Wednesday, July 27, 2011

How Christopher Nolan improves on Tim Burton's vision of Batman



I decided to do this commentary because there are still people out there who subjectively prefer Tim Burton’s interpretation of the dark Knight in Batman (1989) and Batman Returns (1992) over the more recent films on the same subject directed by Christopher Nolan, Batman Begins (2005) and The Dark Knight (2008). I will not discuss the abominations directed by Joel Schumacher, Batman Forever (1995) and Batman and Robin (1997) since these films lost all focus and almost buried the batman legacy in ignominy. Tim Burton’s interpretation of the batman as exhibited in Batman (1989) was quite influential on the direction taken by Christopher Nolan. The main failure of Tim Burton’s films was the jumbling of various themes related to Batman which denied them any chance of being developed. In Batman (1989) one finds all the themes that are present in Nolan’s Batman Begins and The Dark Knight however they are only mentioned briefly and the viewer is left feeling no sympathy for Batman’s quest as a hero. The main issue in the Tim Burton films is that there seems to be no quest but a montage of familiar characters from the comic book series. It is these images that brought his movies together and gave them a certain panache however more was required to make them as definitive as Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. It is still clear that Burton’s vision of the dark knight was very influential on the direction taken by Nolan. I will list what Burton did right and what he did wrong and how Nolan was able develop these concepts and present the definitive interpretation of the dark knight on film.

What did Burton do right?

Firstly, Tim Burton did away with the camp element that was normally associated with Batman on television during the 1960’s. Many recall the ‘oh golly batman’ of the 60’s and the boom, zap, pow. Batman paraded like superman without super powers and there was little or no mystery to the character. It was foolish to have Batman appear so frivolously attired during the day since bats are nocturnal. It was a silly mistake and Burton immediately rectified this by having batman appear only at night. He also gave the character some gravitas by exploring the traumatic nature of the main character, Bruce Wayne, whose parents were murdered in an alley. The opening scene of Batman (1989) is supposed to recall this incident where a man woman and child are accosted by petty thieves in an alley. Tim Burton, here,  goes back to the roots of the original character for the camp associated with batman of the 60’s made him seem like a buffoon with no motivation to become an avenger of the night dressed as a bat. Tim Burton however never mentions why Bruce does decide to become an avenger dressed as a bat even though he does show Bruce trying to simulate the actions of a bat in one scene where he hangs upside down or when he states that bats are real survivors. Bats are real survivors but so are rats. The mythic presentation of Batman is also featured in Burton’s version. The citizens of Gotham are taken with the character of the batman that is purported to be supernatural. In one of the best scenes Joker’s henchmen, after shooting down the batman, realize he is human after all and this influenced a later scene in Nolan’s The Dark Knight where Batman, after refusing to kill the Joker in the streets, crashes his batpod and is at the mercy of the joker and his henchmen. A henchman tries to reveal who is under the mask but is thwarted by a security device and Gordon’s intervention. In Burton’s version the henchmen are thwarted by Vicky vale who takes snapshots of the episode thereby drawing their attention to her and sparing Bruce Wayne the embarrassment. In the portrayal of Batman’s mythic characteristics it is clear that after his duel with the joker Batman disappears and his legend looms over Gotham city. In Batman Returns he is back after criminals are again running wild and Gotham calls out for a savior. This was borrowed by Nolan for Batman does disappear however he is expected to return and rise again in The Dark Knight Rises (2012). I say again that Burton does not present the many ramifications that result in Batman fleeing the scene although it seems to be due to the simple fact that he has found his parent’s killer which conveniently happened to be the Joker. He does mention the possibility that Batman will have to flee Gotham for some time until Gotham’s citizenry will clamor for his return. He only mentions it but Nolan develops the premise with its many ramifications. In Burton’s case he  deals only with the ideal as opposed to tackling the material hindrances to this ideal if it is to be triumphant. In Batman Returns it is the woefully underdeveloped catwoman that is given the same legendary status (although she did not do much to be called a legend).

Burton does highlight the rampant corruption prevalent in Gotham city and the new thrust made by Harvey Dent (who eventually becomes two face) in cutting the links between organized crime and leading legitimate corporations in the public light. The presence of a largely corrupt police force on the mob’s payroll was still adhered to by Nolan because this is one major element that hinders Batman’s success. The presence of the business element is crucial in the Burton films and you can see this in Batman Returns with the character of Max Shreck (Christopher Walken) who plans to ally with the Penguin (Danny Devito) and then dispose of him once  he has  helped him take control of the city.  It is not very developed however because it is not quite explained why it is so difficult to disrupt organized crime and the tenuous line that Harvey Dent is walking on. Nolan did the right thing by tracing the actual funds through the accountants that would launder the money as opposed to finding documents that would implicate business men who could always say they were not aware that this business was in the red. It is also not developed how Harvey dent and the police actually disrupt the link between the business element and organized crime. Do they target middle men before going for the bosses?  In Batman there is only one scene showing the corrupt business men racking their brains discussing Harvey Dent’s crusade on crime.

The Joker portrayed by Jack Nicholson in Batman is not developed properly and so he seems more like a buffoon who laughs a lot and executes deadly pranks. We are not allowed to view him without his pretensions and glamorous portrayal of violence. Heath Ledger, for instance, imbued the character with the necessary malevolenceor menace required to add depth to the character; it is here that jack Nicholson missed out although he handles the Joker side pretty well. There is also a philosophical undercurrent that was not developed which would give an idea of the Joker’s motivations although it is hinted at in the Tim Burton version. Jack Nicholson’s Joker, however, does present certain features that were to be adopted by Christopher Nolan and Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight with the depiction of the Joker. These features are not developed by Burton as a means of creating an indelible reminder to the viewer of the Joker’s malevolence, but are simply mentioned although the methods of Jack Nicholson’s Joker were utilized in Heath Ledger’s portrayal of the same character.  These are the elements of Nicholson’s Joker:  His grin belies his malevolence; he tries to create chaos in the society by painting the town red (literally) by unleashing his poisonous gas and giving away money as if it’s nothing. He taunts Batman to reveal who is under the mask and he constantly interferes with the news feed to broadcast his messages. He begins as an employee of one of the corrupt business men who eventually betrays him thereby forcing him to turn on his employer by killing him. When he does kill his employer he assumes control of the outfit. He tries to do battle with batman for the soul of Gotham city; this is when he throws money around (recall Heath Ledger’s Joker burning money and saying ‘all you care about is money; this town deserves a better class o’ criminal’) trying to capture the audience of the citizenry and taunts batman to reveal himself.  He seems to be taken with Batman in this film and his gadgets (this was to be mirrored later in Ledger’s performance when he gestured with ‘hmmm’ after Batman’s massive automobile slams into one of his garbage trucks). This is almost identical to the features of the Joker in Nolan’s The Dark Knight although within a different context and trajectory.

Tim Burton also realized that it would be difficult for Batman to fall in love because of his lifestyle but again this is not developed and is jumbled in the main plot. Nolan did the brave thing by allowing  Rachel to step up by saying that Bruce Wayne is the mask and batman is the real character and that he will always be obsessively drawn to it. This is present in Burton’s presentation when Bruce becomes distracted by Ms. Vale’s attentions to pursue his lone wolf status however neither Bruce (Michael Keaton) nor Vicky vale (Kim Basinger) make mention of this dilemma and so it is lost on the viewer. It will be good to see how Nolan portrays Catwoman in his upcoming feature The Dark Knight Rises (2012) because in Batman Returns (1992) she is clearly portrayed as a female version of Batman with her own claims to be a legend. The tension between catwoman and batman in Burton’s version was evident because the individuals under these masked personas were dating (Bruce as batman and Selina as catwoman) so it was interesting to see the contrast between the interactions of  the actual ordinary characters  and  the interaction between the so called freaks. Nolan will explore this dilemma but it will more than likely be portrayed as a doomed romance as it is in Burton’s version especially as Selina will be drawn obsessively to her alter ego, catwoman as Bruce is drawn to his. Well let us see what he does.

What did Burton do that required improvement? Or what did he do that was bad?

Firstly he jumbles all  the pertinent themes of the batman so that it comes across as only a montage. If you do not know the comics you will be lost. For instance when you first see batman you do not know who it is for he comes and disposes of two punks and then says that one of the punks should spread the word. Here Burton is going for the ideal it is only later that the viewer discovers that Batman is actually Bruce Wayne and it is only later that we discover that his motivations to become batman was because his parents were murdered.  The origin of Jack Nicholson’s Joker is however fully explained as if he is the star. He is so all important that batman eventually realizes that it was the Joker who killed his parents. Nolan dispenses with this in Batman Begins by explaining effectively the motivations of Bruce Wayne to become batman. He fears bats so he feels that this bat would become some form of symbol which would thwart the criminals. He first has to understand various things such as the nature of good and bad and how to combat the criminals by night. As Ra’s Al Ghul says, ‘you know how to fight 6 men we can teach you to engage 600.’ It is not simply by brawling with martial techniques( which is necessary but seems to be the sole focus for Burton) but by utilizing several techniques that make one appear invisible or as a symbol of portent or impending doom (fear) that will affect the psyche of your opponent before you strike. ‘You must become more than just a man in the mind of your opponent.’ We have here the motivations for becoming a batman which simply means you become a member of the shadows ready to strike and so any criminal wandering around at night will be fearful. In other words dressing as a batman makes sense in this case. In Tim Burton’s case it does not make sense although the supernatural elements are there and you understand why the criminals are fearful; if you were not aware of the comics batman  looks almost like a buffoon 'I'm Batman'.

Nolan correctly focuses on the struggles that Batman must endure before he truly becomes a legend which is why it has taken three films to establish. Batman is flesh and blood and for his ideal to rise above he must endure hardships which are associated with the material world which includes villains who see him for what he is a man in a bat suit driving fear into criminals just as they drive fear into law abiding citizens. The Joker and Bane will not be intimidated by batman for they understand his motivations and so cannot fear him like the ordinary criminal. In Burton’s case Batman is an idea or absolute to the viewer as he is to the joker. We cannot understand him we are simply to assume that he is batman and leave it at that. Nolan does the reverse where he makes the villains absolute and gives us insights into Batman/ Bruce Wayne’s character since it is his struggle to become a legend. His story is to serve as a prototype for the ordinary man who wants to make a change. Look at the great Marcus Garvey who was once a great orator; he used to break down on stage due to nerves before he could master himself and become a symbol of black resistance. All great men emerge from the shadows to become a symbol for resistance; the problem is that some people only catch on when you become this great symbol hopelessly unaware of the struggles it took for you to reach this far. Nolan allows us to appreciate the struggles of Bruce Wayne to become Batman whereas Tim Burton focuses on the ideal that is already made. Tim Burton’s mistake was to make us understand the villains thereby relegating batman to the shadows because they perish at the end in ignominy ( see penguin and the joker in Batman Returns and Batman respectively) apart from say catwoman. Nolan makes the villains absolutes and places Batman at the centre. These villains just represent stepping stones for Batman and they are measured by how much they test Batman’s resolve. The Joker seemed to beat it out of him at the end but as is the case with Nolan’s third film, The Dark Knight Rises he is supposed to surmount this obstacle.  It is Burton’s mistake that led to the later abominations of Batman Forever and Batman and Robin where the villains were the stars and Batman was there hanging around until he could stop them at the end. Lastly, Burton makes his Batman seem more like a vigilante than a legend. Nolan clearly states in Batman Begins that ‘a vigilante is just a man lost in the scramble for his own gratification but if you make yourself more than just a man you become something else entirely… a legend Mr Wayne’. In Burton’s version it is convenient that the Joker was the one who killed Batman’s parents so when he is defeated Batman fades out never to return. It seems that Batman was driven more by revenge than maintaining social order which is the main aim of justice. Rachel and Bruce discuss this in Batman Begins where she tells him to look beyond his own pain. In Burton’s, and later Schumacher’s, versions batman cannot seem to look beyond his own pain.  For instance in Batman it was Joker who killed his parents and in Batman Forever it was two face who killed them so this is the motivation batman needs to fight; he is a vigilante not a hero. It is no wonder the franchise collapsed with Batman and Robin. It does not matter who killed Batman’s parent for they were killed however to be great you have to look beyond your own pain. Who can forget Tom Joad's famous testament in the masterpiece The Grapes of Wrath (1940): ‘If there’s a cop beating up a guy I’ll be there. Where there is a fight so that people can eat, I’ll be there.’ He has learned to look beyond his own situation to the wider struggle or the ideal.

