Talk:Hud (1963 film)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jburlinson (talk · contribs) 23:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to review this article--it's been years since I've seen the film, but I have some pretty strong memories about it. I'm sorry you've had to wait so long for a response to your nomination. Comments to follow in the next 1-7 days. Jburlinson (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't wanted to conduct the GA review for this article, partly because I was intending to rewrite this article myself, but what I will say is that I am very dissatisfied with the article in its current state as I think it has some major deficiencies. Firstly, the plot summary consists substantially of unsourced, opinionated original research, and secondly, the article in its current state has completely failed to address the movie's historical importance. Gatoclass (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After a short read, the plot could use a bit of work that can get done pretty fast to solve the issues. I noticed while working on the article that the section seemed to be an essay, so I tried to reword it a little, if it's not good enough, we sure can work it out. No sources are needed according to the MoS: "Since the film is the primary source and the infobox provides details about the film, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary. Exceptions to the rule include upcoming films and "lost" films (which are not available to the public to verify), for which editors should use secondary sources."

If it sounds like the editor that wrote it was giving his opinion or whatever else, it takes only a few minutes to rework it (I'll do it during the week or so). I'm also interested in knowing how it fails to address the historical importance of the film. If I get to fix the plot, I think it's worth a GA. Needless to say, there's always room for improvement/expansion that can and (I'm definitively willing to) get done. On a side-note to the reviewer, starting this Wednesday, I'll be out for the week.--GDuwenTell me! 17:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would certainly help if you stripped the opinionating out of the plot summary and left only the plot details. With regard to the film's historical importance, it's been a while since I was researching this article, but IIRC the movie has been described as both one of the first anti-Westerns if not the first, as well as being one of the first films to feature an antihero. Gatoclass (talk) 10:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be working on the plot on the following days. I could not find any information about being one of the first anti-westerns or anti-hero films, but I did add the "anti-western" description. Apparently, the "anti-western" comes from a 1963 review from Pauline Kael. I think now pretty much the section about the reception covers both topics now.--GDuwenTell me! 18:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few minor wording and/or punctuation changes in the article. If anyone has any problems with them, please feel free to revert or let me know if you have questions.

Initial reactions.

Lead

"the film was later as well described as an anti-western." -- the word "well" sounds lacks a little NPOV. Can it go?

Plot

It looks like the plot summary is under revision, so I'll hold off on commenting until it's finished.

Production

"Ritt asked that Hud be depicted..." and "Ritt also requested...". -- To whom was Ritt directing these requests? The screenwriters? If so, would it be more appropriate to say that he instructed them to make these changes, since he was producing and directing? Or, since Ravetch was also a producer, was Ritt more in the position of having to make requests as opposed to issue instructions? Do the sources clarify?
"Martin Racking, the president of Paramount Pictures, was not convinced by the movie's ending and asked Ritt to change it" -- Do we know what alternate ending Racking preferred?

Release and reception

"Brandon de Wilde's as "[successful] in looking earnest unsure of himself"" -- Should this be "earnest and unsure of himself"? It's a quote, so we need to reproduce it faithfully, but it sounds a little odd as it is.
"Although the role of Hud was planned to be an anti-hero, audiences interpreted the character as a hero." -- Yet most of the quotes that follow do not support this statement, being mostly about how despicable the character is. In checking the source of this statement, it seems that she's referring more to the youth audience than the audience in general.

General thoughts

The article as it stands is well-written on the whole and I'm glad the plot is being reviewed and updated. But it doesn't seem to cover the subject as broadly as it might. There are a number of aspects of this film that are covered in the literature but receive little or no attention in the article. Some specific examples:

There's mention of the differences between the original novel and the film, but I think there's more information available about changes made and Larry McMurtry's reaction. McMurtry had a few things to say about the film and it might be good to cover this.
Hud is particularly known for its cinematography and I think this could be covered a little more thoroughly.
Similarly, there's been some commentary on Elmer Bernstein's score which probably deserves a mention.
Books on Ritt, Newman and Neal provide some more information about them and their involvement in the film. For example, there's some commentary on Salem Productions and how it was one of the first, if not the first, production company run by a director and an actor together. There's also an interesting interview with a contributor to the film, Bob Hinkle, at http://www.americanlegends.com/Interviews/bob_hinkle_making_of_hud.html that provides some interesting tidbits.
There's been some mention in the article of the "anti-western", but there's quite a bit of discussion in the literature concerning Hud's place in the changing view of the Hollywood western in the early 1960's, in particular, and changes in social and economic aspects of the American west in general. The article might benefit from a more thorough treatment.
I believe there was some controversy about the language used in Hud which resulted in some changes in the Production Code operative in Hollywood at the time. It might be good to bring this out.
Also, Hud won many other awards & accolades than the Oscars. The article should probably identify them all. Jburlinson (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put the review on hold for a week to give editors an opportunity to consider these issues and to confirm that there aren't any stability issues. Thanks to all who have been working to make this a GA quality article. Jburlinson (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be out starting tomorrow, until the end of December. I hope the review can be on hold during that time, otherwise, I should work on your concerns and renominate again upon my return.--GDuwenTell me! 16:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'll go ahead and fail the nomination for now, but will keep my eyes open for it when it gets renominated, at which time I'll jump right on it. Will that work? Hope things go well for you in the next few days and weeks.

BTW -- I happened to stumble upon an interesting interview with the screenwriters which provides some more insights -- http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?cc=mqr;c=mqr;c=mqrarchive;idno=act2080.0042.201;rgn=main;view=text;xc=1;g=mqrg . Jburlinson (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]