I don’t think I’ve seen this before? But it’s certainly a name I’ve seen around a lot. Perhaps I read a Mad Magazine parody of it?

But I thought it was from the 70s, so I’m shocked to learn that it’s from 1963! I thought it was one of those 70s New Hollywood movies…

Yes, it’s another movie from the Hazel Flagg collection.

Well, OK, this does seem like one of those 70s New Hollywood movies in mood at least.

Hud is such a rebel… Those poor flowers!

The birds!

This seemed so weird… the Paul Newman character is a real dick (he’s probably going to have a Character Arc), but he also seems kinda stupid? But then I realised — is he supposed to be, like, 25? His nephew seems like he’s supposed to be a teenager (actor: 21), so perhaps he’s supposed to be slightly older? (Newman’s 38.) That would explain things.

I know, I know, but I sometimes wish that characters would go “OK, I’m coming over, and I’m 25” or something. It’d make things less confusing!

I love lighting like this — it makes no sense, but it sure looks good.

Heh heh, I just got my wish fulfilled: Hud said 1) that the nephew is 17, and 2) “you were born when I was your age”, so 3) he said that he’s 34! I know maths!

That is a pretty lazy name for a disease.

What’s the way to the Bates Motel?

Despite winning a bunch of awards, this movie is pretty spiffy! And Patricial Neal’s performance is indeed spiffy.

But I think, like, the fourth fifth of the movie is kinda weak? Fifth sixth? That is, the first half is really interesting, and the very ending doesn’t at all go where you expect… It’s very good.

Hud. Martin Ritt. 1963. ⚄

This is another movie from the Hazel Flagg collection.

What a sleazeball! Great casting.

This moves along at a breakneck pace!

I’ve seen very few movies by Ophüls… The Earrings of Madame De…? Yes. Possibly no other movies?

It’s just so well put together! Not a second wasted.

That’s the kind of lighting you should have in your hall.

It makes going out at night much more dramatic. Gotta get a single one of those two thousand watt light bulbs for my hall.

What a sleazebag! I hope he dies!

She’s great. What’s her name? Is that Joan Bennett from the poster?

It goes on an on — like, four movies per year until the 50. Extremely busy career. It’s not a name I’ve really paid attention to.

Apparently Joan Bennett was thirteen years old when she had her daughter.

(The Hollywood thing of having women in their thirties playing mothers and women in their twenties playing teenagers is particularly weird when the two things run smack into each other.)

It’s whatsisname! James Mason!

There’s so much going on in this movie.

The movie is basically about Mason blackmailing Bennett — but are they gonna hook up instead? I have absolutely no idea where this movie is going.

Heh, that kid has one of those hats that Jughead has? They were apparently a thing…

Do you think that kind of hat and veil thing will ever get back into fashion? I suspect that it never actually was a thing — it was a convention in movies only?

Wow, and now there’s a moral dilemma!

This movie is fantastic. So unexpected — it seems like it could easily have been a standard noir, but instead it’s denser than a neutron star — not a second wasted. And it doesn’t go anywhere where you expect it to go, even when you know that it’s not going to know where it’s going to go.

Great performances and so well filmed.

The Reckless Moment. Max Ophüls. 1949. ⚅

I’m so confused right now… I’ve seen this movie before, but wasn’t it in black and white? Er…

No! I’m thinking of Nathalie Granger, which also has Depardieu, but Jeanne Mureau and not Delphine Seyrig. D’oh.

This one has a kick-ass soundtrack by Carlos d’Alessio, just like India Song.

OK, I’d forgotten that the soundtrack is basically just the one song that’s looped over and over again? At least it’s been going for half an hour now.

This song. Which is great, but… an odd choice!

I remember liking this movie more than I do this time around. The problem is, I think, that neither of the actors who have spent most time on the screen — Noëlle Châtelet and Claudine Gabay — are delivering thrilling performances.

And the text… it seems so much less thought through than India Song, for instance. It’s more realistic, and more trivial.

Man, that’s some fireplace.

Heh, Delphine Seyrig’s character is called L’inconnue. OK, now it makes more sense that she’s not in any shots with other actors… I thought it was just because she’d been filmed on a day where nobody else were present. Didn’t even have time to take her coat off…

Which, I guess, may still be true.

*gasp* She’s in the frame with somebody else!

The movie is “about” renting this house — and it’s an exquisitely ugly house. Salmon-coloured wall-to-wall carpeting and these monstrous leather chairs… Those huge windows along with the blown-out shots… I think I understand why it is this way, but it’s sure not easy on the eyes.

Which would have helped with this dialogue.

Oh, the music is diegetic, as the kids say. The music is coming from an (ambulatory?) party? So it grows and ebbs in volume, but is always present.

Uhm… I like the movie — I mean, the general feel of the movie. But it doesn’t quite work? It’s basically a conversation, and what they’re talking about seems so trivial. My mind kept wandering… perhaps it’s a totes fascinating movie if I were concentrating more?

But no, I don’t think the movie really works.

Baxter, Vera Baxter. Marguerite Duras. 1977. ⚃