Batman’s relationship with commissioner Gordon is poorly developed in Burton's versions of Batman because it is this relationship that allows Batman to get away with so much. Nolan did the right thing by giving some back story to this relationship where Gordon was a sergeant when he first met Batman and then became a lieutenant and then commissioner.  With Gordon first meeting Batman while he is a sergeant he would be more willing to support Batman for he recognizes the high levels of corruption in the force and the utter hopelessness of the entire situation of crime in Gotham. Some top critics thought it was mere convenience not realizing how necessary it was. If he met batman as commissioner he would act like his own boss in Batman Begins who wants to bring him down since the activities of batman exposes the corruption of the police force. The commissioner in Burton’s version is in the same shoes as he tries to thwart batman because it will look bad on his department to have this masked menace around the place. Harvey Dent is also woefully developed because his effort to tackle crime as an idealist is significant due to the entrenched corruption within the force and the overwhelming influence of the mob in the city. He is encountering the same troubles facing Batman: the temptation to go over to the other side. His tragedy is that he cannot look beyond his own pain and becomes a vigilante later to be known as a criminal but for Batman’s sacrifice in The Dark Knight.

Lastly, Nolan does not make every villain as important by relegating some of them to middle men roles. In Burton's version which influenced Schumacher every villain has the same weight however Nolan makes it clear that the mob is the real source of crime in Gotham and not the freaks. The freaks only emerge when the mob has lost control. Nolan develops this well. The mob therefore represent a realistic element in Nolan's portrayal of crime and they are superseded by the absolute supernatural criminals who have their own ideals. Ra's al Ghul in Batman Begins and the Joker in The Dark Knight.  In the Schumacher versions a character like the scarecrow would be the subject of one whole movie but in Batman Begins he is clearly a a minor villain as he acts as a middleman for Ra's al ghul and his dealings with Gotham. The main villains are the ones that have an ideal or vision of society that will significantly challenge Batman. In the case of Ra's al Ghul he wants to create a system of chaos that will level out Gotham so that it can build again and the Joker simply wants to institute chaos and bring down the facade of society. Batman as a hero represents order or  the maintenance of order and social harmony. Again it is all mentioned in Burton's films but as we have no sense of Batman's ideals we do not see how these villains clash with his philosophy. In Nolan's version it is clear that Batman wants to represent an incorruptible symbol whereas with Burton batman is there simply to stop the villain at the required moment in the plot.

Nolan has, therefore, built on the platform set by Burton by developing the themes and showing the motivations of the Batman and his struggle to become a symbol of resistance in the crime infested Gotham city. I hope this brief commentary allows you to appreciate the significant leap taken by Nolan and why his franchise is so successful artistically and commercially.

Friday, July 22, 2011

Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) **½ /5. Ordinary film but a good reboot for this forgotten hero.


When I began collecting comics around 1998 (until 2002) the first one I selected was an edition of Captain America and so it is no surprise that I felt compelled to watch this film. The comic itself was not spectacular but it did show off the power of Captain America's shield. While I accumulated several comic book editions of this superhero over the years I became more fascinated with his past in World War 2 especially as the editions I collected took place in the present day. There was one edition where a survivor in some decisive battle in the war spoke of the heroism of Captain America; his company was ambushed and surrounded by German troops and he, having held out until the last,  was at death’s door when that famous shield came zinging about, befuddling the Nazi’s and thus saving the day. This was the legend of captain America in the war that I was aware of when I started collecting these editions.  I eventually became weary of his captain America slogan and his modern day adventures  and so I eventually stopped collecting these editions for I felt that his World War 2 adventures were more interesting. This film, Captain America: The first Avenger, explores the adventures of Captain America during the war and for that I was pleased.

This film does get the origin story down but it misses something which would have allowed the film to resonate with the audience members. While you watch it the film is entertaining however there are few elements that will have you discussing the viability of this character as a superhero. There are two elements that did resonate for me: the transition from the 90 lb Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) who eventually becomes the 200lb+ Captain America and the chemistry between Steve Rogers and Agent Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell). Tommy Lee Jones does provide comic relief as colonel Chester. The film is about the weakling Steve Rogers whose determination and good heart sees him rewarded by Dr. Abraham Erskine (Stanley Tucci) who chooses him to receive the formula that will see him become a supersoldier. After he gains notoriety for a daring rescue mission of prisoners of war he assumes the logo captain america and does battle with Johann Schmidt/Red Skull (Hugo Weaving) who with his mercenary army group, Hydra,  is intent on using mystic energies to destroy the major cities of the world. The red Skull makes a break with Adolf Hitler in this film to form his own group (I will discuss this later as a weak element of the plot).

This film does skip over some material but its origin story is quite interesting albeit a bit rushed thereby denying the film of any resonance apart from the two elements I mentioned above. As a period piece it works fine although the visual effects and art direction does seem anachronistic i.e. instead of old fashioned bullets the Hydra mercenary group seems outfitted for modern day warfare. This all occurs while melding it with a 1940’s look. They are probably trying to emphasize Red Skull’s idea that he is way ahead of his time by discovering some mystical source of raw energy. This film does not come close to Nolan’s take on the Dark Knight however it does have enough to make fans want to come out and support; and yes it is better than Thor (2011) however these Marvel superheroes do seem to have similar traits of arrogance and seem to willingly exude this feature of style (image) over substance and it is this which eventually hampers this film. Compare Captain America with Tony Stark (whose father Howard Stark is in this film) as Iron Man and Thor. Spider Man is excluded here for Spider Man 2 (2004) remains the definitive marvel superhero film.   There are two films here: a genuine character study which devolves into an action feast. Anyways let’s get rolling.

What’s good about this film?

The first thing I was impressed with was the transition from the 90lb Steve Rogers into the actual Captain America. He is chosen for the super soldier program because he is a clear idealist who embraces the collective spirit and this contrasts with the selfish Red Skull. He is prepared to die for his country even if this means lying on 5 draft applications and despite being a 90 lb weakling. Chris Evans does imbue Steve Rogers with a confident personality despite his miniature frame and you will see that the character does not change much when his body mass is amplified. His dogged character is due to the fighting spirit within him that will not be silenced or he has something within that tiny body of his that is yearning to be set free. There are poor elements here as well which I will discuss later however these elements are good, even if somewhat generic, when explaining the selflessness required of a hero. I also liked the transition from a happy go lucky image of the now muscular Steve Rogers performing on stage for the crowds to support the war effort by buying war bonds to support the military to one who is actually in the midst of the fighting. Even when his physique is amplified he is still not allowed to join the war effort because of the colonel’s reluctance to have him included as a member of the military although his reasons do not seem justified. It is a senator who decides to use Steve as a performing monkey (showing off his strength etc) to generate mass appeal in the war. He puts on a flimsy suit and shield and does commercials; comic books are also published about the image of a captain America saving the world although he really doesn’t. I liked the portrayal of the image of a dancing Captain America on stage however it still weakens the dramatic thrust (I will discuss later). I also liked the chemistry between Steve and Peggy and you will realize it in a scene where she enters a room dressed in red and becomes the centre of attention (yes they are ripping off the song ‘Lady in Red’ because the dialogue that follows talks about dancing and finding the right partner etc this is an anachronistic scene but it works I suppose).  Also look out for the final scene of the film and it is clear that the chemistry you saw on display during the film was no fluke.  

 The action scenes were ok but it was more of a vehicle to showcase Captain America’s abilities rather than to push the story forward. He throws the shield around and unleashes crunching fists and kicks to his opponents and demonstrates his superior agility. It was also good to see characters like Howard Stark (father of tony stark) in the film. As this film is yet another prelude to the avengers, set to be released next year, the title does work for (based on my limited knowledge of the character in the comics) as he emerges from the ice, after a 70 year hibernation, he jumps in immediately into the avenger mix. It is in the avengers that Captain America seemed to be most alive in the comic books as opposed to his own singular adventures which became monotonous because of his obvious limitations. This is why of all the marvel characters he most benefits from the upcoming Avengers film for his singular adventures in the modern day are not as eventful as when he is a member of the avengers where he is supposed to be the leader. (The Avengers film better be good since so much work is being done to promote it)

The legend of Captain America was established in the days of World War 2 and this movie is rightfully set in this period for in the comic most of his villains particularly the Red Skull also emerged in the modern day to begin the age old battle of good vs. evil. The Red Skull is his major villain and seeing that he will not be around for the modern day captain America does not have any other villain of interest. This character is inextricably tied to the Avengers. When the Avengers premieres next year do not be surprised to see other members of the crew hold him in  high esteem having heard all these stories of him when they were children (except Thor).

The special effects that make Chris Evans look 90lbs and 200lbs are seamless.  Lastly the anachronistic element is good for it seems to offer a contrasting style to the mundane 1940’s. It seems that World War 2 was pushing the frontier of technological development much like the cold war which proceeded from it and this was a good element to add to the mix for we all know of the atomic bomb.There are some elements borrowed from the Star Wars trilogy of the 70's and early 80's. It is more obvious in the battles that take place between captain America and Hydra in the forests which borrow heavily from The Return of the Jedi. This can distract from a film and diminish its original thrust however genuine filmgoers will appreciate this aspect of the film.

Lastly, there was an atrocious Captain America film released in 1992 and I said to myself if this version can surpass it I will be pleased. It surpassed it by miles and has thus resurrected Captain America.

What’s bad about this film?

Firstly this film is not as in depth as it should be. The character of Steve Rogers seemed to be tied so inextricably with the war effort that it comes to define his heroic spirit; it does not seem as if he will be able to have much of a heroic persona beyond the war. When the Avengers film is released he will be portrayed as a nostalgic character with leadership qualities. This contrasts with Nolan’s take on the dark knight where it is Bruce’s subjective experiences that determine his character and how he is able to emerge as an objective (ideal) force in Gotham city. When asked why he wants to dress up as a bat, Bruce responds ‘Bats frighten me it’s time my enemies feel my dread.’ (not exact quote). Spider man becomes a hero because with great power comes great responsibility. If you were to ask Steve Rogers, ‘Why do you want to be a hero?’ he would respond, ‘ Because of the war effort men are risking their lives out there.’ ‘The war is over Steve. You can go home now.’ It is also a good thing that Captain America went to sleep for 70 year because his character would look like a buffoon in the Vietnam War which the US did not win. This would also explain why a character like that can easily fall out of sync with the times. In the 70s how funny it would have been to have the politicians use captain America as a means to encourage belief in the US. He would always be defined as a performing monkey. His portrayal as a superhero is therefore wrong for it is not necessarily his subjective experience that makes him a hero but a propaganda campaign where the senator has him performing dance numbers for the public. How will he ever live that down? (part of the blame lies with the creators of the comic: yes stan lee in another poor cameo)

This brings me to another poor element: the actual legend of the character as portrayed in the film. In this film there are no elements that celebrate his deeds during the war apart from his daring rescue of prisoners of war and his pursuit of the Red Skull. After  the successful rescue attempt where Captain America becomes more than just a symbol to the people there should have been added features where people back home began getting a gist of the many heroic deeds this man is performing (by incorporating him in actual famous battles involving US troops); the screenwriters instead just focus on his daring escape attempt to create the legend.

