The recent death of author Larry McMurtry, which I wrote about last month, prompted me to resolve to try and read some of his works (other than "Last Picture Show" and "Lonesome Dove") that I had not read.
The first book on the list was "Horseman, Pass By", McMurtry's first novel, published in 1961. It tells the story of contemporary cattleman Homer Bannon. Now past eighty years old, he works a smallish cattle ranch in north Texas, lives with his second wife, her unscrupulous son, Hud, and his grandson, Lonnie. It is through Lonnie's eyes and narration that the story is told. Another key character is the ranch's cook/maid, an African-American woman named Halmea.
Similar to "The Last Picture Show", this novel evokes the sense of a time and place and an era that is fast slipping away, and the nothingness that living in a small middle-of-nowhere place in Texas can be. The town of Thalia in "Horseman" is the same town as the one in "Picture Show."
The central crisis in "Horseman, Pass By" is the outbreak of a deadly foot-in-mouth disease that develops in Homer's cattle herd, an event that necessitates the slaughter of the entire herd. This of course, has a devastating effect on Homer, and it leads to actions that drastically effect the lives of Halmea, Hud, and Lonnie.
In 1963, a movie adaptation of "Horseman, Pass By" was released and renamed "Hud", and I watched it just this week, right after I finished reading the book. It was directed by Martin Ritt and starred Paul Newman, Melvyn Douglas, Patricia Neal, and Brandon De Wilde. The film was nominated for seven Academy wards and won three, including Neal for Lead Actress and Douglas for Supporting Actor. Some slight changes from the book - Hud, played by Newman, is Homer's son, there is no second wife for Homer, and the Black cook, Halmea, has become Alma, played by Neal. If anything, Hud, as portrayed by Newman is an even bigger heel than he was in the novel. However, the final act that Hud performs in the book is eliminated in the movie. I suppose that filmmakers in 1963 just couldn't bring themselves to depict what he did in the novel. Even though we are talking about a sixty year old novel, I'm not going to give the spoiler here if you have only seen the movie.
As in the book, the infection that led to the destruction of the Bannon cattle herds is the central episode of the movie, and the scene that depicted it was especially wrenching to watch. Newman was nominated for a Leading Actor Oscar - he lost that year to Sidney Poitier - and, not surprisingly, he was terrific as the, shall we say, "anti-hero" Hud Bannon. Not a likable character for the always likable Newman. De Wilde was only 21 years old playing the 17 year old Lonnie. He is best know for playing the young boy, Joey, in the classic 1953 western "Shane", for which he received an Oscar nomination. In the back of my mind, I knew that he had died young: he was killed in a traffic accident in 1972 at the age of 30.
The question is often raised in such instances - which is better the book or the movie? When seeking to answer, it should always be kept in mind that a book and a movie are two different art forms, and each should be judged on its own merits. I found both the book "Horseman, Pass By" and the movie "Hud" to be very good pieces of work. In spite of the changes noted above, the movie held close to the book, and depicted the lives and the emotions of the characters every bit as well as they were shown in McMurtry's novel. If you enjoyed one, you will certainly enjoy the other.
I give both he novel and the movie Three Grandstander Stars.
I thought the changes book to movie were more than slight and extremely telling. Changing Halmea to Alma black to white, changing Hud from vicious sociopathic rapist and murderer to boorish aggressive anti-hero with a lot of swagger shed a lot of light on the American culture.One would hope the view was time limited but sadly it appears it was not. Despite the talent of the movies cast the grit and brilliance of the book easily eclipses it.
ReplyDelete