(46 Year Late) Film Review: "Hud"

The genius of Paul Newman was his ability to play both virtuous and corrupt characters with equal charm, depth and believability; his only peer in this regard was Orson Welles. The most memorable characters are the ones we feel ambiguous about, and no one did it better than Newman. Even in the twilight of his career, his performance as mafia boss John Rooney in Road to Perdition was rich and powerful. Though many consider The Hustler to be his finest work, it's his portrayal of the title character in 1963's Hud that sticks in your head like a toothache. Newman's selfish, indulgent yet charming Hud resonates deeply with any single person, especially bachelors, leaving us with a deeply unsettling warning.

Based on a novel by Larry McMurtry and set in present day Texas, Hud is essentially a bitter father-son story. Hud's a 34 year old party animal, a lothario who refuses to grow up and cares nothing about anything beyond his immediate needs, which are essentially booze and sex. On the opposite end of the moral spectrum is his father Homer, whose distilled blend of honesty, earnestness and dignity seems sadly archaic: the world we know has a lot more Huds than Homers. Their contrast is delicious. Good hates evil and vice versa, and Hud's seething rhetoric towards his father recalls Bezelbub's vengeful contempt for God in Paradise Lost.

The film (and book) come down hard on Hud in the end. The charming hedonist is completely alone on the dusty ranch he inherits - no friends, no family, not even any cows - just booze and the west Texas wind as companions. It's one of the darkest endings to a movie I've seen, and when as the title card "the end" appears the moral settles uncomfortably into your stomach. The selfish will end up with the only person fit for their company. We all know who that is.

Rating: FIVE TOILETS