Change Your Image
albino-3
Reviews
Hud (1963)
Where did this great film come from?
This film blew me away. I had never heard of it before it came on AMC one day. I had been changing channels and was about to pop in a DVD when this movie came on. From the opening shot I was riveted...
The movie takes its title from the lead character, Hud (Paul Newman). Hud is, in a very honest way, one of the great dramatic film characters. In hindsight he is actually reminiscent of Charles Foster Kane from the great "Citizen Kane." Hud, like Kane, never cared about anybody but himself, and always wanted people to love him. Both characters have the same theory on interpersonal relationships. Hud is loud, handsome, fast- and sweet-talking but morally bankrupt. People love the idea of people like Kane and Hud, but never do they love the actual person.
Kane said, "You know, Mr. Bernstein, if I hadn't been very rich, I might have been a great person." If that is true then Hud has less going for him than Kane--Hud is not a very rich man.
But I digress. Newman is brilliant (his best performance I have ever seen and one of the greatest period) as Hud, and manages to swagger, strut, be tough and desirable--all stereotypical traits we identify with cowboys--and yet strangely pitiful and vulnerable.
The story goes something like this: A ranch in Texas houses four people. Homer Bannon is the head of the ranch, a sort of poor man's wiseman. His son, Hud, drives a pink cadillac, is a tough guy, popular with the ladies and envied by the men. Lonnie is Homer's grandson, Hud's nephew and the emotional center of the film. The other character is the hired housekeeper and cook, Alma. (It's a very good ensemble cast.) A sow on the ranch dies mysteriously and Homer calls in the state vet to determine what caused the death. The entire population of cows on the ranch is eventually quarantined while the state vet determines whether the cows have the fatal, contagious and devastating foot and mouth disease (the vet says, "the worst possible news").
Homer and Hud do not get along. Hints are made that it has something to do with Homer's other son and Lonnie's father... but to say too much might spoil some of the dramatic tension. In fact, discovering what the underlying tension is between the characters is one of the film's great delights.
What really sets this film apart is the way we identify with the characters. Everybody knows (from watching films or from real life) people like the four main characters, including the middle-aged Alma, who engages in sexually charged banter with Hud at times, always wise enough not to fall for his advances. The plot has a series of events that illuminate the strengths and weaknesses of the characters, instead of exploiting them. The viewer is saved the honor of making their own judgements, and nothing is in black and white.
The film won Academy awards for best (b&w) cinematography, best supporting actress (Patricia Neal as Alma) and best supporting actor (Melvyn Douglas for Homer). Too bad Newman couldn't have won for best actor (he was nominated). He of course lost to Sidney Poitier's performance in "Lilies in the Field."
Hud is not often mentioned as one of the greatest films ever made. I have seen most of those and without question this belongs amongst them. Do yourself a favor and see it. Now that it is available on DVD it shouldn't be that hard.
Stone Reader (2002)
Not quite a doc, not quite a fiction, not quite enjoyable.
I saw this film last week at Roger Ebert's Overlooked film festival.
Many people have tried to define exactly what Stone Reader is to people who have not seen it. This task is impossible. Stone Reader is that much different than every other film out there. Perhaps if you look at it loosely as a series of actualities featuring a man obsessed with finding out whatever happened to an author he has recently come to love -- you'll start to get the idea.
Mark Moskowitz, the director, said at Ebertfest that he made exactly the film he wanted to make. Curious, especially because he had no script when shooting and the film seems to follow no type of story arc or definite theme. It's just a random assemblage of scenes covering the almost two year period where Moskowitz did nothing but try to track down Dow Mossman, the author of The Stones of Summer. Mostly, the visits he has with agents, editors, publishers and other book lovers end without revealing anything about Mossman. And after the location and the man himself are revealed, Moskowitz keeps cutting back in time to conversations with people who aren't scripted enough to make much sense and not natural enough to really feel like a documentary.
When all is said and done, we still know nothing about the book (except that it deals with some type of coming-to-grips after Vietnam), not a whole lot about the life of Mossman (who hasn't written any other books) or Moskowitz (except that he has a lot of free time on his hands) and nothing at all about what we have gained by sitting through this experience.
There is some subtle humor here and there, maybe and interesting insight into "books." But it's nothing that hasn't either been said before or worked out in the average reader's mind already.
It's really impossible to recommend this film to anybody, except perhaps those who are interested in novelty, or those who have read The Stones of Summer (a book the director claims as essentially impossible to find). It's not that the film is bad, it just doesn't know what it wants to be and it certainly isn't enriching or insightful along the way.
I am curiously reminded of Gene Siskel, who used to ask, "Is this film better than a documentary of the same actors talking while having lunch?" For Stone Reader we *are* treated to the people having lunch, and the experience isn't terribly impressive.