The war stretched on for years yet you never get a sense of this in the film and this is due primarily to the hasty second act where Steve is on the hunt for the Red Skull. I also disliked the portrayal of the red Skull in this film. In these times we are treated to high class villains in superhero films, most notably the Joker in The Dark Knight, and so you come to expect that other films of this sort will endeavour to make the villains interesting. The Red skull as played by Hugo Weaving is uninspired and as usual he spars physically with Captain America while the world hangs in the balance. He has no interesting discussions with Steve and so they seem to be played along ordinary lines. I do not even have to make reference to The Dark Knight and will focus instead on Spider Man 2 and the character of Doc Ock who is clearly an ambivalent character whose great intellect once saw him venerated but when he tries to restore lost pride he is seen as a villain ( I won’t mention the control of his mind by the tentacles). In the red Skull’s case he is already aligned with the Nazi’s (the villains of the war) and then seeks to be a distinct villain both of the Nazi’s and the allied forces. This throws the picture out of focus for by trying to make the red Skull a distinct villain he should not only have Captain America on his tail but also the Nazis whom he betrayed(this element of his betrayal of the Nazis is played down). The comic clearly stated that the Red Skull was the German attempt at creating  a super soldier to rival Captain America; he never sought to depose Hitler. When he and captain America are resurrected in the modern day he still proudly wears the swastika. His portrayal in this film is quite absurd and so Captain America as a hero loses momentum when he singularly pursues the red skull as opposed to fighting the real war against the Nazis. It would have been simpler to just follow the comics and have him be the German response to the American super soldier program; instead they try and futilely intertwine the two characters by their ideals without any appropriate discussion. If the screen writers looked at the wider picture of the war this would not have been necessary. Imagine it like this: Captain America is making headways into German territory and so the German scientists respond with their own super soldier who starts to take the fight to the Americans. When the Red Skull and Captain America meet in battle they are more concerned with whose fists are tougher and so there is no profound meditation on what distinguishes the two unless you count the one time where the red skull is trying to speak above the explosions about his nature as a freak which was borrowed from the Joker monologues in The Dark Knight. It is this reason why Captain America’s own legend is not so definable in this film. If the red skull sought to blow up the east coast of America this would only highlight the efforts of the Nazis in the eyes of the American populace and not that of the Red skull. They should have then made the Red Skull remain a member of the Nazi party to add some gravitas to the Captain America legend in the war; his defeat of the red skull would therefore count as a major turning point in the war. This is why some people will have a problem with the second act for it is only a duel between the Red Skull and Captain America and does not appear as a significant offensive against the Nazis. The second act also suffers from few intimate moments that would make it seem more than just another action movie. The last scene with the children running around with images of captain America’s shield seem to be inspired more by the performing monkey than his efforts in the war. His mission is also limited by its secretive status; he seems more like a member of the CIA than of the army.

The anachronistic element also seems to be highlighted to appeal to modern audiences; why couldn’t the member of skull’s Hydra group shoot regular bullets? This would have been in keeping with the realistic look of the 1940’s. The anachronistic look thus makes the film inconsistent.The stunted elements of the final act show that the filmakers forsook the template of the earlier scenes in order to cash in on the set pieces. The battles ring hollow and they seem to be following in the tradition of the likes of Thor which emphasised the bravado of the character rather than his motivations. It is also in the second act that one becomes aware that the film is borrowing formulas from other films to keep it going thereby losing the thrust of its original elements. The love scenes are so poorly written that they have to sample a song (Lady in Red) to try and make the relationship between Steve and Peggy seeem distinctive. The action scenes borrowed from Star Wars, particularly the Return of the Jedi, deny us of  seeing the distinct approaches taken by a Captain America and his crew in a specific battle. In the first section he focuses on espionage however in the second act he launches full frontal assaults in every set piece. 

This is the hollow element prevalent in most Marvel superhero films. The battles do not carry sentient weight and this is also because Captain America himself is only duelling with the Red Skull as opposed to the Nazis. If one were to include him in the actual battles of the war it would have been refreshing for one can imagine the Red Skull and the Captain coming to blows in the middle of that battle that could be a changing part in the war. The eclectic mix of Captain America's team is also filled with stereotypes: the black man, the frenchman, the japanese etc.    Captain America wages battle against the technological monstrosities of the Red Skull while ordinary Americans are dying on the beaches of Normandy on d-day.

Conclusion
It’s a good film but with some deficiencies in the script that are not ironed out. At least it surpasses the last captain America film in 1992 which was an outright abomination. The 3D in this one is quite hazy

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

The Dark Knight Rises (2012) teaser trailer


In the coming weeks I will be assessing why Nolan's Batman trilogy will go down as the definitive intepretation of what it means to be a superhero. In the context of his films one cannot look at it simply as typical superhero fair. In Iron Man (2008) for instance, Tony Stark jokingly blurted out that for  him to be a superhero is unlikely due to his list of 'character defects' etc. That was a vulgar interpretation of his role in society and this trailer dismisses that pretentious premise that one is considered a hero simply because one is all powerful and saves the day everytime. It is like all our world heroes: they have to devote themselves to an ideal which will see them break the shackles of the material world and become a legend. The artistry exhibited in this trailer is far superior to the so called superhero films that have been released  this year.   

Saturday, July 16, 2011

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, part 2 (2011). ***½/5. Cleans up the mess of part one but still ordinary in many respects


I am finally able to review Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows now that the two parts have been released and I can say that it is a good film however something is missing. If you put the two parts together you realize that the complete whole is awkwardly balanced and part 2 with its crisp editing and visual set pieces steals the show. The same weakness that appeared in part 1 was visible in part 2: it is too potter centric and does not address issues that appear universal apart from the mundane tale of good vs. evil. The script is also hampered by the adolescent perspective and does not seem to go beyond it so that it would manifest itself into a film that adults could tolerate. I am not blaming the screenwriter (Steve Kloves) and the director (David Yates); I place the blame squarely on the books that have too much of a tendency towards predictability and so does not warrant all this illusory praise. Potter fans were only excited because they were obviously proud to see the characters they know and love from the books on screen that is all. Similar to part one the screenwriters cater only to the fans and leave the neutrals in the dark by refusing to address the universal issues in the story. One of Rowling’s failures is that it seems that she waited to the very end to reveal all thereby trying to condense all the elements in the series into one last craze. She was able to overcome this because of the luxury of print and her idea of keeping the fans guessing while they waited for the next installment. In this film it seems bewildering as the screenwriter tries to condense all the elements of the previous 6 films into one and there is no doubt that there will be neutrals left in the dark that will only be able to cherish the visual set pieces and the cornball moments of humour. The potter centric element comes in the form of its serialization and the seemingly internal logic in Rowling’s fantasy world.  There are some good elements in the film that are clearly borrowed from The Lord of the Rings series. It is still astonishing to hear these so called top critics stating that it is a classic/great film and will live on forever. It will live on only for potter fans while the world moves on. The potter fans will buy the books for their children and their children for their children and so on. It is the books that are classic and not necessarily the films. The films over the years have adapted the books too literally and so vanish from the imagination as soon as you see them. I recently watched some of the films based on the books set in the muddle (lets say books 3-5) and realized how forgettable they are; they probably do not seem that way if one is presented with a box set of all the films. Apart from The Sorcerers stone the other films are hardly resonant and after ten years who is keeping count. I have always been annoyed with the coincidence that all the books are broken down into 7 years which conveniently represents the length of the high school system in Britain. There is no sense of overlapping.  These top critics are pouring illusory praise on a film that will vanish come next year for it does not offer a definitive film going experience (i.e. it offers nothing new to the genre) and relies solely on the strength of the books on which it is based and  populist elements to keep it going; populist elements that have occurred in many other films with The Lord of the Rings being the most recent ( I refuse to comment on Pirates of the Caribbean which is possibly the worst fantasy series ever released). Some critics are saying that it should be nominated for best film. This is likely but when it is nominated it likely only to win in the usual technical categories (Best Visual Effects. It will definitely not win for Best music, the score seems like a rip off of other huge blockbusters of the past) and even this is not a certainty since the visual effects are no better than part 1. This film as it stands is good but had there been only one deathly hallows I would have appreciated it more. There is a shot near the end where the three protagonists: Harry, Ron and Hermione seem to be taking a shot for the camera. If that does not support my claims about its limited artistic achievements nothing else will.

The film picks up where part 1 ended: the protagonists (Harry, Ron and Hermione) hunting for the horcruxes to kill Voldemort. The horcruxes are objects scattered all over Britain (not the globe thankfully) that house pieces of his soul. I agree with roger Ebert that Voldemort was really careless to have left these things hanging around yet he keeps his snake so close (hope I didn’t say too much). Once these are not found he remains invincible.  Everything is brought to a head in the final battle between Harry and Voldemort at Hogwarts where the fates of the two men (boy and man) are inextricably linked.  It is here (conveniently in his 7th year in school) that Harry’s true destiny will be revealed. Is it any wonder that after these eventful 7 years in which the books are set harry and friends have led uneventful lives 19 years later when we see them again? Look for the  horrible feature at the end with the sentimental fanfare where the filmmakers try and make the protagonists look 35+.

What’s good about this film?

The best elements in the film are the visual effects, the action scenes, the crisp editing, the unraveling of the mystery of the deathly hallows and the slogan ‘It all ends’. What more can I say about it without giving away crucial element of the story?  Please, dear casual moviegoer, do not take the word of some critics that this film is powerfully acted. The actors are merely channeling the characters in the book however Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort and Alan Rickman as Severus Snape do add a bit of flair; everyone else, however, are just channeling these well known characters as opposed to infusing some sense of distinctness to make you say wow that was a great performance and should be nominated for an academy award.  I appreciated the final battle for one reason it was set in Hogwarts which is the most appropriate place and when the discharges from the wands of Voldemort and Harry clash look at the surrounding physical structure laying in ruins with the gloomy atmosphere with shades of grey due to the overcast sky. In my opinion that was the most unique shot in the film and that will determine whether or not it gets nominated for best cinematography.  It was a good scene because it was stripped of all its excessive visual effects (apart from the discharge from the wands).  The visual effects are good but you feel as if you have seen it before in the previous films. There are countless discharges from wands (zap zap, stupefy in place of rat a tat tat). There is a final battle that is reminiscent of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King where countless numbers are on screen to give some sense of scale. In The Lord of the Rings: the Return of the King these numbers seemed terrifying and there was a sense of dread; in this film the large numbers do not convey any real sign of impending doom. Even though that was supposed to be the idea it does not make you feel especially anxious. When you feel anxious in this film it is only when Voldemort is on screen. There are some large beasts also but it makes you wonder how we ordinary human beings (muggles) never even got a glimpse of what was going on. I wonder if Voldemort’s only vendetta is to kill Harry Potter for it is careless of him to have left the school so poorly guarded and then finding himself in the awkward position where he has to invade it. Is he seeking world domination? Or merely to rule Britain? Or just to rule the magical world? Also the visual effects make you wander how realistic Harry Potter really is; at least in The Lord of the Rings the visuals are set in a mystical land whereas the Harry Potter films are set in the modern day. The visual effects are still good in the quite moments where a simple glow seems organic and necessary.  There is even a taste of heaven however it reminds you of similar scenes in The Lord of the Rings where the character surrounded by the shadows of death finds himself basking in dreamy light. The intimate moments in this particular heavenly setting, where one piece of the puzzle is revealed showing you the true physical conception of Voldemort, is well done and reinforces my point that the visuals are most striking in the quiet moments.  Another good element is that Part 2 strengthens part 1 to the point where you forget about it and makes you wonder why part 1 was made in the first place since it was merely a meandering piece of work which will be forever buried (unless you release a box set of course).  I also appreciated the hunt for the horcruxes which are actual physical elements channeling mystical energies. It is clearly influenced by the concept of the one ring in The Lord of the Rings where when that was destroyed then the dark lord Sauron perished along with it. Sauron is uncannily similar in motivation to Voldemort only on a larger scale.  I have also appreciated Harry Potter for the fact that most of its magic seemed confined within the walls of Hogwarts, that towering physical element in the series and its most original feature which is home to many secrets. This was why I complained that in part 1 Hogwarts was largely absent. Apart from Hogwarts concrete physical structures include the Gringotts bank with a sensational chase and the sense of scale is appreciated. The populist element was there and the audience cheered which means they were absorbed by the set pieces and moments when certain characters kiss (oh goodie) which is a clear sign that the audience have truly grown with these characters however this could apply to other blockbusters.

