there are obvious connections to the Western genre, but the movie is really a drama. The ''Western cowboyish feel'' is there I think just to deepen the characters and their emotions.

Hud is nevertheless such a wonderful and sincere movie with great performances from all the main actors. Melvyn Douglas being the best, of course.


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: Dust Devil on May 12, 2009, 12:08:12 PM
Quite the contrary, as I think that the only western element in this movie is Newman's Stetson.

Don't forget he was shooting vultures with his rifle ;) :D


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: dave jenkins on May 12, 2009, 01:24:25 PM
While I believe there are movies that fit under the umbrella term ''Modern-day Western'', I don't think Hud qualifies. Sure, there are obvious connections to the Western genre, but the movie is really a drama. The ''Western cowboyish feel'' is there I think just to deepen the characters and their emotions.
You've made an excellent case for moving this thread out of the section. Cal!


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: titoli on June 01, 2012, 01:18:54 PM
I've watched again this after so many decades, first time undubbed and on a big screen. Excellent drama, as said here repeatedly. I think Neal fully  earned her Oscar. Newman doesn't convince me: too small for the part and his face never conveys the meanness of the character. And I'm not so enthusiastica about Douglas either: he doesn't exhibit a southern drawl (does he?) and adds nothing to the part, nothing memorable. I would have given the Oscar (hear, hear) to DeWilde instead. Anyway a very good movie. 8\10 (This movie was usually shown, in the early '70s on tv in the morning with The Flim-Flam Man: I have always associated the two movies though they have nothing to do with each other).


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 19, 2013, 11:16:36 PM
Just saw the movie for the first time (on dvd); I give it an 8/10. (Does anyone else think the image was a bit vertically stretched, the faces may be too tall and skinny?)

For me, the movie succeeds most in its simplest scenes, and fails when it tries to reach too deep for the Freudian stuff. Maybe I didn't get it all. I probably didn't; it was definitely a transitional time in American history and movies. But IMO it reached for something that wasn't there or which it couldn't attain with all the deep stuff, but when it came to the stuff that could simply be enjoyed in the surface, it was beautiful. That scene with Newman and Neal, with the dialogue talking about scratching her itch, that was such a brilliant scene, comparable to the scene with Lee Marvin and Randolph Scott in  the wagon in Seven Men from Now. All the scenes with Neal and Newman, and Neal and de Wilde, and Melvyn Douglas was great, the simple joy of the sing-along to My Darling Clementine in the theater... For me, the movie maybe was trying too hard to reach somewhere deep that it may not have succeeded in, but there is much to enjoy.

Here is a  nice review by Michael Mirasol http://www.rogerebert.com/far-flung-correspondents/a-man-with-inklings-of-a-soul

Mirasol says Newman was surprised that so many viewers sympathized with Hud rather than thinking of him as a villain. Well, I agree with Newman; whatever sympathy I had for Hud was long gone by the end of the movie; I totally consider him a villain here. I don't care what sort of daddy issues he has, there's no excuse for a 34-year old man to be doing what he is.

btw, has anyone scene a 1962 movie called All Fall Down? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055738/?ref_=sr_1   It's also with Brandon de Wilde, and  certain aspects of the story are similar to Hud

p.s. as for whether or not it's a Western; for me, I don't count "contemporary Westerns," it's basically Civil War till Mexican Revolution and that's that. I suppose that if you wanted to count contemporary Westerns, you could count a movie like Lonely are the Brave, which is specifically about a modern-day Western character, but a movie like Hud really could have taken place anywhere; substitute any small town, substitute a man who lost a business other than animals (maybe his factory was forced to close or whatever); if you're gonna call Hud a Western, you can pretty much call any movie that takes place in Texas a Western, regardless of time period...


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: stanton on May 20, 2013, 03:01:25 AM
Films like Lonely Are the Brave, Junior Bonner or Hud are post-westerns. They tell what happens to modern cowboys.

I don't think that Hud is a villain. He is an ambivalent guy. And that makes him fascinating, especially when portrayed by a likeable and charismatic actor like Newman.


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 20, 2013, 05:01:26 AM
Films like Lonely Are the Brave, Junior Bonner or Hud are post-westerns. They tell what happens to modern cowboys.

