Sergio Leone Web Board

Films of Sergio Leone => Other Films => Topic started by: Dust Devil on October 24, 2009, 05:37:30 PM



Title: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: Dust Devil on October 24, 2009, 05:37:30 PM

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0040897/


I don't know how is it even possible this movie doesn't have a topic of his own, maybe because some think it's not a Western, but no worries, we'll fix that right away.

Two words - Walter Huston. There are many many things in this movie that are worth mentioning when discussing why is the bittersweet TTOTSM a masterpiece, but Walter Huston's role as the old ''mighty wise and a tad crazy'' Howard is comparable to only a few others in the history of cinema. I also think all the other actors that worked on this picture really delivered their best for John Huston, who knew exactly what to do with each of them. Maybe not a full-blown Western, but a fantastic moral adventure sharing with it many elements certainly.


9/10


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: cigar joe on October 24, 2009, 06:25:37 PM
Oh I'd say its a 10/10, we've discussed it before for sure under numerous topics. Its one of the greatest Adventure films ever. Most would question that its a Western, I don't, its sort of another "End of the West Western" Adventure flick hybrid a bookend to the Zapata Westerns. It takes place just after the end of the Mexican Revolution,  just 3 years after Pancho Villa was assassinated. Once they leave Tampico they basically go back in time for all intents and purposes.


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: Dust Devil on October 24, 2009, 07:03:53 PM
Oh I'd say its a 10/10, we've discussed it before for sure under numerous topics. Its one of the greatest Adventure films ever. Most would question that its a Western, I don't, its sort of another "End of the West Western" Adventure flick hybrid a bookend to the Zapata Westerns. It takes place just after the end of the Mexican Revolution,  just 3 years after Pancho Villa was assassinated. Once they leave Tampico they basically go back in time for all intents and purposes.

There has been mention of it before from topic to topic, but I thought it deserves one of its own.

I agree with you it should be considered a W, and particularly with the part in bold. That's why I'm open towards the category called ''Modern Western''. Now, I'm not saying there are many movies that fit in, but for some, as TTOTSM, seems as the category has been tailor-made.

When they leave Tampico for the mountains, those 10-20 years of difference mean literally nothing. The rural Mexico of the 1920s (and even a few decades later), with the bandits, Federales, misery, poor peasants, etc., apart from the slightly different scenery isn't that much different from the American Old West, if at all.

P.S. I was tempted to give it a 9, but you know I'm very chary with ratings ;)


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: The Firecracker on October 25, 2009, 04:30:02 PM
I'm with Joe. Somewhat of a western and certainly a perfect film.

10/10 for me.

Sahara is the only equal in Bogart's catalogue.


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: O'Cangaceiro on October 25, 2009, 05:07:00 PM
Oh I'd say its a 10/10....

Ditto. O0


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: Dust Devil on October 25, 2009, 05:43:28 PM
I'm glad we agree it should be considered a W.


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: T.H. on October 25, 2009, 07:08:57 PM
I'm with Joe. Somewhat of a western and certainly a perfect film.

10/10 for me.

Sahara is the only equal in Bogart's catalogue.

I have probably seen over 25 Bogart moves, at least 20, but haven't seen Sahara. I guess I'll check that out, but I think In a Lonely Place is the greatest thing he's ever done.


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: Cusser on October 26, 2009, 07:18:34 AM
Sierre Madre was probably the best film to show "greed" until GBU.  Yeah, Alfonso Bedoya was like a predessor to Tuco in some ways.  When Huston tells Holt he should go to Texas to see the widow, always brings a tear to my eye. 

This is a true classic, even though may not really be a "western".  This film is a true part of film istory.  Today's audiences would likely avoid because not in color, and 126 minutes.  Of course in GBU it's 2.5 hours until they finally find the money, and look what happens after 2:15 hours !!!.  Look for young Robert Blake as the seller of the lottery ticket.


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: Amaze on September 25, 2010, 04:06:48 PM
Finally saw this a few weeks ago. Been meaning to watch it for years just never got around to it.
I think Walter Huston was superb, what a character!
For me he made the movie worthwhile. Bogart was ok but his character was a scumbag and the way he talks really annoys me.
The only real flaw I think was how Bogart's character almost literally went crazy overnight, seemingly forgetting that his partner saved his life the day before.

Will definitely watch this again in the future.


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: Cusser on September 25, 2010, 05:43:54 PM
The only real flaw I think was how Bogart's character almost literally went crazy overnight, seemingly forgetting that his partner saved his life the day before.

You sure it was "the day before" ?  In GBU I figure Tuco tracked Blondie for several weeks, maybe more, before finding him at that hotel.  Then several more weeks, maybe more, before finding him with Shorty Larson.   Stuff like that; just because they don't show all the days just digging out the gold in "Sierra Madre", doesn't mean they weren't there a long time.


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: stanton on September 26, 2010, 02:33:53 AM
For me this is not a western.

For me it belongs to the most overrated films ever (if we are talking of famous classics). Too much studio bound sets, too much sentimentality (well comparatively), Bogart is not very convincing in the latter part of the film, Tim Holt is not good and I don't like the ending with the gold dust. But Walter Huston is great as always. A solid 6/10

John Huston made much better films, and Bogart also.


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: Amaze on September 26, 2010, 10:32:21 AM
You might be right Cusser. It's still not done in a convincing way though.

There were some sets used Stanton but as far as I know the majority of the movie was shot in Mexico.


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: Dust Devil on September 26, 2010, 02:56:09 PM
I thought the sets and the outdoor locations blended well, the fact that the movie was shot in b/w probably helped this a lot.


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: dave jenkins on September 30, 2010, 12:41:32 PM
Blu-ray! http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare/treasure-sierra.htm


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: Dust Devil on September 30, 2010, 01:52:59 PM
Are you getting it?


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: titoli on September 30, 2010, 02:09:42 PM
Are you getting it?