What’s bad about this film?

Well, apart from all the illusory praise being heaped upon it by the false top critics, it is clear that this film will be forgotten in the years to come (unless it is released with the box set). People seem to confuse the fact that the books are classic and not the films. The films are a mere retread of the books and do not enhance the story to any great extent as Peter Jackson’s vision enhanced The Lord of the Rings thereby making it stand as its own independent creation. People are sad to see it go because as the slogan says ‘it all ends’ however as it has been with us for  ten years is it any wonder that people are saying to themselves, ‘is it really over?’The films seemed like they encapsulated an entire generation and so people saw it as part of their daily lives; it’s like they say you don’t know what you have till it’s gone. I was not impressed by the potter centric approach due to the confined elements of the story although one has to appreciate the internal logic of Rowling’s world. The potter centric element will exclude neutral filmgoers and deny the film of any true philosophical interpretations. The philosophical element prevalent in The Lord of the Rings was that it explored the fallibility of man(doom of man) as well as his redemption in a collective sense. In the Harry potter films it is merely about the many strange interactions between harry potter and the mystical world. It does not have a concrete philosophical core that keeps it moving. There is a scene for instance where one character recites some platitudinous statements that are supposed to be mistaken as profound.  Adolescents will no doubt find it profound. This absence of a concrete philosophical core clearly exposes the adolescent market it is targeting which I suppose cannot be avoided. I also spoke of my review of part 1 about the weakness of serialization where there is no sense of overlapping and it is only too convenient that harry’s adventures coincide with his 7 school years. Was he ever allowed to finish school? (Probably, for defeating Voldemort must have been the equivalent of getting a Phd). In any case it is difficult to see any film standing on its own two feet. It may be the most financially successful franchise but that is only because there are now 8 films on the subject (what did you really suspect if the books were that popular?). It has now reached the point where people are confusing financial success with artistic success. The great artistic fantasy film is still The Lord of the Rings trilogy. I also detested the final scene which was more sentimental pulp without any real emotional resonance (maybe because it was set 19 year later. A tactic Rowling used so she could avoid the possibility of doing any more books). I also detested one particular shot where the main characters seemed to be posing for the camera (literally). This is not a film you will be watching over and over; it is a film you watch because of the propaganda (the long lines, advertising frenzy and bourgeois inspired, exclusive premieres etc) which heightened the expectation. It is strange that despite it being the most successful franchise financially there are several duds in the mix. It is only when it is released as a box set that people will remember it; I guarantee that there are few of the 8 films in this franchise that can stand on their own two feet. One last criticism is that parts 1 and 2 together is ordinary with part 2 cleaning up the mess of part 1.

Conclusion

Part 2 of the deathly hallows is a good film but when it comes together with part 1 it is not a resounding artistic achievement. It is the books that will last and not the individual films in the franchise unless they are released as a box set. Do not confuse financial success with artistic success. I was grateful that even among the ruins Hogwarts still seemed prestigious. This material creation by Rowling deserves several artistic interpretations. I must still say thankfully it is all over and Harry Potter fans will be silenced for now.  It makes me wonder if some critics are being paid to announce that this one individual Harry Potter film is great.
  

Friday, July 15, 2011

The Material Values which are crucial in understanding a films' philosophical dimensions




The Material Values which are crucial in understanding a films' philosophical dimensions


I have chosen to do this commentary because there is a trend in film criticism to ignore the material elements that influence the structure of a film’s story. I am not talking simply about visual techniques which the director employs to deliver a particular message; I am speaking of the material elements in the story that influence the attitude of characters. Characters in film are divided between their idealist and materialist values. The idealist values focus on their humanist principles which speak to morality and the quest for truth however the materialist elements in the film are largely responsible for conflict. There thus arises a debate which I will not seek to elaborate on to any great extent but it involves the conflict between the idealist/humanist and the materialist/realist and how this influences one’s perception of a film. The ideals in a film do not simply hover over the heads of the characters there is a material conflict that must ensue before the character will attain or fail at his task. This ideal can be good or bad. Why some reviews are not comprehensive enough is that they fail to assess properly the material conflict at the heart of the film and normally this involves assessing the influence of the external world before delving into the ideals that are at the heart of the matter. With a proper assessment of the external material world that influences the character one will be able to delve into and assess the ideals that confront the protagonists on their quest. Again I say these ideals may be good or bad but it normally involves a division of character based on the influence of the material world. For instance a character confronted with a million dollars will either flee with the money or return it to his owner. If he flees with the money he is considered selfish and if he returns it he is considered selfless. Before one assesses the actions of the characters one must first spend time on the million dollars and how it arrived at the place and why the action of the selfish individual may seem justified and why the selfless individual may not seem justified or simply naïve in his actions. One should not be quick to cast judgment simply because of preconceived notions of moral values. It is clear that some critics review a film in this biased manner and so their reviews appear distorted and weak from an analytical point of view. There is no villain in film that does not manifest his or her domination without institutional structures and once you remove these foundations he or she is normally exposed and defeated. Similarly the so called villain defeats the hero because the hero has no material backing to carry out his plans of establishing some form of order. The weakest films are the ones that focus primarily on an ideal without developing the material principles that ensure conflict. The most important films are those where the individual encounters some adversity through the institutional framework in which he or she resides and is able to overcome or wallow in defeat for the reality of life is that you win some and you lose some in your battles with the superstructures created by man. If the protagonist wins then one feels overjoyed if not then one fells some sense of melancholy. The material influences could also be found in nature or, to be more specific, a particular area in nature which has made some impact on the individual’s consciousness. In nature it is material because man transforms this distinct space in nature into a element of design which is either to escape economic activity or to maintain and possibly extend some form of territory linked to economic activity. It is fool hardy to analyze the reach of a film by simply speaking of the ideals of the characters without delving into the material influences. Great science fiction, thankfully, escapes this and most reviewers are forced to confront the overwhelming influence of the material world on the protagonists and antagonists. Films such as 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) and Blade Runner (1982) address these problems head on and are interested primarily with the influence of the material world on the individuals. This is why good science fiction is extremely relevant.

 I recently did a review of The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) and I was struck by the ignorance of some critics who failed to assess the influence of the material environment on the characters. I argued the case that the material element (the nature of gold) was paramount in revealing the inherent personalities of the three characters. These critics spoke primarily about greed and paranoia as if these ideals loomed over the head of these characters whereas the influence of the ruthless capitalist McCormick on the attitude of Dobbs was not mentioned to any great extent. This capitalist for instance reveals the inherent contradictions of  capitalism that seeks to enhance its profits by extracting surplus value (unpaid labour time) from the workers which will ensure added profits and this is why partners are so mistrustful of each other on the quest; they feel that one member will seek to take all the proceeds of his labour. I am simply saying that in a case such as this the capitalist system and the events of the Mexican revolution cannot be avoided in determining the path of the characters and their eventual degeneration.  The film is not merely about greed but about the failings of empire.

Let us look on other films that seem to be about character but are expressly due to the influence of the material world on the character thereby forcing his hand or influencing what sort of elevated or base ideals he or she pursues. Gone with the Wind (1939) was not simply about the doomed  romance between Rhett and Scarlett but about the passing of the slave society in the south  and how the civil war destroyed their way of living in which they were once so secure. The destruction of their property by the Northern army left some individuals destitute and on the brink of madness and also forced some to start the Ku Klux clan to try desperately to reassert themselves in the society.  As the film asserts at the beginning it was a civilization that was gone with the wind; civilization here implies the development of a secure material foundations built on the backs of slavery. There are those however who do not spend much time assessing this and so fail to grasp the significance of the characters Rhett and Scarlett. These two characters were able to adjust to the crumbling edifice through their selfishness or individualism however it is this individualism that defeats their romance. This disappearance of southern ideals can also be seen in a film such as A Streetcar named Desire (1951) where Blanche (Vivien leigh) is ruined mentally because her property (or security) has disappeared leaving her to hold on to past unable to make the transition to the brutal urban setting represented by the character Stanley. Likewise in Titanic (1997), which borrowed the formula from Gone with the Wind, the romance of the two protagonists are influenced by the sinking of the massive ship in 1912 and the class struggles inherent on the ship. These class struggles are reflective of the wider society where the bourgeois class has enslaved the proletariat. Sunset Boulevard (1950) is a great film which deals with the faded character of Norma Desmond who was unable to adjust to the changes made in the film industry where the prestige of silent pictures were eroded with the introduction of sound. Her degenerate character holds onto a base ideal that she is still a star. She is consumed by this idea and it is clear how elements in Hollywood artificially elevate humans to the point where they feel that everyone is indebted to them. When she visits the paramount studio to see Cecil B. Demile, for instance, one of the workers on the set who remembers Norma from the good old days shines a bright artificial light on her and isolates her therefore making others on the set take notice and remember Norma the once great silent star. The Godfather (1972) is clearly a metaphor for American capitalism despite the ideals of family. The family is a form of security and is linked to the consolidation of property. The drama in this film is instituted by Sollozo who wishes to introduce drugs into the underworld. Vito Corleone is unable to keep pace with this new development and after the attempt on his life the family is thrown into conflict simply because of this new material development. A lesser film would have made it into a soap opera where brothers argue with each other to gain favour with the father and he would weigh his options and then make his decision based on the character of his sons. In Citizen Kane (1941) the main character Charles foster Kane  is lost in the overwhelming size of his empire of material wealth.  Pinocchio (1940) is about a wooden puppet trying to be a boy which means he must shed the material trapping of this world before he can attain that particular ideal. This animated film is magnificent simply because it understands the basis of life that in order to attain a certain ideal one must shed the material world. The more consumed you are by the material world, the more you are likely to lose your soul due to your selfishness and absence of a collectivist spirit. A collectivist spirit is the ultimate goal of an idealist.

The title of particular films is a dead giveaway that the protagonists are in tied to some oppressive material environment and will involve some response of characters to their material foundations. The Bridge (material) on the River Kwai (1957), The Shawshank (material) Redemption (1994), Taxi (material) driver (1976), On the Waterfront(material) (1954), The Maltese Falcon (material) (1941),and  Casablanca (material) (1943). I could go on forever and also one must bear in mind that America is the greatest capitalist nation on earth and so if you assess an American film the exploitation of human labour is bound to come into play as well as the growth of industrial capital which involves rapid changes in technology or the class struggle which is the outcome of the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeois class. This also applies to Europe, particularly Western Europe, which is also highly developed on capitalist grounds. The profits generated could be illegal or legal etc. It is this material element of the capitalist system which will always be at the heart of American films no matter how thin it might seem. It is when the characters come into conflict generated by the material world that will determine whether they are able to achieve their ideals. It is our ideals that determine whether or not we succeed however it is the external material world which determines whether there is something to fight for or not.   

 This is why in my reviews I place a lot of emphasis on the external material world for by assessing this element you are able to arrive at a closer approximation of the truth. You need to understand what these characters are fighting for. The subjective techniques of the director, his use of camera and editing style will influence how the message of a film is transmitted. This will determine how clear the message is received. The more convoluted the message the lesser the film becomes.

Thursday, July 14, 2011

The character of the Joker in 'The Dark Knight' (2008): his role in deconstructing the materialist values of Gotham's citizenry.


