I've long believed you can tell a lot about a person by who they side with in Hud.
I've known those who saw the father (Melvyn Douglas) as the hero and those (like myself) who've always seen Hud as the hero (albeit somewhat jaded).
I read in the Pulp Fiction screenplay that there is a scene where Uma Thurman's character says you are either an Elvis person or a Beatles person.
I think the same thing applies here.
Thoughts?
Interesting question. Both Homer and Hud have their flaws but if I had to choose I would take Homer. He has lived his life abiding by certain basic principles of respect towards the land and personal codes of conduct. Of course his flaw is that these principles have made him harsh and unyielding towards those who cannot live up to his standards--including his own son, Hud.
Hud has few principles except to enjoy the here and now, because as he says "no one gets out of life alive". And clearly Hud has a certain spirit and joie de vivre that can be invigorating and alluring. But Hud's way of living has made him selfish and hedonistic and he treats both the land and the people around him poorly in his constant quest for the next thrill. Homer's speech is devastatingly accurate about Hud:
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.
Hud's flaw (in Homer's view) is that he is not only unprincipled, but is setting a bad example for the next generation.
So in short I would say that Homer has a reverence for life and Hud has a joy for life. I'll side with Homer.
"I don't want any Commies in my car. No Christians, either."
Homer's a TYPE of hero but too harsh, too unlikable for me to pick him. Hud is a TYPE of hero, very flawed but not completely unlikable, not without hope of change, as evidenced in his treatment of what's-his-name, the Brandon de Wilde character (but not always). It's not an easy call but I pick Hud, mainly because Newman showed a humanity beneath the surface which may not have even been in the script.
"I can understand it, but I don't like it none!"--Cheyenne.
Both Homer and Hud are the same, time is the only thing that makes them different from each other; and why they don’t like each other: they see who they really are in the other. Ultimately, both are self-serving people. Each has a different style of how they go about serving their needs first. Homer’s principals are based in the fact they keep him in charge, and make him the boss, grant him respect. While Hud’s chaos code by which he operates is meant to upset and challenge the way things are, but he acts like this not because of some intellectual or well thought-out reason or even for some emotional need; but only because it gives him power and control, but really, only the illusion of it.
In the end: Hud’s the real fraud. As overnight once he gets control of the land at the end of the movie he starts preaching about the world and doling out patriarchal bromides that aren’t even patriarchal. Hud’s a laughable joke.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
elephuntingburd <--- nailed it
I totally agree
I think most people are a mix of both.
I appreciated that this movie didn't show Hud changing after his father died. It would be too cliche. He was who he was to the core and he always would be.
[deleted]
I like Elvis, The Beatles and Pink Floyd. How's that for being diplomatic? Hud is a great movie, but both Homer and Hud were a pain in the a*s. But at least you could trust Homer. Hud? Ha! He may have had some charm, but as a human being he was next to worthless. The only redeeming thing about him was his courage. When Lon got roughed up by the cow, Hud jumped in to help with him no hesitation. So perhaps he did have a spark of humanity? It would have been intresting to have done a sequel maybe 20 years later to see how much Hud did or did not mellow with age.
share[deleted]
Very true. He was fully aware of Homer's honesty and personal integrity, as he alluded to it many times. He even used it to mock the old man several times. Hud was honest in one way. He always said what he really thought and didn't try to act like like someone or something he wasn't. He was a p***k and he knew it. And didn't want to be anything else. Mostly because he saw that being that way got him what he wanted. When he intimidated the government man like that it was for several reasons. 1st it was just generalized anger, knowing they had just lost a lot of money. Very understandable. 2nd he knew Homer always kept his word, and didn't like the fact that guy doubted it. 3rd the fact that oursiders interloped their land and did all that damage really rubbed him the wrong way. Again understandable. Where I think Hud really had a point was when Burris made the excellent suggestion of selling some oil leases, and the old man went into a meaningless tirade against it. Hud was right. There WAS honest money to be made and Homer discounted it for unrealistic and impractical reasons. They WERE in dire straits and that was a great solution. But when the old man finally passed away, Hud was his same old insensitive self, toward Homer and Lon. However, at the very end when Lon was leaving, he did ask him "what about your half of the spread?" Meaning he was willing to share his windfall. Somewhat uncharacteristicly magnanimus of him if he meant it. Again a spark of humanity? As far as Lon was concerned, he admired and respected both men and was conflicted because of his loyalty to both. He even defended Hud from his "granddad" when Homer finally told him his real opinion of him, which was completely correct. However my feeling is that after Lon got a taste of the real world, he probably retuned to the ranch and had an uneasy truce with his uncle. If he didn't he was foolish. Thanks for the imput.
shareI seriously doubt that Hud was willing to share the ranch with Lon purely out of generosity. It is far more likely that Homer's will left the estate in equal shares to Hud and Lon.
"I don't want any Commies in my car. No Christians, either."
