Hud

Dir: Martin Ritt

1962

*****

Hud is revolutionary addition in the history of the western. I’ve always seen Bad Day At Black Rock as being the first significant neo-western but Hud was the first revisionist Western, a twist in the genre that many other westerns took a while to catch up with. The antihero wasn’t a new concept within the western genre but there hadn’t quite been a character like Hud before, at least none as complex or contemporary. Based on Larry McMurtry's 1961 novel, Horseman, Pass By, the film's title character, Hud Bannon, was a minor character in the original screenplay that was reworked as the lead role by scriptwriters by Irving Ravetch and Harriet Frank, Jr. Director Martin Ritt and Paul Newman co-founded Salem Productions and the company made a three-film deal with Paramount Studios and for its first film Salem hired husband-and-wife scriptwriters Ravetch and Frank, Jr., who worked with Ritt and Newman on The Long, Hot Summer. Ravetch found McMurtry's novel in an airport shop during a Dallas stopover and presented the project to Ritt and Newman after reading a description of Hud Bannon. Hud (played by Paul Newman in one of the greatest performances of his career) is ambitious and self-centered, the opposite of his deeply principled rancher father Homer (played by the wonderful Melvyn Douglas). Also living on the Bannon ranch is Hud's teenage nephew, Lonnie (child star Brandon deWilde in his second classic western following Shane), who looks up to both men but is most impressed by Hud. Lonnie and Hud are attracted to the Bannons' housekeeper, Alma (Oscar-winning Patricia Neal). Although she is attracted to Hud, Alma keeps her distance because she has been mistreated in the past by men like him. Hud was a smaller character in the novel and was Homer’s step-son, while Alma was a black housekeeper to Homer’s wife. The removal of Homer’s wife took away influence from Lonnie so he could just be concerned with the two older male figures and the writers thought 1963 was still too early for an interracial sex scene, even though it was actually sexual assault. I don’t quite agree with this but Patricia Neal was phenomenal in her performance. The film has all the right ingredients of a classic. The performances are second to none, all the right elements from the novel had been tweaked for the visual adaptation and James Wong Howe’s cinematography is second to none. Howe's use of contrast to create space and his selection of black-and-white has long been favoured by critics and fans and it won him the Academy Award for Best Black and White Cinematography that year. Paul Newman went full method, Patricia Neal, who at the time had a stormy marriage to children’s author Roald Dahl and had just suffered the recent loss of her seven-year-old daughter to measles encephalitis, opened up to the actor during a rare break that allowed the cast to hang out by their hotel’s poolside. Neal found herself opening up emotionally about her daughter Olivia, who had died suddenly just months before filming. After her long outpouring, Newman stared at her for a long moment, then simply uttered "tough" and walked away. She was taken aback by his reaction. It was early in production, and they had not yet done a major scene together, so she hadn't really gotten to know him well or to understand his methods. Later on in the shoot, however, she realized he was already very much in character as Hud. Ritt, Newman and Douglas were staunch liberals, so the film didn’t go down too well with many. It was described by a few as an ‘anti-Western’, fundamentally ‘anti-American’, and so astutely made that it was redeemed by its fundamental dishonesty. Utter nonsense. The character of Hud is many things and represented an aspect of modern society for sure, he is mean, unscrupulous and never has even a momentary twinge of conscience or change of heart but, as Paul Newman put it, "We thought the last thing people would do was accept Hud as a heroic character ... His amorality just went over the audience's head; all they saw was this western, heroic individual". Martin Ritt later attributed audience interpretation of the character to the counterculture of the 1960s which "changed the values" of the young audiences who saw Hud as a hero. In retrospect there was no other film like it, maybe he was seen as a contrived character but the truth was that he was quite the opposite, I think this is why the film still resonates with audiences and it is still the alternative western of choice for most fans of the genre.

