MovieChat Forums > Hud (1963) Discussion > Best American Movie Ever? Maybe not, bu...

Best American Movie Ever? Maybe not, but...

posted 15 years ago by seeingdouble007
7 replies | jump to latest

Okay...I apologise, I really have nothing new to offer about the film, but just wanted to chime in and express how wonderful it is. It is a near-perfect American movie. I saw it for the first time about 8 years ago in my early thirties. About once a year I revisit it...last night was one of those visitations. The cinematography is simple and spellbinding...as poetic as Bernstein's magnificent and lavishly underplayed score. Martin Ritt's amazing and subtle direction with both story development (lovingly written for the screen by Irving Ravetch and Harriet Frank, Jr) and with his performers is seamless. Every performance is flawless...absolutely flawless. Patricia Neal has never given a less-than-wonderful performance, and here she exudes pain and experience tempered (or contradicted?) by strength and tolerance. Melvyn Douglas...jeez, could anyone else have played Homer? Absolutely wonderful and charming and truthful! Paul Newman has always been hit-and-miss for me. But he IS Hud. And he is tragic. He spins webs of sympathy, disgust, cognizance, and blur. You hate him...but you love him too much to see him nearly drown in torment, but ultimately as an audience, we can't do anything for him. And finally, there is Brandon de Wilde...forever immortalized as a boy-man (even more so than James Dean in my opinion) having died so young. de Wilde had a few 'idolization' roles of older men/brothers in films, such as SHANE (ten years earlier) and ALL FALL DOWN a year earlier than HUD. But his characters are so distinct and married to the seperate materials that it is unfair to compare them. He carried these movies along like some beautiful and delicate bird so in danger of having a wing broken. It would have been quite something if Ritt had later done a film soley on Lon as an adult. de Wilde was simply mesmerizing. Wow. All this praise, I wonder if I should change the second sentance of this post, because I can't quite put my finger on why I regard it as 'near-perfect' when clearly I find no fault in hindsight. I wish I could see this on the big screen.

[–] Monkey-D-Luffy 15 years ago

Thanks for posting those words. Cheers.

Tiocfaidh ár Lá!

[–] bluefellow 15 years ago

I agree whole-heartedly with your sentiments, seeingdouble. I first saw this film about ten years ago and it instantly became my favorite.

With tens of thousands of American films, "best" becomes an elusive concept. But I contend that Hud deserves a place in the conversation for anyone trying to determine the best American film. Citizen Kane usually ranks at the top of many lists and it is indeed a great film. Considering all that Orson Welles endured to make and distribute that film, and all the hats he wore during its production, Citizen Kane is a monumental achievement. But I can't say it's a better film than Hud.

"I don't want any Commies in my car. No Christians, either."

[–] wingsndollrdraft 15 years ago

I have to agree. In terms of having it all (a word-perfect screenplay, excellent performances, jaw-dropping cinematography, a pitch-perfect score), I can't think of a better American film, though there are numerous contenders, for sure. Hud seems to rise above them all, doesn't it? Wow. I just saw this film about two months ago. Since then I've bought it and had a movie poster framed.

Another good film in the same vein as Hud is "Baby the Rain Must Fall" if you can overlook the jarring score.

www.flickr.com/photos/neveranaysayer

[–] Foot_Freakin_Master 14 years ago

Can't add much I guess. Many great qualities. A couple for me: The score. Yes, it was understated, it contributed to the barren (literal and figurative)nature and atmosphere of the film. And that is another quality: Atmosphere! Even many, if not most great films, have many stellar qualities, but not necessarily a thick, enveloping atmosphere. In the Heat of Night, and a few others. Certainly Hud does so much.

Not my all time favorite, but maybe in my top ten, certainly my top twenty. Wonderful movie.

[–] filmscholar35 14 years ago

This is a magnificent film.

A bit ahead of its time,too. It's hard to see that now, I guess, but this film was very adult and risque for 1963 screens.

It was also a pre-cursor to the type of brilliant, understated character studies that would be everywhere a few years later.

Not one complaint with this film, it's that good.

You can even totally overlook a minor technical glitch or two. (Like the crew in the window of the diner at the beginning.)

Great cinematography, great music, great character study, TRULY great performances all around, great writing/dialogue. True wisdom and depth of feeling, without any phony sentimentality.

[–] MystMoonstruck 9 years ago

No, it was not "ahead of its time"! It is OF its time! I hate people doing that "ahead of" thing because it insults the accomplishment of a distinctive film!

For example, if they tried to do this film now... I don't even want to think of how awful it would be. Do you think it would have been as good in the Seventies or the Eighties? No! It's a Sixties movie that deserves to be recognized as part of the times!

I think "ahead of its time" should be banned, along with "cheesy". Throw in "changed the course of history"!

(W)hat are we without our dreams?
Making sure our fantasies
Do not overpower our realities. ~ RC

[–] shepardjessica-1 9 years ago

Best film of '63. Newman's best film And performance. Neal deserved her Oscar. Newman should have won. Martin Ritt's best film.