Plot Details: This opinion reveals major details about the movie's plot.

When some people grow up, they never really grow up. That’s the case with Paul Newman’s character in Hud; his character is thirty-years old, but is far more interested in screwing around with married women and making life miserable for his father than making anything of himself, or having any sense of morality or principle.

Hud, our protagonist, is a complete loser. At the start of the film, his nephew (Brandon De Wilde, the kid from Shane) searches for him in town at 5 in the morning, because Hud’s father (and nephew’s grandfather) needs him back at the ranch. Hud is found at a woman’s house, and Hud doesn’t seem too impressed at his nephew’s insistence that he come back home. And guess who shows up minutes later but the woman’s husband -- naturally, he asks why these two people are leaving his house at this time of day. Hud, never wanting to take the blame for anything, actually has the nerve to tell the guy that it was the nephew who was causing trouble -- it’s only through Hud’s insistence that he’ll deal with the nephew himself when they get home that the unsuspecting husband isn’t able to punish the poor kid himself!

Life at the ranch isn’t any better, and not just because of Hud. A cow has mysteriously died the previous evening, and a government inspector comes over to check it out. His fears are that the cow has died of foot-and-mouth disease. A disease like that would threaten to cause an epidemic in the area -- and if the disease is confirmed, the owner of the ranch (played by Melvyn Douglas) would have to destroy his entire herd of cattle; his ranching career would be over.

But things aren’t any better with Hud around. Hud turns on the arrogance, more or less trying to make it look as if the government is meddling in the family’s business. Hud’s father passively listens to his son, obviously considering this just another one of Hud’s typical behaviors. Hud’s father is more concerned about the fate of his ranch, rather than what his son has to say. And Hud knows this, as he constantly points out how his father couldn’t care less about him -- and Hud’s nephew, naturally, hears and witnesses all of these arguments, and wonders what exactly happened to make this situation so..........

Hud is based on a novel by Larry MacMurtry, who also wrote the book that became the film The Last Picture Show, and, indeed, the characters in Hud could be living just down the street from those from The Last Picture Show. Both movies are set in the 1950’s, and take place in rural places that exist seemingly in the middle of nowhere. There’s little to do in these towns except get drunk, hang around diners and low-rent picture shows, and, for some of the characters in both films, partake in some casual infidelity. Both movie adaptations are also somber as they detail these sparse lives -- the activities in these films don’t particularly thrill or excite the viewer, and sometimes I doubt that they even excite the people in the films.

But I would say that Hud is the better film. Perhaps I find it better because it really is a movie produced from the classic vein of Hollywood (while The Last Picture Show, made in the 70’s, is akin to a very accurate homage to classic Hollywood) -- or maybe I just like it better because it is a lot more focused on this small family unit, and the one bad seed in that group. Like I said before, Hud is a complete loser -- and the movie is uncompromising in showing us that. Even though Paul Newman is playing the guy, Hud is not a hero. Besides fooling around with married women, he once tries to sell out his own father, by threatening to go to a lawyer to have him declared mentally unfit -- so Hud would be able to take over the whole property for himself. Also, he has a thing for the flirty housekeeper (Patricia Neal), and he tries his (lack of) charm on her -- but what makes this a completely unromantic film is that there isn’t any sense that any sort of affection or love will intertwine these two together. The housekeeper clearly is just as suspicious of Hud as many of the other characters in this film are.

Nobody can completely trust this guy. Not even his nephew, even though for much of the film, he does look up to Hud, and for a while, even hangs around with him on the town (and in the process gets into a fight at a diner). But the nephew, a little less than half of Hud’s age, is already maturing at a faster rate than Hud ever will, and the nephew sub-conciously realizes that even at the beginning of this film. Hud and the nephew talk about women, and this is an example of how different these two people are -- Hud is a taker, while his nephew has, at least, a basic respect for women’s autonomy. A good example involves their dynamics with the housekeeper. The housekeeper is depicted as earthy, lusty, flirty. It’s clear that the young nephew is becoming sexually aware of this woman, especially during an intriguing scene when she wakes him up in the morning, but he doesn’t act on any of these feelings, and remains a polite individual -- Hud, on the other hand, feels that if he wants something, he should take it...........

This is not a movie that could be made today, at least, not one that could be made by Paramount Pictures, which produced Hud, or any other major studio. Hud, the movie, is slow, somber, and quiet. It’s almost like an art film, in that sense, as it’s more about character than about plot. The only “real” plot involves the inevitable fate of Douglas’s ranch; everything else is about Hud and his behavior, and how it affects everyone around him. The story is told with little melodrama; it looks us straight in the eye, showing us, simply, the record of a family that has been dealing with the skeletons in its closet for many, many years. Nothing that happens is really a big surprise to any of the characters, as everything has been more or less simmering beneath the surface for years, if not decades, in some instances. And, also, there isn’t any guarantee of a happy ending, especially considering that Hud is such a loser, who doesn’t seem capable of changing his ways.

Paul Newman definitely has a knack for playing these type of guys. In The Hustler, Newman also plays a guy who on the outside seems like a charming rouge, but who really is rather pathetic, and, I think, Hud is an even more pathetic character. At least the character in The Hustler was a brilliant pool player -- Hud, on the other hand, isn’t really good at anything except being a jerk. In any case, it’s quite interesting to know how this big star’s most famous roles involve anti-heroes -- these characters are screwed-up in a major way, and they aren’t necessarily sanitized for Hollywood’s sake, either. At least, it doesn’t appear that way to me.

Yet again, I wish that Epinions would allow half-stars in their ratings. I really don’t want to give this film a five, but four is not enough either. I would give this film a four-and-a-half myself --- it’s a well-made if slow and depressing piece of work, with a great Newman performance.

Recommended: Yes

Viewing Format: DVD
Video Occasion: Good for a Rainy Day