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.’
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.
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.
I edited a few things by ironing out some terms
ReplyDelete