Need to ask?


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: Dust Devil on September 30, 2010, 02:42:34 PM
Need to ask?

Stupid question, yeah, but I do need his opinion when he does.


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: dave jenkins on September 30, 2010, 03:20:57 PM
I did order it. But whether I'll actually be getting it or not, well, one can never be entirely sure about these things . . .

The review makes it sound really good. There's also a Blu-ray of The Maltese Falcon out the same day, but I'm passing on that.


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: dave jenkins on October 06, 2010, 06:03:52 AM
The disc arrived and I checked it out last night. Alfonso Bedoya has never looked better. O0


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: Groggy on October 06, 2010, 08:54:21 AM
I'm sure Juan Miranda will be happy to hear that. :D


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: Juan Miranda on October 09, 2010, 05:10:06 PM
I'm sure Juan Miranda will be happy to hear that. :D

Si senor.
(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/Tarkyhitch/alfonso02_7680.gif)(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/Tarkyhitch/alfonso02_7680.gif)(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/Tarkyhitch/alfonso02_7680.gif)(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/Tarkyhitch/alfonso02_7680.gif)(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/Tarkyhitch/alfonso02_7680.gif)(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/Tarkyhitch/alfonso02_7680.gif)(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a190/Tarkyhitch/alfonso02_7680.gif)


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: dave jenkins on October 10, 2010, 05:08:20 AM
It's interesting how Gold Hat is used to signal the end of each of the film's three acts. His first appearance, of course, marks the end of the Tampico section and inaugurates the new, lawless setting in which the main action takes place. That middle section is in turn punctuated by Gold Hat's second appearance, which resolves certain plot complications and comes just before (and perhaps precipitates, to some degree) the group's decision to leave. Finally, Gold Hat is there at the end to render a final judgment on Dobbs.

I could perhaps also mention the homoerotic subtext in play between Dobbs and Gold Hat, but I don't want to get titoli too worked up.


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: Cusser on October 10, 2010, 08:34:05 AM
I made a DVD copy of this (and Strangers on a Train) last night from TCM cable as I was out, so I'll have to watch it soon to comment on this.  The end (with the wind) was copied at end of Sabata.


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: titoli on October 10, 2010, 08:45:18 AM
I could perhaps also mention the homoerotic subtext in play between Dobbs and Gold Hat, but I don't want to get titoli too worked up.


I bought the dvd today. I saw the movie in  the early '80's and the impression I had at the time was more or less the same stanton had: a half-failure like most of Houston's movies. But the copy I saw was dubbed and not pristine, so I decided to give it another try. I have no doubt there's a homoerotic subtext...though I can't remember Borges getting hip to it...


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: dave jenkins on October 10, 2010, 11:19:02 AM
The end (with the wind) was copied at end of Sabata.
Kubrick also ripped it off for the end of The Killing (cleverly updated, though). Endings are hard--which is why the good ones keep getting recycled.


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: dave jenkins on October 10, 2010, 12:32:22 PM
I have no doubt there's a homoerotic subtext...though I can't remember Borges getting hip to it...
Can I bait a line, or what?

But on to the question of Huston's artistry. I think we've talked about this before: Huston usually did literary adaptations, and so the quality of his films were often constrained by the worthiness (or lack thereof) of the original source material from which he worked. Which is to say, he picked a lot of sows' ears, so rarely produced silk purses. (In the case of Moby Dick, though, we'd have to say that that was a case of Huston biting off more than he could chew--and yes, I'm mixing my metaphors). Although I haven't read it, my suspicion is that B. Traven's novel is junk. Yet Huston managed to bring forth a work that's more than respectable. He had the help of some fine actors, and some wonderful cinematography--which together allowed for some startling close-ups (thank you, Blu-ray Gods). But more than that, he got a lot of good out of his script. There's a basic problem with the plot that requires a fair amount of finessing: how to delay the inevitable falling out among the three companions, yet keep the audience from getting bored in the meantime. And so we have the Tampico prelude, an almost perfect mini-film in itself; the lottery ticket gimmick on its own would have been terrible, but coupled with the Barton MacLane stuff (which leads to that amazingly good knock-down-drag-out cantina scene) you have a model of what good plot construction should be. Then there's the long middle section, which begins, literally, with a bang (thank you, Alfonso Bedoya) and ends, literally, with lots more bangs (thank you, Alfonso Bedoya). Does it seem like Huston was hep to Leone's Ten Minute Rule? Only in the last section does the focus settle squarely on Dobbs's growing instability--although it has been wonderfully prepared for with some earlier telegraphing in Section 2. Even so, the surprises keep on coming, with the incursion of a plot complication via Indians we haven't known about who suddenly appear in the final third. The ending, although predictable, is made palatable simply because we've had so much to occupy ourselves with that we haven't had time to dwell on its predictability. You can quibble about certain details--for example, why is Bruce Bennett in the movie?--but all work together to prolong the adventure and delay the conclusion which, even now, is somewhat startling (then there's a bonus, when, presto, the brand-upon-the-burros is re-revealed). Sleight of hand is necessary for good filmmaking, and I'd say that Sierra Madre is as good an instance of cinematic legerdemain as I know.  And in the hands of others, this material would have certainly remained little more than an excruciatingly dull morality tale.


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: stanton on October 10, 2010, 01:26:10 PM
According to what I have read about Traven I wouldn't expect his novels to be junk, but haven't read one.

And I like Huston as director, but I prefer every other film Huston made in these days (up to Moulin Rouge 1953 but haven't seen In this Our Life and We Were Strangers).
I would also prefer Moby Dick for some powerful images. And The Maltese Falcon, The Asphalt Jungle, The Red Badge of Courage and maybe also Key Largo are excellent films, and belong to Huston's best.