(picture courtesy of dookieadz.deviant art.com)

The character of the Joker in ‘The Dark Knight’: his role in deconstructing the materialist values of Gotham’s citizenry
The mysterious, absolute character of the joker in The Dark Knight has captured the imagination of film audiences since the film premiered in July 2008. Interest in the character was driven to the point of frenzy, prior to the film’s release, following the death of Heath Ledger in January 2008 from a drug overdose after filming was completed. Interest in his performance was justified as some moviegoers were taken aback by the raw portrayal of the character. It seemed as if Ledger had penetrated the core of madness with his characterization. He justifiably won the academy award for best supporting actor which was one of two awards won by the film. This is the year 2011 and when you ask the casual moviegoer what he or she recalls about the character they will say that he was psychotic, mesmerizing, and a good foil for the dark knight himself, the batman; however it seems that the philosophical dimensions of the character have not been fully assessed. This is the role of the critic or one who is writing a critique of the film for having witnessed the mesmerizing portrayal of the character, which gave some form to the script by the Nolan brothers, the time comes when one must assess its significance and how this juxtaposes with batman and the Gotham citizenry he claims to be protecting gratis. I argue here that the character of the Joker is effective as a character, not simply because he is mesmerizing or psychotic, but because the character deconstructs the materialist values of the citizenry thereby throwing them into chaos. These materialist values are manifested in the form of private property in the city, with the majority of property in the city in the hands of the bourgeois capitalist class and the mob.  The Joker can be seen as a revolutionary character that has more balls than batman who is merely intent on maintaining the status quo of the bourgeois class of which he is a part. It is only ironic that Batman himself has initiated this chaos with his disregard for the rules propagated by the bourgeoisie by taking the law into his own hands. Bruce Wayne as batman started this process in Batman Begins (2005) without realizing it because the stakes were now raised with batman on the scene and so the criminals would now resort to more drastic measures to ensure that they can still make a profit from the so called illegitimate trade in drugs and activities that encourage human vice and folly. The criminals in Gotham city are represented by the mob that controls this illicit trade and so it is no surprise that they hire the Joker to kill the batman who is the only thing standing in the way of things getting back to normal. This is not a critique of the film The Dark Knight but it is an appreciation of the magnificent screenplay written by director Christopher Nolan and Jonathan Nolan. Few critics have discussed these elements however probably due to the symbolism of the film. This brief assessment will serve to highlight one of the reasons why Nolan’s Batman films are more significant than they may seem. With the expected release of The Dark Knight Rises (2012) I sincerely believe that if he continues in the vein of exploring the materialist basis of Batman’s existence in Gotham city this trilogy will be one of the most significant in film history. The comic element in the batman films is mere symbolism for the darker issues at hand and it is to Nolan’s credit that he has uncovered the foundations of this symbolism.  One must recognize this based on the repeated quotes that Gotham city is one of the richest cities on earth and is home to 30 million inhabitants. One can imagine the amount of exploitation that is taking place by both the bourgeois capitalist class and the mob.
We first meet the joker in the opening scene of the film where a bank robbery is to be staged. When one thief discover that the vault is wired with over a thousand volts another tells him that only a mob bank would have such a device installed. The Joker, they say, must be crazy when in fact this robbery sets off a chain reaction by drawing the mob’s attention. The Joker steals ‘a relatively small amount’ of $68 million in cash from the mob who gain their profits like the bourgeois class by exploiting the less fortunate. When the mob first meet the joker at their conference meeting it is clear that the unease has settled in and this is visible in the actions of the character Gambol, a black man. He is visibly agitated at the sight of the Joker and it seems that the joker has found a chink in the mob’s armor that he can exploit through this character. Maroni at first tries to dismiss the joker as a frivolous character but Gambol’s fury will not be stayed and he goes as far to put the word out that a price is on the joker’s head $500, 000 dead; $1,000, 000 alive ‘ so he can teach him some manners first’. The Joker eventually kills him and reveals his terrifying nature as well as his grand master plan of ‘aggressive expansion’. Therefore the  robbery, involving the $68 million is one sign of the Joker’s deconstruction policy with regards to the materialist values that have made Gotham the richest city on earth. One of the easiest ways to make inroads into any modern day empire is to do away with what makes it rich or keeps the empire afloat and the Joker’s robbery is just a warm up.
It is also clear that Batman and Gordon realize that taking away the mob’s money as well as the source of its profits will eventually disband it and all forms of organized crime and its facilitation of corrupt practices in the judiciary and legislature. The only representative of politics in this film is the mayor and we all know that politicians, as members of the government are primarily responsible for the protection, maintenance and development of national property for as the joker says ‘when I say that one little old mayor will die. Well then everybody loses their minds’.  In any case this has adverse effects: the mob has discovered the plans of batman and the police and so their accountant, Lau, funnels the mob’s funds through his investment company located in Hong Kong. Lucius fox (Morgan Freeman) points out to Bruce that Lau’s company has been growing at 8% per annum like ‘clock work…his revenue streams must be off the books, maybe even illegal’. He is clearly a money launderer for the mob because any sign of money laundering is naturally linked to illegitimate activity (so called). It is clear then that batman, like the joker, sees the finances of the mob as the source of their strength however as Alfred says to Bruce, who believes the mob crossed the line by employing the joker as a destructive force in the society, ‘You crossed the line first sir; you hammered them to the point of desperation and in their desperation they turned to a man they didn’t understand.’ This desperation is the fear that the mob has of Batman and the police taking away their funds. After Batman captures Lau in Hong Kong the police are able to land over 500 criminals in the courts at once because their racketeering efforts have been exposed following Lau’s betrayal. It is clear that Batman is instituting some form of chaos and this is what Alfred discovers although Bruce seems a bit naïve. The notion of private property is fully on display here and it is clear that when the source of profit of any empire is amiss then it is likely that chaos or serious bouts of anarchy will ensue among the populace. Bruce may be ignorant of what he is doing however the joker is more aware of the chaos that will ensue  and thus appears more brazen in his approach to unsettle the populace. Batman is more unwilling to accept his role in the creation of a void.
When the Joker is captured for the first time, intentionally, so that he can get his hands on Lau, he has a poignant conversation with Batman which changes the complexion of the film because all the issues are laid bare.  After Batman says to the joker, ‘You’re garbage who kills for money.’ He says:
‘Don’t talk like one of them. You’re not. Even if you’d like to be. To them you’re just a freak…like me. They need you right now but when they don’t they’ll cast you out like a leper. You see their morals, their code it’s a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign o’ trouble. They’re only as good as the world allows them to be. I’ll show you. When the chips are down these uh civilized people they’ll eat each other. See I’m not a monster. I’m just ahead of the curve.
The ‘chips are down’ certainly means the void created when the material world of ‘these civilized people’ is laid to waste. Batman is therefore unwittingly creating this void by depriving the mob of their funds whereas the Joker wishes to disrupt the whole society by blowing up physical structures such as hospitals and bridges and killing Judges and Police commissioners (law officials), ‘Look what I did to this town with a few drums o’ gas and a couple o’ bullets’. In the void created by Batman criminals like the Joker must surface to challenge what he represents which is some form of distortion of the mundane world where the fantasies of man are placed at the forefront as opposed to people keeping close to their chest their inner most thoughts. The outward expression of Bruce Wayne is the batman whereas for the joker that of the clown or jester who is essentially a prankster. This is symbolic for along with the joker batman’s main foes represent this duality of the mundane and their personal fantasies. Two Face also represents this dual nature more evidently in the form of his grotesque facial features divided between good and evil: the grotesque form obviously represents evil and the clean unscarred side represents his good nature. There is the penguin, the Riddler, scarecrow, and Catwoman. They all have dual natures and these are the characters who will challenge the batman who has created the void by dismissing the mundane characters of the mob. The chief point is this: the deconstruction of the material world creates a void and this creates an avenue for the idealists to venture forth or a system catering to ‘freaks’ or people with no other purpose but to express their duality or try to represent their dark fantasies. It is almost some form of mysticism for without the proper materialized environment, which has developed significantly during the twentieth and early twenty first century through the innovations made in technology, people are bound to collapse since man’s relationship with the man made material environment is now almost organic. If you take that away it would not be surprising to watch him go insane or reach some new point of mystical enlightenment. The idealists try and anticipate this by aspiring for a meeting with the gods or god in paradise. It is no wonder that the idealists are esteemed more highly in history since they seem to be beyond this world both literally and figuratively (Jesus, Buddha, Socrates, Plato, Marcus Garvey, Muhammed,  Gandhi, Nelson Mandela,  etc). They seem to be on the outside of the material confines o f this world simply because they had an ideal that would serve them forever. Is it any surprise that most of them died in poverty and that their views have made others rich?  Harvey Dent goes insane not only because he lost Rachel but because his material world has collapsed. Look at the coin that he flips constantly when we first meet him. It is a sign of his confidence in himself or his surety of the world in which he lives. ‘I make my own luck,’ he says for the coin is only symbolic since it has two heads and so if you choose heads you will always win the call between heads and tails. His defeat occurs when Rachel dies and this eliminates whatever security he may have had in his limited knowledge of the world for as the Joker says ‘You had plans and look where that got you.’ The mayor tried to warn him that due to his efforts to thwart organized crime people’s pockets will get lighter and they would come after him.’ Dent never listened since he was secure in his limited knowledge and so he paid the ultimate price. His vendetta against the people who had a hand in Rachel’s death is a sign that he has renounced the material world and is now pursuing the ideal of vengeance. It is ironic that some of the people he is pursuing are  members of the police force an obvious sign of the failure of the  judiciary and legislative system.  Joker and the batman have a conversation as he (the joker) hangs upside down

‘This is what happens when an unstoppable force (joker’s ideal) meets an immovable object. You truly are incorruptible (Batman’s ideal), aren’t you?  You won’t kill me out of some misplaced sense of self righteousness (again an ideal of batman). And I won’t kill you because you’re just too much fun. I think you and I are destined to do this forever (idealist).’ ‘You’ll be in a padded cell forever.’ ‘Maybe we could share one. You know they’ll be doubling up at the rate these city’s inhabitants are losing their minds.’ ‘This city just showed you that it’s full of people ready to believe in good.’ ‘Until their spirit (material world) breaks completely. Until they get a good look at the real Harvey Dent and all the heroic things he’s done. You didn’t think I’d risk losing Gotham’s soul in a fist fight with you? No you need an ace in the hole. Mine’s Harvey.’ ‘What did you do?’ ‘I took Gotham’s white knight and brought him down to our level. It wasn’t hard. See, madness, as you know is like gravity. All it takes is a little push. (no security)’
The joker has a similar conversation with Chechen, one of the heads in the mob, when he burns a stockpile of money and says ‘All you care about is money. This town deserves a better class o’ criminal.’ Chechen says ‘They won’t work for a freak.’ ‘A freak. (imitating chechen’s accent). Why don’t’ we cut you up into little pieces and feed you to your pooches hmmm. Then we’ll see how loyal a hungry dog really is.’ He is obviously saying that without their money the mob will not be able to provide for their followers much less command them. Joker knows where the other half is and when he burns the stockpile of money he burns Lau (on top of the pile), the only other person who had knowledge of the whereabouts of the other half and he has thus defeated or usurped the mob’s role as a force in society simply by depriving them of their money. (It is debatable whether Batman’s comment about him killing for money may have had some effect but that will be only an assumption.)When the Joker tells batman that they see him as a freak he is obviously speaking about the police and the politicians who need Batman to take down the mob by breaking all the rules. When they do not need him anymore they will cast him out similar to how the capitalist casts out the worker when there is a crisis (recession). This occurs at the end of the film at Batman’s request since someone had to be pinned for the murders and it clearly would not have been Harvey Dent.   The mob also employed the Joker and when he told them he had located the money they immediately informed the police of his whereabouts to try and trap him so he burned the money. After disposing of the mob he realizes that he does not want to know the identity of the batman because without batman ‘the mob (would) ground out a little profit and the police try to shut them down one block at a time and it was so boring.’ The joker obviously realized that the police would be no competition for him in the void devoid of the security of the material world however batman who is an idealist like himself would be a worthy opponent.
The Joker proudly calls himself an agent of chaos and in this material world chaos comes about when all the physical structures are removed and with it the people’s sensibilities which are tied to the security of this material world. This is why the Joker suffers a defeat when the citizens in one ferry and criminals in the other refuse to blow up each other which is reflective of the faith they have in the Judiciary and legislative system maintained by their taxes. Batman mistakenly calls this faith in the judiciary and legislature as the faith in being good or maybe it was Nolan trying to be politically correct. Who knows?
This is why the character of the joker is significant and it is not simply because he is psychotic or mesmerizing. Let’s hope Nolan can continue this premise in his next batman film.  

