Nick-Davis.com: 100 Favorite Films
|
|
#61: Hud and Cool Hand Luke
Hud (USA, 1963; dir. Martin Ritt; cin. James Wong Howe; with Paul Newman, Melvyn Douglas,
Brandon de Wilde, Patricia Neal, Whit Bissell, Crahan Denton, Val Avery)
IMDb // My Page
Luke (USA, 1967; dir. Stuart Rosenberg; cin. Conrad L. Hall; with Paul Newman, George Kennedy,
Strother Martin, Jo Van Fleet, J.D. Cannon, Richard Davalos, Dennis Hopper)
IMDb // My Page
Exactly five minutes and thirty seconds of Hud transpire before Paul Newman enters. The time is hardly wasted,
resplendent as it is with James Wong Howe's widescreen black-and-white photography, marrying pristine formal composition
and sublime light and contrast to the parched desolation of a fossilized Texas; shimmering as it also is with a quiet Elmer
Bernstein score that both shares and fosters the brimming-heart melancholy of the images. Long, flattened horizons; long,
flattened cars; grass and scrub flattened by wind; long, wide roads; wide brims on tall hats atop tall men and boys with
long gazes and flat voices; longing; ways of life, long but now flat. Hud evokes all of these things, quickly and
fully, and if the tone and camerawork sometimes tilt into self-mythologizing, the myth exerts a strong claim, a persuasive
allure. And then, speaking of allure, Brandon de Wilde's awkward, proud, lonely, and sentimental adolescent Lonnie Bannon
goes looking for his roustabout uncle Hud, tracking his pink Cadillac (inevitably) to the curbside of some under-attended
housewife, pipping and then blaring the horn on Hud's own steering wheel to call his uncle forth from some lithe, clammy
iniquity. The screen door pops open: Hud. "Honcho," he calls to his nephew, leaning against a porch railing, insolent,
the cock of every walk, "I just hope for your sake that this house is on fire."
Child, the house is definitely on fire. In a crossword puzzle, Hud, in or out of italics, would serve well as a
three-letter synonym for sex. And yet, for an actor so universally and deservedly associated with the quality of
decencywith bounteous charity, compassionate politics, a legendary marriage, faultless generosity toward his
co-starsNewman's haughty indecency in Hud is a perennial shock, feeding risk and danger into the movie but also
into Newman's own performance, because it doesn't come naturally. Newman shapes Hud's libido into something elemental to
the character and the story but also, from an actorly standpoint, far from effortless. Where Brando's
Stanley Kowalski melds
virility with vulgarity at the character's core and mantle, Newman's prowess but also his limits as an actor open up an
interesting chasm between his essential, irrefragable manliness, inhabited as casually as a flannel shirt through a
five-decade career, and his technical, occasionally studious projection of sexuality. Among the actors to whom he was
initially most comparedBrando, Clift, and DeanNewman is simultaneously, for me, the least gifted and the most
interesting. Brando's acting, practiced and deliberate though it is, feels buried down in his marrow, Clift's and Dean's
wound and tangled around their nerve endings. Newman's the only one whom one can imagine spending his life another way
(in business, in public service, in friendship, in good health), and though the urge to act seems to run deep,
allowing him a physical spontaneity and a palpable conviction on screen, what he delivers as acting comes across as
a very conscious, careful process, self-reflective and scrupulous. His casting in Hud is therefore even more
inspired than it looks. Everyone on screen, especially Melvyn Douglas' humiliated patriarch and Patricia Neal's tart
housekeeper (disillusioned and saddened by her own self-protective wisdom), wrestle with those id-level responses to Hud
that are a grounding conceit of the script, but they also, because of Newman, engage mentally with Hud. Their questions
hum in the air: how could a son so insistently disappoint and rebuke a father? How could a man so degrade himself before
a woman, seizing what he might have gotten by asking? How could Hud be so careless with a brother's memory, so inadequate
to his shadow? These questions are richer than they might have been in Hud because Newmantactfully and artfully,
but also because this is the sort of actor he iscreates Hud as a sum of conscious choices, not an animal or an icon.
His vicissitudes, shames, affronts, and inadequacies are the evolving products of a human life, not the contours of an
allegorical figure. He seems like he could change, but he doesn't, or won't. He retains a core of decency which he
rarely allows to breathe, for reasons which are his own, though Newman invites us to guess at them.
Four years later, in Cool Hand Luke, Newman stepped into another leading role that the screenwriters and the director
can't help but position in the realm of the parable. They haven't fully agreed, with each other or with themselves, about
what kind of parable, so Christic imagery dukes it out with midcentury rebel chic and also, amid the escalation of U.S.
involvement in Vietnam, with a vision of lean, able masculinity Taylorized beyond belief and slung between the alternatives
of compliance and execution. Conrad Hall, as gifted a cinematographer as Howe but temperamentally dissimilar, dapples the
cast in natural light and allows the camera to draw energy from their exertions, their impudence, their bonhomie. Interior
scenes are less visually interesting, though one of Luke's best scenes is one of its quietest and most static: the
hero's covert interview with his dying mother, Arletta (the incomparable Jo Van Fleet). Through it all, Stuart Rosenberg's
movie toggles back and forth between a portrait of community and an ode to the individual, but somewhere along the way, its
thematic ambivalence and episodic structure start to feel like major virtues: Cool Hand Luke is one of our most
lived-in and pleasurably paced odes to nonconformity, magnifying the athletic, good-natured gratuitousness of the hog-wrestling
scene in Hud to full feature length. Newman looks and acts much more at home in Lucas Jackson's skin than in Hud
Bannon's eroticized armor, basing this performance not on productive paradox but on flexibility, charisma, alertness in the
moment. He trims the more florid gestures and supporting performances to human sizeadding a further dimension to Luke's
eventual plea that his comrades start living for and through themselves, not vicariously through him. Those interesting
moments of crisis notwithstanding, Newman's utter confidence as an actor steadies the movie through its shakier passages,
and he thus lifts the curtain on the second, long stage of his career. By this bifurcating arithmetic, Hud is the
best example of Newman as Student, adapting himself to a difficult movie, deepening the film through his own hard work and
contradictory traits; Cool Hand Luke is the best example of Newman as Teacher, of a movie adapting itself to Newman,
surviving its most dated effects and questionable story choices by dint of the actor's contagious aura of integrity,
versatility, credibility, and good sense.
|
|