I have a Bogart box with Treasure in it, so I may give it another watch, but so far, and I have seen it at least 3 times, I always thought that it should have become a better film with such a cast, director and story. Treasure could never live up to its reputation for me.


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: titoli on October 11, 2010, 10:03:50 AM
I saw it again and yes, it fares beeter in the original language, a decent master and a big screen. Still there are problems, the main being the Bogart character. Bogart doesn't manage to make him credible and all the plot turning points hang on him. He's credible only in the first scenes, expecially that of buying the lottery ticket. Then one wonders what kind of a character is one who can dedicate 1 year of toil to earn some money  and then becoming crazy for no reason. He cannot of course simply reveal his inner self because that wouldn't square with his previous behaviour. And Bogart ios at his worst enhancing all the character's inconsistencies, opning wide his eyes, grimaces all over his face (the same mistake he made in High Sierra and Petrified Forest: I should rewatch it, but he finally understood the way to play a psychotic character only in Mutiny of Caine). And then some other inconsistencies like why Holt does give him back his gun or doen't tie him to a tree at night, like anybody else would do. And again, why Bogart, so taken up with money fever, just doesn't shoot  the three mexicans.
Again, more than an homosexual subtext, there's an evident zoophilism attributable to all three characters (all those night visits to the burros with the excuse of checking their gold troves...).


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: Dust Devil on October 11, 2010, 12:39:04 PM
Rating?

Again, more than an homosexual subtext, there's an evident zoophilism attributable to all three characters (all those night visits to the burros with the excuse of checking their gold troves...).

lol >:D


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: titoli on October 11, 2010, 01:08:55 PM
Rating?

7\10


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: Groggy on October 11, 2010, 01:40:32 PM
Damn titoli, now you've made me want to see this again. ;)


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: Dust Devil on October 11, 2010, 01:44:11 PM
I will watch it again tomorrow, see if anything changes.


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: titoli on October 11, 2010, 02:47:00 PM
Apparently my remarks on the burros raised a huckus...


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: titoli on October 11, 2010, 03:23:12 PM
I saw it again and yes, it fares beeter in the original language, a decent master and a big screen. Still there are problems, the main being the Bogart character. Bogart doesn't manage to make him credible and all the plot turning points hang on him. He's credible only in the first scenes, expecially that of buying the lottery ticket. Then one wonders what kind of a character is one who can dedicate 1 year of toil to earn some money  and then becoming crazy for no reason. He cannot of course simply reveal his inner self because that wouldn't square with his previous behaviour. And Bogart ios at his worst enhancing all the character's inconsistencies, opning wide his eyes, grimaces all over his face (the same mistake he made in High Sierra and Petrified Forest: I should rewatch it, but he finally understood the way to play a psychotic character only in Mutiny of Caine). And then some other inconsistencies like why Holt does give him back his gun or doen't tie him to a tree at night, like anybody else would do. And again, why Bogart, so taken up with money fever, just doesn't shoot  the three mexicans.

Some might object that Bogart actually tries to shoot down the mexicans but finds that his gun is empty. But that doesn't square with Bogart's previous psichotic dedication in planning Holt's murder and, even more, getting rid of the corpse: that should make us presume that Bogart checks continuously if his gun is loaded and if somebody is in ambush. And then all his pointed arguing with Holt about stealing and murdering it rhymes with Huston sr. predictions about the effect of gold on men but not with Bogart's character as we know it before the prospecting starts. Sure, some hint is given that the character is slightly paranoic, but that may develop in such a violent psychosis is hard for me to swallow. And even more hard to swallow is the fact that his two companions do little to prevent the possible effects. What I mean is that the character is inconsistent for plot's sake and that Bogart is unable to understand that he shuld have played those inconstinncencies down instead of enhancing them.. 


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: dave jenkins on October 12, 2010, 03:01:17 PM
I learned in a documentary last night that Huston made at least one significant change to the story, making Curtain, played by Tim Holt in the film, more savory than he was in the book. The chief reason for this change, apparently, was to generate dramatic interest by providing greater contrast between Curtain and Dobbs. But this also changed the meaning of the story, which, from what I understand, was originally something of a Marxian object lesson.

If Traven's intention was to demonstrate the inevitable, debilitating effects of gold fever, then Huston's movie wanders from that thesis. Rather, the central question the film poses is this: does gold lust determine character, or merely reveal it?

That is the very question Dobbs puts to Curtain the morning after the two younger men have met the old prospector for the first time. Would a large gold strike, Dobbs wonders, actually cause a man to change? “All depends on the man,” Curtain answers. That seems to be the philosophy of the film, and that's the philosophy that Dobbs also espouses, confident that he's the kind of man who can withstand temptation. But of course he's kidding himself.

The contradictions in Dobbs that titoli sees may simply be the result of Huston not adequately translating the character from Traven's conception to his own. On the other hand, they could just as easily be indicators of a personality under stress. When a character acting in bad faith comes up against the intractable world, contradictions are the first things to manifest.

Then Huston's use of Curtain provides more than a—perhaps unbelievably stark—contrast to Dobbs. His very presence indicts Dobbs. Curtain has experienced all that Dobbs has, but responds, not by degenerating into paranoia, but by developing new reserves of strength and tolerance. The gold fever never really possesses him. At the end he's content to let the gold dust blow away as he rides off to pick fruit with Cody's widow.

But if Curtain can come through with his soul intact, then why not Dobbs? Either he was corrupt all along, or was too weak to resist the gold-induced madness. Either way, the gold is not the issue—fundamental character traits are.

