Skip to main content

Get away from my burro!

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre

(SPOILERS) The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is beloved by so many of the cinematic firmament’s luminaries – Stanley Kubrick, Sam Raimi, , Paul Thomas Anderson and who knows maybe also WS, Vince Gilligan, Spike Lee, Daniel Day Lewis; Oliver Stone was going to remake it – not to mention those anteriorly influential Stone Roses, that it seems foolhardy to suggest it isn’t quite all that. There’s no faulting the performances – a career best Humphrey Bogart, with director John Huston’s dad Walter stealing the movie from under him – but the greed-is-bad theme is laid on a little thick, just in case you were a bit too dim to get it yourself the first time, and Huston’s direction may be right there were it counts for the dramatics, but it’s a little too relaxed when it comes to showing the seams between Mexican location and studio.

Howard: Believe it or not, I knew a fellow who could smell gold like a jackass can smell water.

Which wasn’t unusual for the time, of course – it didn’t stop the director winning the relevant Oscar – but it tends to undercut the proceedings that bit more when there’s otherwise a prevailing emphasis on verisimilitude. Particularly when you see a production that got it in the neck from Jack Warner for going over budget, and yet the cast are hacking their way through a BBC jungle, complete with “naturalistic” sound effects.

Huston adapted B Traven’s 1927 novel himself (which features an interlude involving small-pox vaccination absent from the movie), granting pappy a tailor-made part… Albeit, pappy blanched at the idea he was no longer a leading man, despite being in his mid-sixties. Consequently, many of the movie’s less-legitimate incidents are the fault of the source material, rather than John, although he could be argued to have failed to hone the work. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is very accurate to the novel, whereby Fred C Dobbs (Bogart) and Cob Curtin (Tim Holt) hook up with elder prospector Howard (elder Huston), and through trial and error strike it rich in the Sierra Madre mountains. Alas, the false idol that is greed gets the better of them – and most specifically Dobbs – and their duh-reams are dashed.

Essentially, then, Huston didn’t need to reposition the novel to the needs of Hollywood codes; it was quite moralistic enough as it was. Nor did he need to include slightly egregious and unbelievable plot developments, since there were more than enough. There are changes; while Bruce Bennett’s inveigling prospector James Cody is in the novel (as Lacaud), his fate differs from that of the movie, where he is very conveniently shot by bandits before Dobbs and Curtin can make good on their threat to do for him. Also omitted is the reveal that Curtin is a socialist, along with Dobbs’ death by decapitation.

Otherwise, Huston is respectful to the tenuous means of separating Howard from the gold-heavy returning party – local villagers insist he comes with them to show gratitude for his life-saving skills, or they’ll show ingratitude by getting aggro? – Curtin being shot at point blank range yet surviving, and the kind of stupid Mexican bandits who give you average stupid Mexican bandits a bad name (pouring gold to the winds in the belief it’s sand).

Dobbs: Shut your trap! Shut up, or I’ll smash your head flat.

On the “Gold! Gold!” front, there’s unsightly telegraphing of its effects on the psyche, via Howard’s upbeat relation of his own experiences (“As long as there’s no find, the noble brotherhood will last”) and the scarcely credible idea that Dobbs is somehow decent at heart despite all evidence to the contrary (the idea being that even supposedly decent people go doolally with such temptation). He’s not a natural killer, you know. It’s the gold! The Sobering letter from Cody to his wife is also a bit unnecessary.

Nevertheless, when it comes to the group’s internal tensions, Huston – who cameos as a white-suited benefactor giving Dobbs pesos – is rock solid, with the gradations from Howard’s balanced equanimity, to Curtin’s moderate sense of what’s fair, to Dobbs paranoid rancour. This kind of thing can end up very silly, if there isn’t a sure hand at the tiller, as evidenced by Lee’s abject Da 5 Bloods, and there have been any number of knock-offs where the protagonists are inevitably undone by their lust for fortune (from Three Kings, to The Italian Job, to Triple Frontier). The final joke – Howard’s hilarity at the irony of it all – “The gold has gone back to where we found it!” – could as easily have been choking on over-egged 22 carrot cake, but Huston’s tickled delivery lets it through the gate (again, the actual exchange is pretty much wholesale from the novel)

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is, of course, most famous for its peasant-bandit oath “I don’t have to show you any stinkin’ badges!”, a line most will probably recognise, even if they don’t know the movie itself (it’s neat that Alfonso Bedoya’s Gold Hat reappears to administer justice to Dobbs, less so that he underlines what a numbskull he is). The picture did incredibly well at the Oscars, winning three of its four nominations (Director, Best Supporting Actor Huston and Screenplay, only losing to Sir Larry’s Hamlet, although the real cinematic marvel of the year’s nomineees is arguably Powell and Pressburger’s The Red Shoes). Bogey wasn’t even nominated for Dobbs, having to do with an award for the markedly inferior The African Queen four years later (another Huston picture that suffers from the stark contrast between studio and location, and rightly parodied by Bob Hope and Bing Crosby).