Monday, July 11, 2011

The Treasure of The Sierra Madre (1948): The best film about the nature of gold

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948)

From left Humphrey Bogart as Fred C. Dobbs, Walter Huston as Howard and Tim Holt as Curtin

Introduction
‘Sierra Madre’ means ‘mother mountain range’ and it is the source of the gold being sought by the American prospectors in Mexico: Fred C. Dobbs (Humphrey Bogart), Curtin (Tim Holt) and Howard (Walter Huston). The film is set in the year 1925 and there are a lot of Americans flooding into Mexico in search of gold following the turbulent events of the revolution 1910-1920 which brought the end of the Porfiriato or the Porfirio Diaz regime which featured high levels of corruption with the majority of the land in the hands of the elite (some say as much as 95%). America was still on the gold standard at this time so Americans scavenging for gold in Mexico seemed plausible considering that just previous to this year there was a gold rush in California which is geographically in line with Mexico. The film is also set 1 year before the Cristero wars which lasted from 1926-29. These wars were considered to be counter revolutionary as the church was responding to the political reforms of 1917 that limited their power (which was a good move by the revolutionary government knowing full well that the church is a bastion of the bourgeois class). It also takes place 4 years before the great depression of 1929. The timeline of the film seems to be conveniently placed within historical events. It also mirrors the struggle for other important raw materials such as oil of which Mexico was one of the leading producers during the 1920's.

  This film is partly about greed and paranoia but it is also about the foundations of empire and what it takes to hold it together. It is also about attaining the unattainable which was a favourite theme for the director John Huston who first developed his precept on the matter in his earlier masterpiece, The Maltese Falcon (1941). Lastly, the film is about Gold and the labour that determines its value. This is where I disagree with Roger Ebert who has said that the film ‘has never really been about gold but about character’. This position by Ebert is a Hegelian motif where the idea of character without its material influences is the primary cause of its personality. I will be assessing the film from a Marxist perspective which stresses the influence of the material world (in this case gold) on the metaphysical character. In Ebert’s case it was the character that was the essence of the film I will argue that the true essence of the film was the material element that was gold. This is the correct view for considering that the author of the book on which the film was based, was the mysterious German B. Traven,  who, in his book, discussed the negative effects of capitalism it is more probable to see this fable as an example of how the material world can affect individuals. One might be tempted to believe that it is mainly about character for when Dobbs and Curtin are first discussing the idea of prospecting for gold Curtin says it all has to do with the man. Dobbs agrees that it is only about the man however they sing a different note when ‘the piles of gold begin to grow’. This is why the character of Howard (Walter Huston) is so important as a reminder for he has seen it all before; he has seen what ‘gold does to men’s souls’.

This was the second film by John Huston and it earned him the Oscars for Best Director and Best adapted screenplay and his father, Walter Huston, earned a deserved Oscar for best supporting actor. Humphrey Bogart in his best performance failed to receive a nomination for his portrayal of the degenerate Fred C. Dobbs who succumbs to his bouts of paranoia in the quest for gold.  The film is more influential than one would know however a film about prospecting for gold is again to be released between 2011 and 2012; and, according to the report, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is the main influence on the approach to be taken by the producers. This was one of the first films to tackle head on the influence of gold on men and this was ironic considering that it was made in the glamorous Hollywood. Martin Scorsese says that while speaking with Elia Kazan (director of On the Waterfront (1954) and A Streetcar named Desire (1951)) he suddenly stated that ‘we’re working in the industry that made The Treasure of the Sierra Madre’ for it was quite ironic that a big mogul like Jack Warner would agree to fund a film of this nature about greed. This film is also famous for the quote by the leader of the Mexican bandit outfit ‘Badges? We aint got no badges. We don’t need no badges. I don’t have to show you any stinking badges.’ He says this after he lies and tells the prospectors that his crew are the mounted police and is asked by Dobbs to see his badges. There is also the great begging line by Fred C. Dobbs: ‘Can you stake a fellow American to a meal?’ Also before Marlon Brando said in, On the Waterfront (1954), ‘Conscience! That thing can drive you nuts.’ The Humphrey Bogart, 6 years earlier in this film, was saying ‘Conscience. What a thing? If you believe you’ve a got a conscience it’ll pester you to death.’ This film also followed on the silent film masterpiece Greed (1924) which also spoke to the increasing urge by the three protagonists to consume as much gold as they could. The  Treasure of the Sierra Madre was shot mostly on location in Mexico thereby giving a more accurate portrayal of the surroundings.

In this review I will discuss the true value of gold; the quest for gold and the failed prospect of empire in this film because of the divisiveness in the crew.

The (True) Value of Gold

‘Answer me this, will you? Why is gold worth some $20 an ounce?’ ‘I don’t know. Because it’s scarce.’ (Vulgar response)

This question is one of the reasons why John Huston’s adapted screenplay is so magnificent. A lesser writer would have the characters say ‘ok lets go hunt for gold. The old man spoke of gold in the sierra Madre so let’s go’ without letting the two naïve prospectors, Dobbs and Curtin,  understand what they are really on a quest for and why it is worth the heartache they will experience. The question is asked and answered by the experienced prospector, Howard (Walter Huston) in the motel filled with ‘rats, spiders, scorpions and cockroaches,’: the Oso Negro. This is where Dobbs and Curtin first meet him and other American drifters in Mexico. This is how he answers and he answers correctly from a Marxist perspective:

‘ A thousand men go searching for gold. After six months one of them is lucky. One out of the thousand. His find represents not only his own labour but that of 999 others to boot. That’s 6, 000 months to 500 years, scrambling over mountain, going hungry and thirsty. The gold is worth what it is ‘cause of the human labour that went into finding it. There’s no other explanation. Gold ain’t good for nothing except making jewelry and gold teeth.'

He forgot one element in his discourse on the value of gold: money or currency. In the year 1925, when the film opens,  the United States was still on the gold standard which simply meant that the reserves of the banks and the government treasury would be held in stocks of the commodity gold and this would ensure against any rise in inflation because as a commodity it would be security for all the paper money that was circulated by the banks and the government as currency or bills of exchange. In some cases it would represent a third of the money being circulated by the banks. The gold standard gives some credence to the actions of prospectors going in search of gold. Gold along with silver is also circulated as money or as bills of exchange between the producers. Silver is normally on a lower level than gold because it is more plentiful. Scarcity does have something to do with it but the commodity must have some use before it can be bandied about as expensive. In the 16th century for instance, Spain and Portugal were once considered two of the richest countries in the world however by the 17th and 18th centuries they were considered two of the poorest even though they had gold squeezing out of their ears. The mines of Mexico and Peru were once a cause for its great wealth however after awhile the value diminished because it became too plentiful. According to Adam Smith gold could be found in every nook and cranny of Spain even in the beggars tooth so why was Spain still so poor.  It was poor because gold had no value for them. Gold as an item had to be traded against the labour that produced other commodities in other countries. Spain was producing little or  no manufactures and its agricultural products were not exported in any great numbers. Gold was not the product of the workers in Spain but of the colonists in Mexico and Peru which also produced plentiful silver.  The only commodity it could export of any value was the gold paid as tribute by the colonies.

 If gold has to be traded like other commodities, assuming it has a use value, where is the value which will be translated into an average price to be generated from? The vulgar mercantilists will tell you that it is as a result of the commodity having exchangeable value which is false because surplus value does not arise out of exchange; $10 million is the same as a 10 million dollar house. The mercantilists saw gold as the primary source of wealth especially as gold was the global currency in their day. They regarded foreign trade as the means to generate wealth simply because gold was what foreign nations used to pay for commodities from other countries. They therefore saw the value of gold on the basis that commodities would be traded for it which was a vulgar response. It’s similar to developing nations who practice this philosophy where they see the US currency as some form of gold. Mercantilists refused to see local currency as a form of enrichment and it is no surprise that their philosophy is bankrupt considering that the global domination by  the British pound and then the Yankee dollar was simply a sign of increased foreign investment and expansion of the capital of those countries.

 It is as Howard says that the labour that went into mining the product is what generates the value. From a Marxist perspective the labour he is speaking about is surplus value which is the difference between paid labour time and unpaid labour time.  The paid labour time represents his necessary labour time where he (the worker) would need to replenish his labour power by acquiring means of subsistence.  Surplus value is generated by the worker under the capitalist the more unpaid labour time the more surplus value is generated. The 1 man out of the thousand found gold plus his paid labour time and this is why he charges $20 an ounce.  He was not paid for months and so he must charge the refiners accordingly; it would have been different had he not found the gold. He must be seen like the peasant or small farmer who tills his own soil where he is both an incipient capitalist (owner of the means of production) and worker (using his labour power to generate surplus value for the capitalist) for he will charge the consumer for his necessary means of subsistence as well as for the unpaid portion of his work that is dependent on the level of productivity i.e. how much goods he produces in a specific time. If he produces 20 products as opposed to 2 in an hour then he is highly productive and this will eventually cheapen the efforts of his labour and reduce the portion paid for his necessary means of subsistence while simultaneously augmenting the unpaid portion of his work and increasing surplus value. If his productivity is high as a peasant then he would start extending his acreage and then start employing workers who will now work under him as wage earners. The more he extends his reach the more he will transform his role from that of peasant to capitalist farmer. The capitalist being the one who operates solely as the one who controls the means of production.  On the other hand if he only produces 2 goods in an hour when he could be producing 20 then his productivity is low and this will increase his necessary means of subsistence while simultaneously decreasing the amount of unpaid labour time. A high level of productivity by the worker will generate an increase in the amount of objectified or constant capital (machinery, raw materials etc) that goes into the production of the commodity whereas with low productivity the development of constant capital will not be as significant and the variable labour power of the worker will be the primary cost that goes into the production of the commodity.

The quest for gold in Howard’s example is a sign of low productivity and this is why the one worker who struggles through the craggy slopes to discover and mine the gold gets paid so handsomely. Howard does not mention that had the other 999 discovered gold the other one would see his profits decrease from $20 an ounce to around 25c an ounce because the level of productivity would be great and so an inevitable decline in price for the worker but not for the one (of the thousand) who would be transformed into a capitalist who will be able to claim the products of these workers who work for him (through various means of expropriation. See my review of Chinatown ) for the high productivity generated by them will represent a significant increase in unpaid labour time and therefore an increase in surplus value for the capitalist. This is why Howard wisely tells Curtin, when they begin their quest for gold, that if they decide to stake a claim to the soil it would not be long before a representative from a mining company would come with a piece of paper stating that they had no right to be there on the land as it rightly belongs to company (the emissary would take control and then flood the area with cheap workers thereby generating massive amounts of surplus value for the capitalist).