None of this answers titoli's objections. Does the film make concessions for the convenience of its plot? Undoubtedly. Does Bogart considerably overplay his role? Absolutely. Bogart was an actor with limited utility, whose acting was best employed when under restraint. Unhappily, he first made a splash with The Petrified Forest, and thereafter was seen as the go-to guy for performances requiring over-the-top nut-jobs. Titoli mentions High Sierra, but, even after becoming a leading man, Bogie was still in demand to play psychos (cf. The Two Mrs. Carrols, Conflict). Again, titoli is right to approve Bogart's later performance in The Caine Mutiny; he could have pointed to In a Lonely Place as well (although in that case he was not playing a psycho, but a guy with anger issues). Yes, Bogie developed as an actor—perhaps he also got better parts and worked for better directors. Perhaps another actor could have done better work with the Dobbs role--Walter Huston, for example.

Even with these objections acknowledged, the film is more interesting than other adventure films of its era. The use of  authentic locations is one selling point, but also the attention paid to the details of prospecting. You always feel that Walter Huston's character really knows what he's talking about. There  is also the judicious use of Spanish speaking characters in a Spanish speaking country (practically unheard of in Hollywood films of the time). Max Steiner's music is good too, and Huston knows when not to use it—the cantina fistfight is made all the more realistic by the silence underscoring it (none of that John Ford BS here). And needless to say, the film doesn't suffer from Rhonda Fleming Syndrome. Even Red River, released the same year, can't boast all these exemplary features.

Let's take a point off for some liberties taken with the plot, and shave another one for Bogie's scenery chewing. That would still leave us with a score of 8/10. More than respectable for a film of its period.


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: titoli on October 12, 2010, 05:15:00 PM
What about the burros? 


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: Groggy on October 12, 2010, 05:30:05 PM
They go good with salsa and Monterry Jack cheese.


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: Dust Devil on October 13, 2010, 05:45:37 AM
Didn't have the time to re-watch it yesterday, perhaps today. :'(

... 8/10. More than respectable for a film of its period.

lol, wth does this mean? I don't remember hearing this sort of jive, say, while you were talking about Yellow Sky...


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: dave jenkins on October 13, 2010, 07:59:19 AM
Well, do you think a good 40s adventure picture is as exciting/interesting/what-have-you as, say, a good 60s adventure pic?


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: Dust Devil on October 13, 2010, 08:40:52 AM
A masterpiece is always a masterpiece. Almost the same thing with the so called ''good movies''. Cult Movies, genre movies and such flicks get corroded by time (because the waves they ride on hit the shore), great movies don't. I am not in any way responsible for those that generalize and/or cannot understand that distinction.


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: moviesceleton on October 13, 2010, 08:46:44 AM
A masterpiece is always a masterpiece. Almost the same thing with the so called ''good movies''. Cult Movies, genre movies and such flicks get corroded by time (because the waves they ride on hit the shore), great movies don't. I am not in any way responsible for those that generalize and/or cannot understand that distinction.
Excuse me, but isn't The Treasure of Sierra Madre a genre flick?


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: Dust Devil on October 13, 2010, 08:49:30 AM
Excuse me, but isn't The Treasure of Sierra Madre a genre flick?

Which genre does it belong to - adventure? It doesn't favor any genre over another, and thus it is not a strict genre movie by most definitions.


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: Groggy on October 13, 2010, 08:51:30 AM
Excuse me, but isn't The Treasure of Sierra Madre a genre flick?

Which "genre" would that be?


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: moviesceleton on October 13, 2010, 12:15:54 PM
Which genre does it belong to - adventure?
That's what I was thinking about. But my real point was that "genre movies get corroded by time, great movies don't" is a rather bold and simplifying statement - especially to be made on Sergio Leone Web Board  >:D


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: dave jenkins on October 13, 2010, 03:38:17 PM
Can't a genre picture also be a masterpiece? As in, you know, Leone's films?


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: noodles_leone on October 13, 2010, 04:19:48 PM
Can't a genre picture also be a masterpiece? As in, you know, Leone's films?

CoR !


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: dave jenkins on October 14, 2010, 08:46:32 AM
I didn't say ALL of Leone's films.


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: noodles_leone on October 14, 2010, 09:34:58 AM
You don't HAVE to answer my stupid posts. That's Dust Devil's job.


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: noodles_leone on October 14, 2010, 10:25:17 AM
And since we're talking about him, i'll answer for him to the question raised on the previous page: he says The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is a western (although he aknowledges the fact that SOME think it is not). Maybe not a full-blown Western, but a fantastic moral adventure sharing with it many elements certainly. Hence the location of this topic on the Other Films board.


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: dave jenkins on October 14, 2010, 12:52:43 PM
The question of whether the film is or is not a Western does not exercise me. These taxonomic matters do little to shed light on the work.


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: titoli on October 14, 2010, 03:52:53 PM
The question of whether the film is or is not a Western does not exercise me. These taxonomic matters do little to shed light on the work.

But what about the burros?


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: Groggy on October 14, 2010, 04:23:39 PM
They're apt to give you gas.


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: Dust Devil on October 15, 2010, 03:59:02 AM
Can't a genre picture also be a masterpiece? As in, you know, Leone's films?

Well, it can, theoretically I mean.

But for me, there's a distinction to be made here: labeling a movie as a ''genre flick'' is not the same thing as saying a movie belongs to a certain genre, though as said - not many understand that part. Labeling a movie that way successfully anchors it to a target audience but at the same time secludes it from the rest. It's like an excuse, to sell it easily. In that direction: I don't think I have to explain to you what does it mean when someone says to you that a certain movie is a ''good action flick'' or a ''solid Kung fu flick'', right? The first thing you think before watching it, is that this movie rides on the waves of its genre, that's the main thing of the movie - and if you're not a huge aficionado - you just skip it without remorse. But, on the other hand, if you ask someone's opinion on a movie that you already know belongs to the horror genre, and he/she says it's a ''great movie'', and not, say, a ''cool horror flick'', or something among those lines, where the genre of the movie pops out every time in the short description, then you probably go and watch it with more ease, knowing it (probably) has to offer more than the regular genre hammering.