Hope, of course, was alleged facilitator of MKUltra sex slaves to the stars of Hollywood and political office, per Brice Taylor. Huston around this time was also up to his eyeballs in depravity – allegedly again – as associate of the – ditto allegedly – Black Dahlia murderer George Hodel. Rather like a certain former BBC presenter, it isn’t as if anyone would possibly make the mistake of suggesting Huston looked like such a nice man.

Dobbs: I just don’t like being called a hog, that’s all.

Pauline Kael suggested that the first section of The Treasure of the Sierra Madre was a masterpiece in miniature, “so sure and lucid it’s as good as anything John Huston ever did”, and I’d agree with that; the rest of the picture can’t equal it, which is unfortunate, as the rest of it is the meat and potatoes. Dobbs was also an inspiration for Indy (the fedora) and the push-pull of fortune and glory versus things belonging in a museum (where they can be misidentified, mislabelled and contribute to the wholesale obfuscation of bona-fide history). Obviously, Lucasfilm was being less overt, gritty and severe. But then, you watch the last scene in The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, and you’ll probably double take at the retreat from the sober depths of the movie you thought you’d just witnessed.

Popular posts from this blog

The minotaur isn’t even history. He’s mythology!

Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues (2013) The long awaited, some might suggest past-its-sell-by-date, return of Ron Burgundy doesn’t begin well. It pretty much confirmed my fears this was a sequel with no reason to be, one that weakly rehash the gags and set-ups from the first movie. It isn’t until the gang gets back together that Will Ferrell and Adam McKay hit their groove, by which I mean there’s a higher hit than miss ratio to the jokes. Many of the ideas that come with the central concept are soft connects, but the more absurd The Legend Continues gets, the funnier it becomes, leading to a final act (if you can call it that) so glorious in its silliness that much of what fails before becomes virtually irrelevant. Anchorman 2 was on-again, off-again for quite some time before it finally got the green light, with a stage musical even considered at one point. It seemed to me to be messing with a good thing; the inspired lunacy of the first picture had already shown

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Ziggy smokes a lot of weed.

Moonfall (2022) (SPOILERS) For a while there, it looked as if Moonfall , the latest and least-welcomed – so it seems – piece of apocalyptic programming from Roland Emmerich, might be sending mixed messages. Fortunately, we need not have feared, as it turns out to be the same pedigree of disaster porn we’ve come to expect from the director, one of the Elite’s most dutiful mass-entertainment stooges, even if his lustre has rather dimmed since the glory days of 2012.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

I’ve had enough of this 2012 Alamo bullshit.

13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi (2016) (SPOILERS) Not The Secret Private Military Contractors of Benghazi , as that might sound dubious in some way, and we wouldn’t anything to undermine their straight-shooting heroism. That, and interrogating the politics of the US presence in Libya, official and unofficial, and involvement in the downfall of Gaddafi (Adam Curtis provides some solid nuggets in his rather sprawling HyperNormalisation ), is the furthest thing from Michael Bay’s mind. Indeed, it’s a shame 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi bears the burden of being a tale based on (murky and disputed) facts, as it’s Bay’s most proficient piece of filmmaking in some time. So, you’re not going to find out what the CIA was actually up to in their Benghazi base (most likely, the dodgiest conclusion you can reach will be the right one). You’ll only be informed that a brave team of ex-military types were there to protect them, and stepped up to the plate, ju

It looks like we’ve got another schizoid embolism!

Total Recall (1990) (SPOILERS) Paul Verhoeven offered his post-mortem on the failures of the remakes of Total Recall  (2012) and Robocop (2013) when he suggested “ They take these absurd stories and make them too serious ”. There may be something in this, but I suspect the kernel of their issues is simply filmmakers without either the smarts or vision, or both, to make something distinctive from the material. No one would have suggested the problem with David Cronenberg’s prospective Total Recall was over-seriousness, yet his version would have been far from a quip-heavy Raiders of the Lost Ark Go to Mars (as he attributes screenwriter Ron Shusset’s take on the material). Indeed, I’d go as far as saying not only the star, but also the director of Total Recall (1990) were miscast, making it something of a miracle it works to the extent it does.