Hombre

Dir: Martin Ritt

1967

***

I've always been a firm believer that a good war film is an anti-war film but in many respects the same can be said regarding westerns and the revisionist western sub-genre. Towards the late 1960s and early 1970s there were some great revisionist westerns that favoured realism over romanticism, that were more cynical about the lawlessness and attitude of the old west that showed sympathy for the native American and Mexicans who were generally portrayed in a negative light. Martin Ritt's 1967 Hombre does all this but I'm not sure it always did so the best way it could. However, there are key moments in Hombre that really are quite striking and will be eternally relevant. There is a scene whereby a couple of Native Americans are drinking at a bar. They are minding their own business until they are approached by a couple of intoxicated cowboys who don't wish to associate or share the company with anyone of their kind and they begin to bully them. The natives never retaliate or even answer the men, they simply take all the insults with a dignified sadness, knowing that their people have indeed been defeated in many respects. The idea that Paul Newman's character is a white man raised by Apaches is a little obvious but he plays the role well. The film deals, quite subtly, with all aspects of prejudice and prejudice by association. Newman's character inherits money from his dead father which he spends on horses for his tribe. On collecting his money he encounters the townsfolk who all hold resentment towards him on different levels for very different reasons. When he ends up having to share a stagecoach with a small group he is soon outed as a 'white Apache' and is made to ride on the top, rather than in the coach. When the coach is held up by thieves the skilled white Apache is soon favoured. The film's conclusion explores a very hard truth and highlights one of life's cruellest realities. The injustice and prejudice can be seen the world over, it's real and obvious and can no longer be excused for reasons of naivety. Newman plays the character superbly, with very little dialogue written for his character, the great actor relies on his effortless ability to express a thousand words and thoughts with slight actions and subtle mannerisms. The character development and script written for the rest of the group is rich and varied, with Diano Cilento's performance having particular importance as a representation of a balanced society’s opinion and an alternative protagonist for the audience to better relate to. There is plenty to like and I love the film's subtlety, however, in my opinion it isn't a subtle genre. There are other film's that tell a similar story and they generally tell it better. Hombre's strength lies in its performances and script but to be fair, its conclusion is better than most seen in your average western.

The Spy Who Came in from the Cold

Dir: Martin Ritt

1965

*****

Martin Ritt's classic The Spy Who Came in from the Cold is an example of a perfect adaptation. Although I can't think of a really bad film adaptation of one of John le Carré's novels, I can't think of another that really visualizes his words and characters as well. That said, Roupert Davies' George Smiley is probably my least favourite version of the character but it certainly isn't bad, the others are just better. It's still my favourite Martin Ritt film and Richard Burton performance. It oozes that wonderful noir that belongs in cold war spy stories but also gives it a very real edge so that you believe that you really could live next door to a secret agent and be none the wiser. The script is ridiculously good, unsurprising though considering it was written by the brilliant Paul Dehn (Goldfinger, Escape From The Planet of the Apes) and Guy Trosper (The Pride of St. Louis). Dehn as more than qualified to the write the screenplay, given that he was once a teacher of the black arts at one of the country’s leading spy schools during the Second World War. It is hard to imagine Burt Lancaster as Alec Leamas but he was the producer’s first choice before Burton was cast. rather bizarrely, the name of leading female character was changed from Liz Gold to Nan Perry, so people wouldn't immediately think of Burton's wife Elizabeth Taylor in any of their scenes, such was the 'mania' that surrounded the couple. Burton was clearly in a position whereby he could make demands, even when he didn't get along with the director (something that le Carré has since said probably enhanced Burton's performance) as he got jobs for many of his friends from the Old Vic including Sir Michael Hordern, Robert Hardy, Warren Mitchell (whom he was stationed with several times during the second world war) and leading lady Claire Bloom, even though she was around fifteen years older than her character is in the novel. Crime author Graham Greene once has said that The Spy Who Came in from the Cold is hands down the best spy story ever written and many, including myself, would agree with him.  The best spy story deserved the best adaptation and that is exactly what it got. It is faultless from beginning to end, with brilliant performances, an amazing script and cinematography to die for. The quintessential cold war movie and most authentic spy story ever written, based on real people and a real way of life, it's unparalleled.

The Outrage
Dir: Martin Ritt
1964
****
It's a bold man that remakes an Akira Kurosawa film but Martin Ritt does so impressively. In many respects, 1964's The Outrage works better than Kurosawa's 1950 Rashomon. The initial scene of the film where the two eye-witnesses contemplate what it is they have just experienced to a stranger for one, is a much stronger scene than in the original. I always found the original film to be a little overacted and a little unnatural. Cast an actor like William Shatner and suddenly it works brilliantly. Paul Newman is Paul Newman, an amazing actor and always watchable. They could have cast a real Mexican but Paul Newman is convincing enough, although it's not the great performance that Toshiro Mifune gave 14 years previous. The direction is beautiful, particularly in the opening scene but it doesn't even compere to Rashomon, it's really hard not to compare the two films. That said, it is a clever adaption of the story, performance strong and has the same striking contrasts that made the original so impressive. A rare example of a brilliant remake.