When they are on the quest in the mountain of the Sierra Madre it is clear that gold is all around but Howard feels that some locations were not fitting for only the three of them to mine because they were not close to any lakes or pools of water that would help them wash away the gold from the dirt. This is a sign of low productivity and hence more value for the worker for under the capitalist the worker would increase the growth of machinery or constant capital which would have easily been able to mine the gold, wherever it was found, and carry it to the water; however how long would it take three men based on Howard’s reasoning? Probably triple the time. This low productivity therefore ensures added profit for the worker because the more time he takes to mine gold the less of it that will be produced for refining thereby increasing demand. It is not, therefore, that it is scarce because Howard makes clear that it is all around. Howard explains what high productivity does to a worker under the capitalist for having mined in several areas of the world such as Australia, Colorado, California, Alaska, Canada and British Honduras (now Belize). He obviously does not explain using the terms here but it is evident from his explanation. Here is what he says happened to him: ‘ I was in the British Honduras, I made my fare back home and almost enough over to cure me of the fever I’d caught. Dug in California, Australia all over the world (this wide range of experience is just a device to highlight how experienced he is) practically. Yeah I know what gold does to men’s souls.’

When he accumulated his vast experience he must have worked under the capitalist or an incipient version and that would explain his low wages and why he only made enough over to cure him of the fever. The productivity levels must have been extremely high and so he had to be satisfied with paltry wages. Therefore the value of gold is the worker’s labour power however the value of the labour power is greatly augmented because of the low productivity when one man can absorb the labour of a thousand. This element was missing in Howard’s analysis but it was hinted at in his answer. It is the low productivity of the prospectors that generates great earnings and not necessarily the scarcity of gold. If gold remained scarce, for eternity, then there would be no advancements in the mining industry and there would then be no need for gold from a capitalist perspective; it would only be one less commodity to sell at the market. From the perspective of the capitalist if he can generate high levels of productivity from his workers and increase the unpaid time or relative surplus value then more gold means more profits; more profits ensure added value to the economy. In The Treasure of the Sierra Madre what you see on display are the efforts of the workers who are not under the sway of a capitalist and so they can generate all the profits and the wages assuming that at least one sees himself as an incipient capitalist and this would explain the tension between partners on the quest for gold. In other words they are both worker and  possibly an incipient capitalist however if the mining company intervened and expropriated their earnings it would reduce  them to penurious wage earners kissing the ass of the capitalist forever by generating unpaid labour time which would go into his pockets.
   
Before Curtin and Dobbs meet the old man, Howard, they are swindled by a ruthless capitalist, McCormick, who has the workers sweat near to death on the docks and then when the time comes to pay he flees. He even promises them a bonus if they can finish before the designated time (lol). By fleeing from the scene of the crime McCormick is able to generate a massive amount of surplus value from the naïve workers. When Dobbs and Curtin next see McCormick he is coming out of a luxurious hotel with a dashing mistress; they have to pummel him with their fists to get what is due to them or what he promised to pay them. They flee before the law arrives however this is what the capitalist does to the naïve worker and when the unsuspecting worker is finally enlightened it normally ends in some violent unrest: the only universal language in the proletariat struggle. It is ironic that these same conditions led to the Mexican revolution. In the case of McCormick he was the capitalist who owned the means of production whereas Curtin and Dobbs had to depend on him to pay their wages.  When productivity is low it is good for the worker for it means more pay for him or necessary labour time; when productivity is high it is good for the capitalist for it means that the workers, who do not control the means of production, will now generate massive amounts of unpaid labour time or surplus value/profit for him.

My explanation has veritable proof in the film. When Cody another American discovers the three prospectors on the Sierra Madre he offers them three options: 1. They kill him; 2 they release him and he will notify the necessary people which will induce a flood of workers in the territory; and 3 they make him a partner. Dobbs, howard and Curtin feel they have only two options: either they kill him or make him a partner. They decide on the former (to kill him) because as Dobbs explains ‘Come one . come all eh’. If they made him a partner they would make lesser earnings . When they leave the Sierra Madre, for instance, the overall tally is $105,000; divided into 3 translates into  $35, 000 a piece. If they took Cody in as a partner it would be $26, 250. If a fifth partner came on board it would be $21, 000 and so on etc. When Ebert and others say it is not about the gold but about character they are mistaken.  (They eventually did not kill Cody; he was killed in the fight with bandits) It was gold that drove them to decide to kill him.
 (Major reference for this analysis is the monumental work of Das Kapital by Karl Marx. A work which comprises 4 volumes as well as The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith)

 ii

(The productivity demonstrated by Howard, Dobbs and Curtin is reflective of the low productivity inherent in a Mexico still coming to grips with revolution. The influx of Americans into the territory is reflective of the domination of the developed nations over the developing. Developed/rich nations easily exploit the developing/poorer nations because of the low productivity in their industrial sectors i.e. the poorer nations do not generate sufficient high rates of surplus value and so the developed nations are able to sell their commodities extremely cheap and make an average profit which will expand the general rate of profit in that particular developed nation. They require only the raw materials from the developing nations to enhance their industry. The gold mines in California and Australia for instance must have been fairly exploited by prospectors due to high rates of productivity. In Mexico the productivity is so low with regards to the hunt for gold, that when the bandits discover the gold they think it is regular sand used to hold down Dobbs' skins (since he claims to be a hunter) and they scatter it to the wind. Also when the prospectors encounter the bandits in the mountains their main goal is to get their hands on guns as opposed to the gold that is in the Sierra Madre which highlights the void created following the revolutionary events. They are only in the Sierra Madre because it would make an ideal spot to raid the villages. One of the reasons Mccormick uses to delay paying Dobbs and Curtin is that there is not much to do with your money except gamble and drink. This is another way of saying that there is no other work outside of his employment since the industrial sector is underdeveloped. Foreigners from developed nations who are experienced in this regard instinctively know where to find gold based on their  exploitation of other territories which exhibited low productivity in that particular sector. The influx of Americans is a sign that the Mexicans themselves were not exploiting several opportunities and so they took it on themselves to invest knowing full well the risks and then  generate added surplus value which would contribute to the expansion of that particular nation in the world. In this case it is America. After the foreigners from the developed nations come and exploit the resources that is when the members of the developing nations take notice and make a huge outcry demanding a share of the profits although without the aid of the developed nations they would never have discovered it or it would have taken them quite awhile to discover the potential in their own economy. In Mexico there was an outcry about the exploitation of crude oil resources by foreign oil companies and so the tale of gold in this film merely mirrors this struggle. The petroleum industry of Mexico was eventually nationalised as a result of this tension.  In Jamaica it was the foreigners who decided to take the risk to exploit the bauxite resources and it was only later that Jamaica was demanding some form of royalty. This is a feature of backwardness throughout the developing world: a lack of vision.  The developed nations also exploit certain developing nations by exporting their waste goods to developing countries because they realize that in those territories the productivity is so low that they have to charge a high price for their goods. The high price goes into replacing the high percentage of necessary labour time in the productive sectors. The developed nations flood the markets of the developing nations with their goods and ruin industries simply because of the vast difference in the productive sectors. Jamaica is a yes man country our productivity is so low that we have ruined most local industries. The surplus value in these territories is low and the nation only produces enough to replace the necessary labour time. It will be difficult to change since Jamaica is a party haven and so it will be difficult to ask workers for a cut in pay and to be more productive by generating more surplus value for the capitalist; this increased productivity however will only raise alarm about the level of exploitation by the capitalist which is what inevitably occurs however it will make the country rich at the expense of the workers because massive amounts of surplus value will be generated. It is no wonder the developed nations have convinced many developing nations that they know better simply because they are so far advanced we feel it would take years to catch up. The use of the IMF is to ensure the continued exploitation of the developing countries by throwing them into debt. One of the stipulations of these institutions is that you purchase foreign goods since they are supposedly cheaper however you are purchasing the goods with their dollars or the equivalent. In developing nations the unproductive sectors dominate such as the politicians,  police, army, priests, doctors and lawyers etc  and some people naively believe that these sectors will grow the economy when in fact they are impoverishing it simply because they do not generate surplus value but appropriate the wages and profits of the productive sectors who generate surplus values for the capitalist. The less developed your productive sector the poorer you are and so some countries such as Jamaica have resorted to tourism which is quite unproductive for it is simply to earn foreign dollars from the tourists who pay rents in the hotels. An old bankrupt economic philosophy. China for instance was once developing and was subjected to similar exploitation by the rich European countries and Japan but look at it now simply because it is generating massive amounts of surplus value through its productive sectors. Developing nations are necessary in the world economy in generating raw materials since it cannot be reproduced to a great extent in the developing nations because it will drive down the rate of profit because of the accumulation of constant capital. The industries of the developing nations are not allowed to thrive because should they derive a surplus the markets abroad in the developed nations  would not accept them since they have to encourage their own industries. In this film the presence of the prospectors suggest that they are on the hunt solely for raw material: gold dust which they will sell to the refiner/industrial capitalist. This is why there is a surplus labour population in developing nations since raw materials from agriculture and mining etc do not guarantee round the clock employment as does their industrial counterparts in the cities. This is why there will always be outward migration from these territories. )


What Gold does to Men’s Souls?

This is why the quest for gold corrupts man’s soul. The low or nonexistent productivity exhibited by the 999 which never find gold must have laid them to waste especially as their fortunes were riding on this venture. The craggy mountain slopes, the thorn infested thickets, the sand storms and the unmerciful glares of the sun must have  affected them mentally as there is the possibility that they will not find gold. This is what Howard has to say about his experience:

‘Real Bonanzas are few and far between. They take a lot of finding….Gold is a devilish sort of thing anyway. You start out to tell yourself you’ll be satisfied with $25,000 worth. “So help me lord and cross my heart”. Fine resolution.  After months of sweating yourself dizzy, few provisions, finding nothing you finally come down to $15,000 then $10, 000. Finally you say “ Lord, let me just find $5, 000 worth and I’ll never as k for anything more for the rest of my life.”But if you made a real strike you couldn’t be dragged away. Not even the threat of miserable death wouldn’t keep you from adding $10,000 more; $10, 000, you’d want $25, 000; $25, 000 you’d want $50, 000; $50, 000, a $100, 000. Like roulette. One more time y’ know. Always one more. (there is an ironic cut in by Dobbs who says he would be satisfied with what he set out to get even if there was $500, 000 waiting to  be picked up.) Yeah. I know what gold does to men’s souls. (giving the impression that he struck it rich sometime. He is asked what he is doing in a rat hole with the other drifters : ‘A down and outer’ ) That’s  gold. That’s what it makes us. Never knew a prospector yet that died rich. Make one fortune, he’s sure to blow it trying to find another. I’m no exception to the rule (masterstroke in the screen play. This is why he cannot cast judgement and why he is prepared to go on yet another expedition). …. I’d rather go by myself (in search for gold despite his age). It’s best to go alone. But you gotta have a stomach for loneliness. Some guys go nutty with it. But going with a partner is dangerous. Murderers always lurking about. Partners accusing each other of all sort of crimes. As long as there’s no find the noble brotherhood will last. But as the piles of gold begin to grow, that’s when the trouble starts.’

There are several things to note from this harangue by the old and experienced Howard: First, gold, if found, creates a certain compulsion where the individual wishes for more and more even wasting the fortune he has already earned on another fortune. This does not apply only to gold but to most commodities under the capitalist system for the simple reason that they are imbued with the surplus value of the worker. The sole goal of the capitalist is to increase his profit however it reaches a certain point where the rate of profit gets so small that there is the inevitable crisis. The unending drive for material gain is what characterizes this system so the prospector having discovered gold would have to reinvest his profits in another venture; if the venture is not successful one can attribute it to crisis for money by itself is not riches under the capitalist system unless it can be invested in labour power and raw materials to generate surplus value and increase the rate of profit. This film is merely a metaphor for the capitalist system. There is also the perspective of the worker for as a prospector the gold he finds probably represents his necessary means of subsistence or paid labour time so instead of investing it he spends on the finest goods that exist. He consumes so much until his reserves run dry and he is compelled to go on another journey to find more gold to continue enjoying his expenses. It is as I said before the prospector is either a  worker whose productivity is low and he merely trys to recoup his paid labour time with the discovery of gold or a an incipient capitalist who will lay claim to the area and employ workers under him to generate surplus value. In another case he could just stake a claim to the land and charge rent based on the discoveries made by others which is what the emissary from the mining company would seek to do. Listen to what Dobbs and curtin say they will do with the gold when they find it; Curtin hopes to invest some of his profits in planting peaches (incipient capitalist farmer) and dobbs plans to live the life by purchasing the most expensive things (simply enjoying the fruits of his labour).   