I don't think that Hud is a villain. He is an ambivalent guy. And that makes him fascinating, especially when portrayed by a likeable and charismatic actor like Newman.

well, it's a general fact that viewers tend to root for the main character of a movie, period, even when he is not a good guy, and especially if he is a famous actor like Newman.

And you can excuse something here or there that he has done, but by the end of it, you realize he is just an unlikeable bastard.

Let's see: Hud's drunk driving killed his brother (normally, I'd consider that no different than I'd consider any murderer, but his brother presumably knew Hud was drunk and therefore accepted the risks; so maybe it ain't like a typical murder, but it's pretty damn bad). He drinks all day long and unashamedly goes after married women (something many movie heroes do; in and of itself, it wouldn't make you hate him all that much); he is generally a rude, nasty son of a bitch; he is about to rape a woman if she wasn't saved by his nephew; he is a mean bastard to his nephew who never did anything wrong to him, in fact he idolizes him; he is a dishonest person who wants to sell diseased cattle, thereby cheating the buyer and risking starting a cattle epidemic; and he conspires to steal his father's farm from him.

Now, what does Hud have that makes him sympathetic -- I mean the character, not considering that it's played by the famous sexy lovable Paul Newman -- well, he's misunderstood and has daddy issues. His father has never been nice to him.  :'( :'( :'( Well I'm sorry, that's truly an awful thing to have to go through, but you know what, at 34 years old, that's no excuse to be such a bastard to everyone else. At most, that excuses his actions toward his father, but that's all. His attempted rape of a woman is not in any way mitigated by any of his daddy issues.

So yeah, in my book Hud is a bad person, a character worthy only of the audience's contempt. Certainly not all along -- it takes a lot to hate a Paul Newman character, and a while to realize the full extent of his evilness, but yeah, by the end of the movie, Hud is, in my book, an unmitigated, unsympathetic villain. Even if he is played by Paul Newman and fun to watch.


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: stanton on May 20, 2013, 05:30:49 AM
well, it's a general fact that viewers tend to root for the main character of a movie, period, even when he is not a good guy, and especially if he is a famous actor like Newman.

That's not a fact, that's an assumption. I often cheer for the bad guy. I hoped that Sentenza wins the triello in GBU and I favoured Fonda in OuTW. I think that the audience very often finds the baddie more fascinating than the hero. and more attractive. It depends on the individual film.
Quote
And you can excuse something here or there that he has done, but by the end of it, you realize he is just an unlikeable bastard.
Not for me.
Quote
Let's see: Hud's drunk driving killed his brother (normally, I'd consider that no different than I'd consider any murderer, but his brother presumably knew Hud was drunk and therefore accepted the risks; so maybe it ain't like a typical murder, but it's pretty damn bad). He drinks all day long and unashamedly goes after married women (something many movie heroes do; in and of itself, it wouldn't make you hate him all that much); he is generally a rude, nasty son of a bitch; he is about to rape a woman if she wasn't saved by his nephew; he is a mean bastard to his nephew who never did anything wrong to him, in fact he idolizes him; he is a dishonest person who wants to sell diseased cattle, thereby cheating the buyer and risking starting a cattle epidemic; and he conspires to steal his father's farm from him.

Now, what does Hud have that makes him sympathetic -- I mean the character, not considering that it's played by the famous sexy lovable Paul Newman -- well, he's misunderstood and has daddy issues. His father has never been nice to him.  :'( :'( :'( Well I'm sorry, that's truly an awful thing to have to go through, but you know what, at 34 years old, that's no excuse to be such a bastard to everyone else. At most, that excuses his actions toward his father, but that's all. His attempted rape of a woman is not in any way mitigated by any of his daddy issues.

So yeah, in my book Hud is a bad person, a character worthy only of the audience's contempt. Certainly not all along -- it takes a lot to hate a Paul Newman character, and a while to realize the full extent of his evilness, but yeah, by the end of the movie, Hud is, in my book, an unmitigated, unsympathetic villain. Even if he is played by Paul Newman and fun to watch.