Leone's movies ''genre flicks'' ? - They are mostly Ws (or SWs, if you wish), but I rarely hear people referring to them as such. ''Leone Westerns'' sometimes, but very rarely. I was under the impression even people who despise Ws watch them when they get the chance. Hence, a great/good movie is beyond these 'definitions', it's just a great movie, and you watch it cause you know there's something in there that works despite anyone's taste.


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: Dust Devil on October 15, 2010, 04:04:14 AM
I forgot to say: it wouldn't surprise me at all to hear people labeling them whatever they want, especially after I've at some point heard/read some folks referring to them as ''Eastwood movies/Ws''. ;D


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: Dust Devil on October 15, 2010, 12:18:52 PM
You don't HAVE to answer my stupid posts. That's Dust Devil's job.

Yeah, instead of watching TTOSM again today here I am, reading your posts, and answering them.  :(


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: dave jenkins on October 15, 2010, 04:38:16 PM
Savant does the film and the new Blu-ray proud: http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s3329madr.html


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: dave jenkins on October 18, 2010, 10:34:56 AM
Came across this in the bookstore yesterday: http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Film-Legacy-Authoritative-Landmark/dp/0826429777/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1287419198&sr=1-1

Flipping open to a page at random, I arrived at the entry for Sierra Madre. There wasn't much there I didn't already know, but I did glean one bit of info: Gold Hat only appears once in Traven's book.

Here's another example of Huston improving on his crappy source material. And consider: without this intervention, the world might have continued forever in ignorance of Alfonso Bedoya!


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: Dust Devil on October 20, 2010, 02:16:32 PM
I finally watched it again today: and I stick with my (9/10) rating. I actually enjoyed it more this time, having left all huge expectations aside - unlike the first (well not the first altogether but the first I can remember) time - I was able to dive more freely into the characters and the whole campaign. It is not the greatest movie ever made, let alone the most complex plot ever thought of - and that is the main problem because most people stick with presenting it that way - but it glides between the characters and the turns in the script very well, never telling you anything before the right moment has come. The rating's (almost) there - the 9/10 and higher domain - altogether it of course doesn't compare to a movie of the caliber of GBU, but, although certainly not being the biggest Huston fan out there, I say it is the one that comes the closest.

I saw it again and yes, it fares beeter in the original language, a decent master and a big screen. Still there are problems, the main being the Bogart character. Bogart doesn't manage to make him credible and all the plot turning points hang on him. He's credible only in the first scenes, expecially that of buying the lottery ticket. Then one wonders what kind of a character is one who can dedicate 1 year of toil to earn some money  and then becoming crazy for no reason. He cannot of course simply reveal his inner self because that wouldn't square with his previous behaviour. And Bogart ios at his worst enhancing all the character's inconsistencies, opning wide his eyes, grimaces all over his face (the same mistake he made in High Sierra and Petrified Forest: I should rewatch it, but he finally understood the way to play a psychotic character only in Mutiny of Caine). And then some other inconsistencies like why Holt does give him back his gun or doen't tie him to a tree at night, like anybody else would do. And again, why Bogart, so taken up with money fever, just doesn't shoot  the three mexicans.
Again, more than an homosexual subtext, there's an evident zoophilism attributable to all three characters (all those night visits to the burros with the excuse of checking their gold troves...).

Some might object that Bogart actually tries to shoot down the mexicans but finds that his gun is empty. But that doesn't square with Bogart's previous psichotic dedication in planning Holt's murder and, even more, getting rid of the corpse: that should make us presume that Bogart checks continuously if his gun is loaded and if somebody is in ambush. And then all his pointed arguing with Holt about stealing and murdering it rhymes with Huston sr. predictions about the effect of gold on men but not with Bogart's character as we know it before the prospecting starts. Sure, some hint is given that the character is slightly paranoic, but that may develop in such a violent psychosis is hard for me to swallow. And even more hard to swallow is the fact that his two companions do little to prevent the possible effects. What I mean is that the character is inconsistent for plot's sake and that Bogart is unable to understand that he shuld have played those inconstinncencies down instead of enhancing them..

Humphrey Bogart, never been a great fan of his either, but in my opinion he's good here. Good, not great, and that's enough.

Yeah, the gun was empty.

Why did he go mad? - I don't think there was the need to go into this more deeply, in real life people go mad for apparently no reason, and when there's some money involved nobody questions the change, even if sudden. Over inheritances and such matter, whole families change in one night, so to speak. However, the movie offers hints as to why this happened with Dobbs. I think he's the one (unlike the other two, or later three) that starts the journey with much moral integrity. I bet in the start most of the audience would point at Curtin as the weakest link. There are three small episodes that serve as a prelude to his sudden change of character (in which he stands up to the test): 1) when they beat up their former employer to retrieve the money he owns them - he takes only the 400 $ he owns them, and throws the rest at him, lying on the cantina floor, 2) he puts his own money to make the whole adventure happen, and 3) he throws away the gold Curtin gave him to settle the score after the argument at the camp. All this doesn't seem to be justly perceived by his two companions, as they feel and behave as they all started from the same line, and don't need to thank anyone more than the other. Or at least that is the way Dobbs sees it. This is when Dobbs' resentment starts building up, as he is seen talking to himself more frequently (though you feel his grumpiness from the start of the movie). The point break happens later, when he menages to persuade the other two to just kill Cody, for the sake of not sharing anything with him. The bandits stop them from doing it, but after that it feels as he shifts completely into another gear and kinda makes himself believe that's the corrects way to make it through life. With full pockets, at all costs. All the other factors already mentioned don't help either.


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: Dust Devil on October 20, 2010, 02:33:39 PM
Say, I don't have (m)any technical complaints, but one thing that did get lost because the movie was b/w was the look of the gold, and that's the only thing I can think of... Especially in the final scenes: it looks like... dust... In the wind.


