...you ought to read the novel, to see how Martin Ritt, et al, altered it (ie, more or less ruined it).
The plot isn't much different, but the film characters are stark black-and-while, rather than the gray characters of the novel. Alma is black, and Lonnie definitely does not admire Hud. He stays well-away from him. Hud murders his father with Lonnie's .22.
Martin Ritt didn't ruin the film. Why would you say that, if you rated it an ' 8 '? Something must be wrong with you anyway, if you rated Five Easy Pieces and The Swimmer each a ' 1 '.
shareChanging it does not automatically mean ruin it. The film is, in many ways, a masterpiece in the cinematic arts. I've not read the book, though I've heard very high praise from those that have. I'd be all for seeing another adaptation of Hud that more closely follows the book, but the 1963 film is a hard act to follow. Because of the quality of the film, and the rewatchability of the story, I tend to think that the changes which were made for the film adaptation were good ones. Not necessarily better than what was written in the book, but good none the less. A lot of people love and admire this film. You seem to have an axe to grind, and I'd be curious to know what it is. If it's simply that you favor novels over film adaptations and feel that any change from the source material makes it a lesser work, then I'd have half a mind to call you pretentious. I hope it's more than that.
shareI disagree that the characters in the film were stark black and white. Hud was selfish, hedonistic and conniving but also charming and likable. Homer was honest and upright, but also harsh, cold and unyielding to those he felt did not live up to his moral code. That is what makes the movie so great.
"I don't want any Commies in my car. No Christians, either."
Ritt, et al. may have changed the story, but they did not ruin it. "Hud" is a great movie.
shareI enjoyed both
share