Well, I haven't seen the complete film for ages, only the last 30 min last year, but you probably haven't understood the film. You still have sometimes (formerly very often) a very strange one dimensional look at films, but meanwhile you often also surprise me positively. So, there is hope for you. ;)


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 20, 2013, 06:05:46 AM
That's not a fact, that's an assumption. I often cheer for the bad guy. I hoped that Sentenza wins the triello in GBU and I favoured Fonda in OuTW. I think that the audience very often finds the baddie more fascinating than the hero. and more attractive. It depends on the individual film.Not for me.


You may have misunderstood me:

When it's bad guy vs. good guy, you may find the bad guy more interesting and root for him. I agree with that. But that's not what I am talking about.

I am talking about a case where the main character is a bad bastard and it's not really him against anyone else -- it's just a question of do you like him or not. That's what I am talking about. When a film has one clear main character, audiences will often root for him even if he is a bastard. Like with Hud -- it's not really him vs. anyone else; it's just a question of do you like/sympathize Hud or not? And the bottom line is that we generally sympathize with the main character of a movie, even when he is a jerk.
I agree with Roger Ebert's opening sentence of his Arbitrage review http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/arbitrage-2012
"We tend to identify with the leading character of a film, even if he is a heartless bastard." Really, is there anyone who saw Arbitrage and wasn't rooting for Richard Gere to get away with his crimes. Even though there isn't anyone who could actually justify everything he has done.


-----

BY THE WAY, as an aside: No one who isn't a very evil human being could root for Frank to beat Harmonica in that duel. Frank is one of the cruelest villains of any Western, massacring an entire family without batting an eye: there are a lot of terrible actions we excuse from a movie character, but murdering children in cold blood is not one of them; and (while we don't know what Harmonica's brother did to Frank), the way Frank  forces Harmonica to participate in his own brother's death is Nazi-like.
Nobody loves Henry Fonda more than I do, and nobody loves watching Frank more than I do, but only a very evil human being could root for Frank to beat Harmonica in that duel


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: stanton on May 20, 2013, 08:31:14 AM
He he, actually I'm not that evil, not yet. But still hoped that Fond wins. In real life I would vote for Bronson, but in a film I chose those who are more interesting, and Fonda has the better role, and is the more fascinating actor.
How can one be interested in such an empty character like Harmonica?

And for Hud, he is much too complex and ambivalent to simply despise him as a bad bastard. And Hud is not the type of film which divides its characters in simple good and bad. In real life I wouldn't have him as my neighbor, but in a film I like him.

I also felt pity at the end of Schindler's list for the Ralph Fiennes character, and that was one who really deserved death.


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: dave jenkins on May 20, 2013, 09:28:26 AM
For me, the movie succeeds most in its simplest scenes, and fails when it tries to reach too deep for the Freudian stuff. Maybe I didn't get it all. I probably didn't; it was definitely a transitional time in American history and movies. But IMO it reached for something that wasn't there or which it couldn't attain with all the deep stuff, but when it came to the stuff that could simply be enjoyed in the surface, it was beautiful. That scene with Newman and Neal, with the dialogue talking about scratching her itch, that was such a brilliant scene, comparable to the scene with Lee Marvin and Randolph Scott in  the wagon in Seven Men from Now. All the scenes with Neal and Newman, and Neal and de Wilde, and Melvyn Douglas was great, the simple joy of the sing-along to My Darling Clementine in the theater... For me, the movie maybe was trying too hard to reach somewhere deep that it may not have succeeded in, but there is much to enjoy.
I don't get why you think the movie was reaching for something more profound then what is clearly stated. Hud is a bastard. It takes a while for the audience to figure that out--audiences usually start out by extending sympathy to lead characters--but it becomes clear by the end of the picture. Once you realize that, though, the film is plain and easily understood. The Melvin Douglas character is the noble old guard passing away to make room for the Huds of this world--the pattern is archetypal. Golden Ages give way to silver, even bronze ones. But even as the Huds appear, there is also the Brandon De Wildes appearing who won't settle for that and will strive to repair the world. So more Golden Ages are possible. The cycle continues.

There's nothing Freudian going on in the picture as far as I can tell. As the Great Fraudster might have said, Sometimes sex is just sex.