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: dave jenkins on October 20, 2010, 05:05:07 PM
Why did he go mad? - I don't think there was the need to go into this more deeply, in real life people go mad for apparently no reason, and when there's some money involved nobody questions the change, even if sudden. Over inheritances and such matter, whole families change in one night, so to speak. However, the movie offers hints as to why this happened with Dobbs. I think he's the one (unlike the other two, or later three) that starts the journey with much moral integrity. I bet in the start most of the audience would point at Curtin as the weakest link. There are three small episodes that serve as a prelude to his sudden change of character (in which he stands up to the test): 1) when they beat up their former employer to retrieve the money he owns them - he takes only the 400 $ he owns them, and throws the rest at him, lying on the cantina floor, 2) he puts his own money to make the whole adventure happen, and 3) he throws away the gold Curtin gave him to settle the score after the argument at the camp. All this doesn't seem to be justly perceived by his two companions, as they feel and behave as they all started from the same line, and don't need to thank anyone more than the other. Or at least that is the way Dobbs sees it. This is when Dobbs' resentment starts building up, as he is seen talking to himself more frequently (though you feel his grumpiness from the start of the movie). The point break happens later, when he menages to persuade the other two to just kill Cody, for the sake of not sharing anything with him. The bandits stop them from doing it, but after that it feels as he shifts completely into another gear and kinda makes himself believe that's the corrects way to make it through life. With full pockets, at all costs. All the other factors already mentioned don't help either.

You (and titoli, it seems) are of the opinion that Dobbs is basically good to begin with, but gradually is corrupted by his experience, and goes mad. I'm persuaded differently: I think there are character flaws in the man from the very beginning, and that, although there are some good qualities within him (well itemized by you above), those positives do not represent the whole of Dobbs. He is a man deeply conflicted, and it is his internal contradictions, and the tension those contradictions produce, that drive him insane.

Dobbs reveals his true character early on in subtle (and not so subtle) ways.  At that first encounter with Howard (Walter Huston), he listens incredulously as the voice of experience tells him about the effects of greed on men. “It wouldn't be that way with me,” he protests. “I swear it wouldn't! I'd take only what I set out to get, even if there's still half a million dollars lying around waiting to be picked up.” One can't help asking, Why so adamant, Dobbsy? (Notice that Curtain seems more thoughtful). Of course, this could just be Huston providing some necessary foreshadowing, except for one thing: something similar occurs in the second part of the film.

Later, at the dig, when the issue of divvying shares arises, Howard explains the best way to proceed and Curtain, seeing that reason and experience have produced wisdom in the old man, endorses his ideas. But Dobbs' response is very different.“What a dirty, filthy mind you've got!” he snarls. It's an odd thing to say—unless one is in an extreme state of self-denial. The fact that Dobbs responds in this way a second time suggests that Huston is trying to tell us something important about the character.

Other signs of instability are also apparent: Dobbs delights inordinately in the gunfight on the train, and later, is quick to threaten death to those (Howard, Curtain, Cody) who vex him (was he really going to club Howard to death with that rock just because he was tired and frustrated?). In the matter of Cody the other two men go along, but Dobbs is the one who instigates it.

For me, the changes we see in Dobbs are less about an actual transformation of fundamental character traits and more about his gradual letting down of a facade, one that civilization and its mores has forced him, over many years, to construct. We don't get a new Dobbs at the end, just the real Dobbs, fully revealed. There are still many good points about the man—he seems just as tough as ever—but the negatives, now pushed to the fore, outweigh them.

Dobbs tries to deny this to himself, but his self-delusions, stretched to the breaking point, finally snap. Suddenly his certainty about who he is is gone. And this is what finally sends him into madness.


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: titoli on October 20, 2010, 06:29:24 PM
Say, I don't have (m)any technical complaints, but one thing that did get lost because the movie was b/w was the look of the gold, and that's the only thing I can think of... Especially in the final scenes: it looks like... dust... In the wind.

That makes me remember I forgot to write that the fact that the mexicans outlaws cannot discern gold from dust is very unlikely (or, more exactly, absurd?): another instance of a plot inconsistency introduced for the sake of didactics.


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: Dust Devil on October 21, 2010, 04:23:15 AM
You (and titoli, it seems) are of the opinion that Dobbs is basically good to begin with, but gradually is corrupted by his experience, and goes mad. I'm persuaded differently: I think there are character flaws in the man from the very beginning, and that, although there are some good qualities within him (well itemized by you above), those positives do not represent the whole of Dobbs. He is a man deeply conflicted, and it is his internal contradictions, and the tension those contradictions produce, that drive him insane.

I try not to ponder much about such simple divisions, the good, the bad, the ugly. I like facts, but also hearing/reading interesting theories. I never said he was ''good'', but he shows moral integrity on more than one occasion, now that's a fact. He doesn't do anything wrong, apart from speaking out loud what's on his mind. That may be a simplification of the character, but are you gonna tell me those other two didn't think about the same stuff and give it some consideration? Please.

Dobbs reveals his true character early on in subtle (and not so subtle) ways.  At that first encounter with Howard (Walter Huston), he listens incredulously as the voice of experience tells him about the effects of greed on men. “It wouldn't be that way with me,” he protests. “I swear it wouldn't! I'd take only what I set out to get, even if there's still half a million dollars lying around waiting to be picked up.” One can't help asking, Why so adamant, Dobbsy? (Notice that Curtain seems more thoughtful). Of course, this could just be Huston providing some necessary foreshadowing, except for one thing: something similar occurs in the second part of the film.

Again, I'm under the impression he just speaks out what's on his mind, and also: he is right about what he says - later when Howard tells them they should pack their stuff and go back because they drained all the gold from the mountain, Dobbs accepts this without argument. He also helps the old man put the site back in shape, and also (somewhat later) agrees to send 1/4 of the treasure to Cody's family. That's when he was already in pretty bad mental shape.