Secondly, when one goes with partners there is the risk that there will be disintegration as partners accuse one another of various crimes. Once gold is found in a situation like this it reflects the idea of low productivity where the individual having exhausted his mental and physical capacities in search of gold has to be wary of his provisions especially as his goods depend on his own security and there is no bank around to store your money. It is you alone in the wilderness with your partner who may kill you and run. This again proves that the film is truly about gold and how it influences as opposed to it being about character because when Dobbs, Curtin and Howard go on their quest the situation described by Howard is exactly what happened on their quest for gold in the sierra Madre. Dobbs disintegrates more than Curtin because he is simply more insecure and has more selfish/individual traits as opposed to Curtin who has a more kind hearted and welcoming nature and so is more accepting of his role in a team. Dobbs would have been better served to go it alone so that he would not be so mistrustful. Dobbs would have made a good capitalist but for his untimely demise especially as he is the one always pressing for more and more gold. The capitalist would have been more ruthless than Dobbs and pushed his workers to extract every crust of gold in the mountain. Also the suspicion of the partners is due to the fact that one would profit from the labour of the others just as the capitalist profits by expropriating the value out of the wage earner. When Dobbs is asked to go into town to fetch supplies he gets suspicious and starts talking to himself as his paranoia reaches fever pitch. He always mutters under his breath that he won’t give them a chance to take advantage of him. What is meant is that he is trying to ensure that they do not take advantage of his labour like McCormick did or what another capitalist would do for as Howard said before labour or more accurately the surplus value (unpaid labour time) is the source of gold’s value as a commodity. If for instance Curtin got ruthless he would hold Dobbs and Howard at gunpoint and force them to mine the gold and then flee with the profits and he would not be so different than McCormick who fled when he was supposed to pay his workers (that never happened in the movie; this is just to illustrate a point). The partners are therefore fearful that one member of the group will flee with the gold thereby taking advantage of their labour.

The Quest for Gold in ‘The Treasure of the Sierra Madre’

There are several elements that are required before the quest for gold can be undertaken. According to Howard there is a minimum investment (in the film around $600) required by the prospectors and so it is not a case where they scramble over wild terrain in naught but a change of clothes. There is food which is a means of subsistence, burros to carry their provisions particularly the shovels, pick axes, hammers, and other tools necessary for the excavation; they also need guns to defend their territory from intruders like the bandits featured in this film (the bandits are residual images of the Mexican revolution). Mining, in this case, normally involves, relatively,  little investment of constant capital (fixed capital or raw materials) in comparison with variable capital  (labour power of the worker). They have to find a suitable terrain where they will have to dig for gold. One of the reason I like this film is its realism or its unvarnished presentation of this quest. The sierra Madre is not some mythic range populated by dragons and mystical creatures. The sierra Madre which is located within a specific geographic space is chosen by Howard for one primary reason: it will or should not attract undue attention from either other prospectors or emissaries from the mining companies. Here is what he says after he tries to translate for Dobbs the tales being told by a Mexican: ‘We’re going into country very wild and dangerous. Have to cut our way through jungles and climb mountains so high they rise above the clouds. Tigers so big and strong they can climb trees with burros in their mouths. Good. Glad to hear such tall tales cause it means few outsiders have ever set foot there.’

On their quest they have to deal with norther winds which blow fierce and when the prospectors first  When they encounter these winds they do not realize how portentous these elements of nature are for these winds will scatter their eventual find. A lot of John Huston films were about attaining the unattainable. Another one in the same vein as this one is The Man who would be King (1975) about two English men who go in search of a kingdom in far off Afghanistan to rule people they consider backward. When their plans appear to be ripe the scheme gets into the head of one of the individuals and it collapses from him having actually taken to the idea that he is actually the reincarnation of Alexander the Great or godlike in some way. They  alienate one another and the glorious partnership comes crashing down after they came so close to having their own kingdom. When Dobbs and Curtin are in the wilderness with Howard the heat is too much for them while Howard goes marching on; they think they have discovered gold basing their assumptions on fairy tales where gold glitters and is located in big clumps of metal under the ground or in some chest. Here is what Dobbs said: ‘Look at it glitter. It’s yellow, too, like GOLD…Only gold can shine and glitter likes that. We’ve struck it Curt(in)’ They call back the experienced Howard who is busy climbing the grades of ascent. They have taken their precious water and poured it on the rocks that have the glitter to expose them and claim their prize. Dobbs says to Howard, ‘Here look at this rock. It’s full of gold. Veins of it.’ Howard looks at them and says,’This stuff wouldn’t pay your dinner for a car load.’ ‘It ain’t gold?’ ‘Pyrite. Fool’s Gold. Not that there ain’t a plenty of the real stuff here. We’ve walked over it four or five times. A place yesterday looked like rich diggings, but the water for washing the sand was 11 miles away. The other places, there wasn’t much gold to pay us a good day’s wages. Next time you strike it rich, holler for me before you start splashing water around. Water’s precious. Sometimes it’s more precious than gold.’ When they do discover gold Dobbs and Curtin don’t  know it; a prostrate Dobbs wants to go back to civilization because he has given up. In probably one of the film’s most famous scenes Howard jumps up and says in a highly animated spirit:

‘What’s that you say? Go back? Tell my old grandmother! I got two elegant bedfellows who kick at the first drop of rain and hide in the closet when thunder rumbles. My, my , my, what great prospectors. Two shoe clerks (those who clean shoes at for a living) reading about prospecting for gold in the land of the midnight sun, south of the border or west of the Rockies. Ha ha ha (an almost maniacal cackle)’. Dobbs gets up frustrated, ‘Shut your trap or I’ll smash your head flat!’ ‘Go ahead, throw it (the stone). If you did you’d never leave this wilderness alive. Without me you two would die more miserable than rats…. Nuts! Nuts am I? Let me tell you something my fine bedfellows; you’re so dumb there is nothing to compare you with. You’re dumber than the dumbest jackass. Look at each other. (they look). Did you ever see anything like yourself for being dumb specimens? (he gives his maniacal cackle and adds a jack rabbit dance to the mix) You’re so dumb you don’t even see the riches you’re treading on with your own two feet. (cackle) Don’t expect to find nuggets of molten gold.’ (If you ever see the film watch it for this scene if no other. Walter Huston as Howard is one of the greatest supporting performance roles I have ever seen).

When Dobbs and Curtin do find gold it’s not what they thought it would be for its almost like sand and not the glittering nuggets of gold they were expecting based on what they have heard in the the fairy tales. When you mine gold you have to sieve its particles out of the sand like any other mineral. After you assemble enough clumps of dirt you pour water on it through a trough and then you sieve out the particles and then make it dry. After you gather all your gold dust you then take it to the refiners who will then make it glitter by melding it into gold plates. The realistic approach in this film sets it apart from other fables which choose to focus on mythic presentations of the subject.

The Failings of Empire in The Treasure of the Sierra Madre.

In this film empire fails as soon as it assumes its inherent characteristics of partnership. A partnership is the first criterion required for the development of an empire. The partners on the quest for gold in this film are building an empire on the foundations of communal ownership of property although they are doing this unintentionally. First, they draw boundaries for their territory in the Sierra Madre.  In order to enforce their ownership of the property they have to defend it with arms from the bandits; this occurs in the famous scene where the bandit speaks about his badges. They also agree to kill Cody who wishes to be their partner. Secondly, empire dictates that the individuals involved should stay together for once there is division it will fail. Thirdly, empire must be inclusive of others to reduce the risk of enemies and this is done through expansion.  The main reason an individual or a country has enemies is because he or she refuses to be inclusive. This is generated by the drawing of boundaries. When there are internal divisions the empire will crumble more readily because the territory which once defined the communal relationship between the individuals which comprised the partnership will break to form new domains or new empires. The failings of empire in this film are based primarily on the fact that the domain which they share in is essentially mobile: gold dust from the Sierra Madre.  Another reason for the failure of empire comes about when Howard dissuades Curtin from laying claim to the territory for fear that an emissary of the mining company will come and lay claim and absorb their small territory into his thereby depriving them of it s gain. The empire also breaks up for from the outset, at the behest of Dobbs, they propose to divide the gold as soon as they  have started to accumulate sufficient quantities of the product instead of following the reason of Howard that they wait until they cash in. If they had waited until they had received the actual money for their labour Dobb’s suspicion and paranoia would not have set in. Look at what happens in the film after they divide the money; each individual, particularly Dobbs and Curtin are worried that the other man will steal his goods. Howard is the only one who keeps a cool head having seen the dissolution of empires many times before. When the three unite to kill Cody who they consider an intruder it is obvious that they are failing to be inclusive for a fourth member would have strengthened the security of the empire and this is evident when Cody joins forces with them to ward off the bandits. Curtin realizes this and this is why he offers to give a part of his share to Cody’s widow and child after he is killed by the bandits. Dobbs refuses to accede simply because he has in mind that he will break from the empire and set up his own.  After Howard departs briefly to bask in the hospitality of the Indians/mestizos, whom he helped by reviving a drowned boy in their village ( it is a device used to leave Dobbs and Curtin to themselves so Ebert is wrong that the scene with Howard relaxing is from a lesser film), Curtin and Dobbs come to blows with Dobbs insisting that Curtin wants to betray him once he gets the chance. These were the same two men who, from nothing, managed to compile $105,000 worth of gold based on a partnership. When they first shake hands to certify the deal Howard looks on warily probably aware of what is likely to occur.  After Dobbs thinks he has killed Curtin (which he didn’t) his conscience eats him alive and this is highlighted when he tries to get closer to the fire because he has chills and on screen the flames blaze until they cover the screen.  Dobbs has been consumed, not by greed, but by paranoia. Dobbs, in possession of the entire gold is unable to carry on the burden of the empire on his own and is killed like a starved, mangy dog by the bandits. The empire that they built required the work of three men instead of 1. Dobbs was simply unable to shoulder the burden of three men and so it was lost. The empire is blown in the wind after the bandits, who mistakenly believe the bags of gold dust which they have taken from Dobbs are sand, leave it in the desert to be consumed by nature.  Nature in this film is represented by the norther winds that blow the gold dust back to where it came from, the Sierra Madre. They encountered the winds when they set out on their journey and Howard by his final maniacal laugh finally understands the portent of this element when he says that it is a big joke played on them by Mother Nature.

Therefore Dobbs created internal division based on his paranoia and selfishness and his reluctance to embrace the partnership. He was primarily responsible based on his mutterings to himself and his desire to have them divide the proceeds of a day’s work as they went along mining the gold. This contrasted with the view of Howard and Curtin who embraced the partnership and were prepared to see it through together. This is why Dobbs falls into the quagmire and this is highlighted when he has to drench his baked head in a larvae infested pool to quench his thirst. There is no empire that can succeed without partnership and this Dobbs failed to realize although, ironically, the partnership was formed as a result of his insistence. It is unfortunate but empires are always broken up based on individuals such as Dobbs who feel no need for a partnership and is prepared to shoulder the burden alone. If you do not wish to form a partnership take only what you can manage and not the burden of 3 which you cannot. The movie was all about the gold if you believe that man is influenced by his material world which generates all forms of compulsions in the individual whether good or bad i.e. he either rises above the temptation or succumbs to it.

All these issues make The Treasure of the Sierra Madre a truly timeless film.