Yes, that makes sense. That's a strong possility because Homer told Hud after he died "you may get part of it". But makes it sound like nothing was set in stone yet, so perhaps at that point Homer had no will. And if he did make a will, as much as he disliked Hud, he may have cut him out entirely. But due to Hud's "tricky deal" he may have just assumed the entire place was his no matter what. Or perhaps he told Lon that just to entice him to stay. But no matter what Hud did end up getting the whole package, and I agree that it was unlikely he was willing to share it even with Lon. Although that would have been the right thing to do, Hud seldom did the right thing. Unless it was "right" for him.
shareI was surprised when I read people saw Hud as a hero. Maybe it fit right into the times during the 60s when people wanted figures representing anti-establishment. I for one, can not see anything heroic about Hud. He was a selfish person who drove everyone away. And look where it took him at the end.
"I'm f'ing busy-or vice versa" -Dorothy Parker
I'd agree with you, I also tend to think of Hud as the hero. I know just what it's like to be in unfair competition with an idealized absent relative, and to feel limited by "family responsibilities" that seem to serve the interest of some members of the family with no thought to my own individual desires. His father wanted to force the world to his own vision of what he thought it should be, I don't see that as heroic but egocentrism disguised as moral purity.
-----
Reason is a pursuit, not a conclusion.
Moral purity, you say?
Hardly.
This statement is often what I hear from people who shun responsibility in any form. I find it interesting that you would think Hud is a hero, and interesting that you would find family responsibilities as a burden to what you would want.
I'm sure a lot of people felt like they were living in the shadows of a greater generation of people who had starved for days often on end working to stay alive during the Great Depression, and then put on a uniform to fight in World War II. How does anyone live up to that?
A lot of the so-called counter-culture was, perhaps, a backlash to that feeling if insecurity in the face of greatness. (It was also a deliberate part of subversion by various Leftist groups - look up Yuri Bezmenov on YouTube.) I remember my parents telling me how confined they felt, that they felt obligated to marry young, have children young, and continue with a family.
I think, though, that the older generation, the WWII generation, didn't really explain why family is desirable, why morality is important, and why hedonism and licentiousness are not only bad, but evil. They presumed it was all self-evident, because those concepts helped them get through very rough times and overcome some terrible challenges. They thought they didn't need to teach good values that they felt were a given.
But that's not so. Take the concept of Freedom, for instance. Judging by your post, you probably believe Freedom means you get to do whatever you want. But that's not what the Founding Fathers fought for in the War for Independence. They weren't fighting for the right to intoxicate themselves, or fornicate whenever they want, or to murder unborn babies.
Freedom is Power, and in this case Freedom is the Power to Govern YOURSELF, not under the whim of any government. But, as Hud demonstrates brilliantly, Power does corrupt. Hud's corruption was at the very base of his soul. He only thought of himself, and didn't think that what he was doing was very harmful to society. Indeed, he didn't think very hard about society, if at all.
Note, that he takes cues from society that suits him. His notions that the world is full of corruption (in so many words) entitles him to do likewise while he can. He fails to see how he let himself be corrupted, by seeing and hearing about others do evil he feels it's okay to do so. Choosing evil over good is easier, quicker, and more seductive. Why do you think he goes after lonely housewives rather than find a girl of his own? Why do you think he goes after Alma? Because those are quick fixes to his hungers.
Hud is the reason why Morality is integral to having Freedom. Without a strong dedication to it, you're not going to build anything of value, and in the end you'll end up with nothing. You can't have Power without Morality.
You think Homer was being too hard on Hud? Well, in what way? Homer was 100% right about Hud. Did you not see Hud sleeping around with other men's wives? Did you not see Hud want to pass bad beef off on the market? Did you not see Hud undermine Homer's ownership of the ranch? Did you not see Hud getting a minor drunk? Did you not see Hud try to rape Alma?
Hud got Lonnie's father killed. He was responsible for that.
It's a tough and terrible thing to have Responsibility, but it's often something you have to bear when you decide to take it up. We have too many shiftless people in this world who try to pass off what they do to avoid negative repurcussions of their own failures. The more that happens, the more society begins to shift its Responsibilities to others, and the next thing you know we're living in a feudalistic society (a Welfare State) once again.
It takes courage and character to own up to your responsibilities as a human being. You're not put on this Earth to do always what you want. You may have a lot of choices in life, but not many people do, and often it's the ones who have a choice to opt out of their obligations as men and women in a society and choose to take them on who are the ones who build civilizations.
I believe in the movie Hud was 30yrs old. When Homer tells Hud he was sick of him along time before he killed Lon's dad he was around 15. So Homer was sick of his son a long time before Hud was 15 years old? Are you kidding me?
Hud had his flaws but so did Homer, and they were just as big as Hud's.
Hud's mother and his brother both died and he was left with a father who obviously despised him from a very young age, of course he turned out bad.
But the problem with this is that Lonnie turned out okay. He's not anything like Hud at all. If Homer was the problem with Hud, then Lonnie should've held some defiant attitudes toward him.