Later, at the dig, when the issue of divvying shares arises, Howard explains the best way to proceed and Curtain, seeing that reason and experience have produced wisdom in the old man, endorses his ideas. But Dobbs' response is very different.“What a dirty, filthy mind you've got!” he snarls. It's an odd thing to say—unless one is in an extreme state of self-denial. The fact that Dobbs responds in this way a second time suggests that Huston is trying to tell us something important about the character.

But he does what everybody else, in the end, right?

Other signs of instability are also apparent: Dobbs delights inordinately in the gunfight on the train, and later, is quick to threaten death to those (Howard, Curtain, Cody) who vex him (was he really going to club Howard to death with that rock just because he was tired and frustrated?). In the matter of Cody the other two men go along, but Dobbs is the one who instigates it.

I won't argue about that, he is the main protagonist and such discrepancies in his behavior could as well be Huston's ideas, as said already. But again, we could find some of them in the other characters as well, though to a less degree because as the story progresses it balances more and more on Dobbs. Don't forget they agreed to kill an innocent men without significant quarrel. That pretty much tells what they are in my book, and to make it worse: they just forgot it later, like it never happened. Of course they never did it, so that could be why they seem better persons than Dobbs. They later redeem themselves: Howard by saving the boy and Curtin by finding and readong Cody's letter, or by setting in motion to send them the money.

Though here's when what I said above kicks in: why are they allowed to be redeemed in the eyes of the audience, while Dobbs isn't? (Before the ending, I mean.) He did more good deeds than the two put together.

For me, the changes we see in Dobbs are less about an actual transformation of fundamental character traits and more about his gradual letting down of a facade, one that civilization and its mores has forced him, over many years, to construct. We don't get a new Dobbs at the end, just the real Dobbs, fully revealed. There are still many good points about the man—he seems just as tough as ever—but the negatives, now pushed to the fore, outweigh them.

Dobbs tries to deny this to himself, but his self-delusions, stretched to the breaking point, finally snap. Suddenly his certainty about who he is is gone. And this is what finally sends him into madness.

This may be true, but if so it only speaks in behalf of my theory: it is only because Dobbs is in the focus so much that the fragile outer facades of his character get broken at some point. It would imply nobody is ''good'' or ''bad'' per se, but conditioned by the norms of society, and I agree to a good extent with that. But yet again it is only another nail in the coffin of your theory - only because whoever is telling the story (Huston, I presume) wants it that way. Only because otherwise there wouldn't be much of a story.

Dobbs has to conquer more obstacles that the others (or again - that is the way he sees it): that's basically the main reason why he ultimately fails. Everything else is no more than a deceiving hint.


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: Dust Devil on October 21, 2010, 04:26:28 AM
That makes me remember I forgot to write that the fact that the mexicans outlaws cannot discern gold from dust is very unlikely (or, more exactly, absurd?): another instance of a plot inconsistency introduced for the sake of didactics.

You have a point, I too forgot to mention it yesterday.


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: titoli on October 21, 2010, 12:44:43 PM
Don't forget they agreed to kill an innocent men without significant quarrel.

Cody "an innocent man"'? Personally, if after a year of hard work somebody tried to butt in my business like Cody did  I would have killed him without consulting the other two. And Howard, so experienced, lets Curtain (who allows Cody to follow him to camp: another absurdity) go buying stuff at the village when he's the one of the three who could leave a would-be stalker behind (like he showed before to his two partners).


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: dave jenkins on October 21, 2010, 01:05:44 PM

.....it is only because Dobbs is in the focus so much that the fragile outer facades of his character get broken at some point. It would imply nobody is ''good'' or ''bad'' per se, but conditioned by the norms of society, and I agree to a good extent with that. But yet again it is only another nail in the coffin of your theory - only because whoever is telling the story (Huston, I presume) wants it that way. Only because otherwise there wouldn't be much of a story.

Dobbs has to conquer more obstacles that the others (or again - that is the way he sees it): that's basically the main reason why he ultimately fails. Everything else is no more than a deceiving hint.
The fact that Curtain and Howard share Dobbs's experiences and come away with very different attitudes is the capper to all my arguments. I don't see Dobbs as having to conquer more obstacles than the others, except maybe at the very end, and Dobbs has long flown over the cuckoo's nest by then. There's always something getting up Dobbs's nose. From the film's second act Dobbs shows classic symptoms of paranoia, and there is one thing that every paranoid knows: all his problems are outside himself. It is the disease of those incapable of  personal introspection. Dobbs can do many things, but inner stock-taking isn't one of them.

And I won't quibble over whether "good" or having "moral integrity" are equivalent terms. You are merely arguing with yourself at that point.


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: Dust Devil on October 21, 2010, 01:56:32 PM
Cody "an innocent man"'? Personally, if after a year of hard work somebody tried to butt in my business like Cody did  I would have killed him without consulting the other two. And Howard, so experienced, lets Curtain (who allows Cody to follow him to camp: another absurdity) go buying stuff at the village when he's the one of the three who could leave a would-be stalker behind (like he showed before to his two partners).

Yeah well, you got me there, "innocent" is almost in the same category as "good". Almost. Still, Cody didn't ask for a share of what they already had, only of what they'll have in the future. He would have made his money helping them. The way I see it, at the point he joined the party they needed him more than he needed them, in more than one way.

But you're right about the second part - Howard should have gone in town instead of Curtin. It would have been more logical. Except, everybody makes a mistake every now and then, and the old man could have easily been tired.


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: Dust Devil on October 21, 2010, 03:18:58 PM
The fact that Curtain and Howard share Dobbs's experiences and come away with very different attitudes is the capper to all my arguments. I don't see Dobbs as having to conquer more obstacles than the others, except maybe at the very end, and Dobbs has long flown over the cuckoo's nest by then. There's always something getting up Dobbs's nose. From the film's second act Dobbs shows classic symptoms of paranoia, and there is one thing that every paranoid knows: all his problems are outside himself. It is the disease of those incapable of  personal introspection. Dobbs can do many things, but inner stock-taking isn't one of them.