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: dave jenkins on May 20, 2013, 09:46:14 AM

And for Hud, he is much too complex and ambivalent to simply despise him as a bad bastard. And Hud is not the type of film which divides its characters in simple good and bad. In real life I wouldn't have him as my neighbor, but in a film I like him.
Your personal feelings in the matter are less important than the feelings of the film's characters toward Hud. It's the responses of those characters that tell us how to read the film. When his father tells him off we know that someone who knows him well has damned him. Later, when Patricia Neal leaves town, the look in her eyes during her final exchange with Hud tell us that she likewise condemns him. Finally, the Brandon de Wilde kid who began the movie hero-worshipping Hud can't stand to be in the same state with him by the end. These mark the three most significant relationships Hud has in the film. There is no counter-weight to balance matters: Hud is a drag on all who know him. He may amuse you, but then, you don't have to put up with him.


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 20, 2013, 12:08:30 PM
He he, actually I'm not that evil, not yet. But still hoped that Fond wins. In real life I would vote for Bronson, but in a film I chose those who are more interesting, and Fonda has the better role, and is the more fascinating actor.
How can one be interested in such an empty character like Harmonica?

And for Hud, he is much too complex and ambivalent to simply despise him as a bad bastard. And Hud is not the type of film which divides its characters in simple good and bad. In real life I wouldn't have him as my neighbor, but in a film I like him.

I also felt pity at the end of Schindler's list for the Ralph Fiennes character, and that was one who really deserved death.

Harmonica is an empty character? Dude, like, seriously. Maybe for you, any character who is anything less than an evil bastard is boring.

You felt pity for the fucking Nazi? (Yeah, I guess the Jews were probably boring empty characters). Why does that not surprise me? What surprises me is why I even bother responding to you.


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: stanton on May 20, 2013, 12:30:08 PM
Your personal feelings in the matter are less important than the feelings of the film's characters toward Hud. It's the responses of those characters that tell us how to read the film. When his father tells him off we know that someone who knows him well has damned him. Later, when Patricia Neal leaves town, the look in her eyes during her final exchange with Hud tell us that she likewise condemns him. Finally, the Brandon de Wilde kid who began the movie hero-worshipping Hud can't stand to be in the same state with him by the end. These mark the three most significant relationships Hud has in the film. There is no counter-weight to balance matters: Hud is a drag on all who know him. He may amuse you, but then, you don't have to put up with him.

Yes, it's a film, not my real life. Big difference.

And for that my feelings are very important. At least more than those of the film's characters.


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: stanton on May 20, 2013, 12:51:33 PM
Harmonica is an empty character? Dude, like, seriously. Maybe for you, any character who is anything less than an evil bastard is boring.

You felt pity for the fucking Nazi? (Yeah, I guess the Jews were probably boring empty characters). Why does that not surprise me? What surprises me is why I even bother responding to you.

Maybe because you don't really read what I write. And maybe because you don't understand that films generally can generate very different emotions and conclusions for the same films or scenes. What you feel about a film must not be the same others feel about the same film. Things are not that easy.

And your conclusions (which are hilarious) have nothing to do with my reply.

No, the Jews were not boring empty characters (and that can't be the conclusion because Harmonica is one), and Harmonica isn't boring, too. But he has no inner life. He seems only to consist of his surface. He isn't a fleshed out character, so he is less interesting for me than the other 4 main protagonists. But still his character works very fine in the film's narrative structure, and in the way he is set against the other characters. That's one reason why OUTW is a masterpiece.

No, not anything less than an evil bastard is boring. In fact many film baddies are also empty boring characters. Depends on the films.

What I said about the ending of Schindler's list (when Fiennes gets hanged) does not mean what you make out of it. It was an example that reactions to films can be more tricky than you think.


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: dave jenkins on May 20, 2013, 01:17:10 PM
Yes, it's a film, not my real life. Big difference.

And for that my feelings are very important. At least more than those of the film's characters.
To you. Not to anyone else on the board. The basis of a discussion here has to be grounded in what happens in the film.


Title: Re: Hud (1963)
Post by: stanton on May 21, 2013, 02:23:29 AM
To you. Not to anyone else on the board. The basis of a discussion here has to be grounded in what happens in the film.

Of course, but also to what I think what happens in a film, and that must not be the same for every viewer. That may differ due to different cultural codes. Profound interpretations of films are sometimes diametrically opposed.