At some point, well prior to Hud's brother's death, Hud realized how fun everything could be, and he chose to make the most of it before he's shoveled into the ground, and when someone decides to do that, and make a habit of it, there is no amount of parenting that could be done to undo it.
Homer may not have been the best father, but who is? As far as I can tell, there's no signs of abuse from the man. While he might not have been the most emotional and sharing of men, I would say that Homer is certainly a man of a different era, where men didn't whine about things like women do, who took charge of their lives, took up their responsibilities as men, and went to work instead of goofing off. What do you want from Homer? He's a hard working man who loves his ranch and showed affection for his offspring in what he produced for them.
The problem was with Hud. Hud chose not to take responsibility for himself and his life. He chose to be self-indulgent.
At some point, you realize that you have a choice to make, and you've always had. In spite of whatever abuses you suffered, you can choose to be a victim, which Hud chose, or you can be an Owner. You can say, "You know, it's sad what happened to me, but what's the point in crying about it?" Winners don't let excuses keep them down. Losers do.
Hud is a Loser. A Born Loser.
well put and agreed wylde, i'm surprised others found homer as flawed as hud...seemed like a guy just doing his best to me...
shareyou wrote: "But the problem with this is that Lonnie turned out okay."
I do not share this prevailing view. The ending is very sad. Everyone is left alone and damaged. Lonnie has lost his family too and is not "okay". The most heartwarming moment is Lonnie and Hud connecting at the (life giving) water well back at the ranch. Homer's stern and uncompromising "noble principles" put an end to that. Homers words about making a choice influence Lonnie and lead to his mistakenly blamimg Hud for Homer's death. Homer never realized how his giving up on Hud and failure to provide the required nurturing lead ultimately to Huds adult attitude and the family's destruction. Though Lonnie claimed to Homer as he lay dying "you never gave up on anything" the fact remains that he gave up on Hud when he was but a child, "...long before..." he was 16 when the accident happened. It is Homers role as a father which resulted in Huds formation. He longed for his fathers love but was always left hurt and wounded even if he could not live up to the fathers strict standards. The world is not as black and white as we (and Homer) may like to imagine but infinite shades of gray. Throughout the story, Homers rejection of Hud leads to further destruction.
I could never imagine a parent saying the hurtful things Homer says to Hud. Hud never chooses to be a victim but wears a mask to hide the pain he experiences...which he tries to not reveal. He avoids the emotional commitment of a meaningful relationship as a means of protection. It is destructive and sad.
Homer chose to buy the Mexican cattle against Huds advice. Homer seemed more attached to the ranch and his prized bulls he had to shoot than his own son. He simply never was able to understand his failure and the damage it caused. It seems he passed this stern coldness on to Lonnie.
Look up the lyrics to Ray Prices song "Driftwood on the River". It can be heard playing on Lonnie's transistor radio as he searches for Hud in the first sequence of the film. It is a fitting description of Huds inner pain.
[deleted]
It shocked Paul Newman when he learned that teenagers had posters of Hud hanging on their walls of their bedrooms, as though he was some sort of hero. I hope he didn't take that as a personal slight against his acting abilities, because I thought his performance in Hud was excellent.
Hud is likable. They could've made him more of a loathsome scoundrel, but that would not have made as good a story. We're taking the point of view of Lonnie in this picture, learning about things as we watch him interact with his uncle and his grandfather, and Alma. You can easily see how Lonnie could've been another Hud, but all of that would disappear after the cattle are destroyed, and Lonnie watches as Homer kills off the last of his longhorns.
Lonnie drives Alma to the bus-station, and he picks up Hud, who he sees getting the legal documents to take the ranch out from underneath Homer, who's now so utterly crushed by the whole experience. Did he realize, then, that it was Hud's self-indulgence all along that caused this to happen? Does he realize that everything that has happened was the result of a man who loved his other son so much that he couldn't bear to drive him away, but tolerate him and his behaviors?
Personally, I think he did. Whether he could articulate this or not I don't know, nor is it important, because even if he did, there's no telling Hud this. He wouldn't accept it, nor would he care. He's got what he wants, and it's best to leave him with it. Alone.
No, he was 34yrs old in the movie. Hud said it himself.
shareI had a different interpretation than all here.
To me, Homer was objectively the better person, as demonstrated in his decision about the infected cattle. Following Hud's path would've led to a mass epidemic which benefited only himself, while Homer's was the inversion of that and harmed only himself. So for this reason I can't see the two as the "same" - Homer was clearly a better person in a real way.
However, what I took out of the movie was that Hud was simply necessary because "bad" exists in the world, and being stalwart won't change that. When he said "You could say I helped him about as much as he helped me", perhaps there was some time when his lack of morals got them out of a bind? (He alludes to the "full story" many times, and I was disappointed that it wasn't told by the end.) Also consider the closing scene as Lon is walking away, and Hud tells him, "this world is so full of crap, a man's gonna get into it sooner or later whether he's careful or not." To me Hud represented the character who accepts the world as it is and operates within it rather than putting himself above it.