As usual, the problem with you remains always the same: you chase down shadowy hints and make cranky theories out of them, but then (unlike the rest of us here) you try to sell them as something rock-hard palpable. That's exactly what's going on here, although nobody questioned your assumptions thoroughly, because we are just chattering and exchanging opinions anyway, so one is as good as another, you just won't let go and will continue to pound on some collateral tosh just to hide the simple fact it doesn't sound that ingenious to anyone other than yourself, and now probably not even to yourself anymore.

Who the hell ever questioned there's something funny smelling about Dobbs from the start, especially in his attitude? - Nobody. But your idea that we should just ignore the facts and focus on the ''subtle hints''  - that may as well (actually very possibly) be inadvertent - is rather dire. I sure hope you're not a lawmaker of any sort, or they'll start arresting people out on the streets for smiling at strangers, under the accusation of being latent rapists.

And I won't quibble over whether "good" or having "moral integrity" are equivalent terms.

Of course, because you know they don't mean the same, but that is completely besides the discussion anyhow.

You are merely arguing with yourself at that point.

You're right, as I am the only one presenting an argument, you're already in the fallacy domain.


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: titoli on October 21, 2010, 04:15:24 PM
Yeah well, you got me there, "innocent" is almost in the same category as "good". Almost. Still, Cody didn't ask for a share of what they already had, only of what they'll have in the future. He would have made his money helping them. The way I see it, at the point he joined the party they needed him more than he needed them, in more than one way.

Cody knows very well he's walking on a razor's edge, betting on the slim chance of being able to persuade the three of his usefulness,  knowing that he may (as he does) fail at that. So he plays it soft by asking a cut only on the future earnings. That makes him neither "innocent" nor "good". Just cautious. The fact is that he does intrude into something he didn't work for or might have had the capability to reach. The three pards perceive his behaviour as unexcusable and their debates are on how to get rid of him, not if he's in the right. But the fact that you were led to dub the character as "innocent" betrays another inconsinstency of the plot, in which the man who wrote the letter differs from the one who takes advantage of Curtain's naivete and tries to force his presence on others.      



But you're right about the second part - Howard should have gone in town instead of Curtin. It would have been more logical. Except, everybody makes a mistake every now and then, and the old man could have easily been tired.

Yeah, but plot holes like these do not make, in my book, a 9\10 movie.  


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: titoli on October 21, 2010, 04:18:24 PM
And we're still leaving them outside the debate:

(http://brasilorgulho.zip.net/images/burros.jpg)


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: Dust Devil on October 24, 2010, 01:45:26 PM
Cody knows very well he's walking on a razor's edge, betting on the slim chance of being able to persuade the three of his usefulness,  knowing that he may (as he does) fail at that. So he plays it soft by asking a cut only on the future earnings. That makes him neither "innocent" nor "good". Just cautious. The fact is that he does intrude into something he didn't work for or might have had the capability to reach. The three pards perceive his behaviour as unexcusable and their debates are on how to get rid of him, not if he's in the right. But the fact that you were led to dub the character as "innocent" betrays another inconsinstency of the plot, in which the man who wrote the letter differs from the one who takes advantage of Curtain's naivete and tries to force his presence on others.

I think the man who wrote that letter could as well be the same man who's trying to force himself in the business of the three. If you would kill someone trying to steal from you one year of hard business, just think what would one who has hungry mouths to feed be prepared to do in order to see them full (and see them).

Yeah, but plot holes like these do not make, in my book, a 9\10 movie.

I'm usually very stingy with ratings, and I understand most of the criticism here, but all in all, I still like this movie very much. I also feel kinda generous these days.


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: titoli on October 24, 2010, 02:26:44 PM
I think the man who wrote that letter could as well be the same man who's trying to force himself in the business of the three. If you would kill someone trying to steal from you one year of hard business, just think what would one who has hungry mouths to feed be prepared to do in order to see them full (and see them).

Well, for one he could find himself a normal job instead of prospecting, a highly hazardous and individualistic activity not fit for family people.

I'm usually very stingy with ratings, and I understand most of the criticism here, but all in all, I still like this movie very much. I also feel kinda generous these days.

Can I touch you for a hundred euros?


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: Dust Devil on October 24, 2010, 05:31:13 PM
Well, for one he could find himself a normal job instead of prospecting, a highly hazardous and individualistic activity not fit for family people.

I reckon he must have tried that before we met him, apparently without much success. It's either do what he did or become a politician: he chose the hard way. Hard times.

Can I touch you for a hundred euros?

Aeh, at first I read ''for a thousand euros''... :'(

Yeah sure, why not, I accept credit cards.


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: dave jenkins on October 25, 2010, 01:52:57 PM
As usual, the problem with you remains always the same: you chase down shadowy hints and make cranky theories out of them, but then (unlike the rest of us here) you try to sell them as something rock-hard palpable. That's exactly what's going on here, although nobody questioned your assumptions thoroughly, because we are just chattering and exchanging opinions anyway, so one is as good as another, you just won't let go and will continue to pound on some collateral tosh just to hide the simple fact it doesn't sound that ingenious to anyone other than yourself, and now probably not even to yourself anymore.

Who the hell ever questioned there's something funny smelling about Dobbs from the start, especially in his attitude? - Nobody.
Fair enough.

The only point I was really ever concerned about was titoli's observation that there are inconsistencies in Dobbs's character. If I understood titoli correctly, he saw those inconsistencies as a bug. I see them as a feature.

If your point is that Dobbs has problems--in addition to his positive qualities--from the very beginning, then we don't have a disagreement of kind (maybe one of degree).


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: titoli on October 25, 2010, 06:57:47 PM
(http://www.multiaventuramadrid.com/fotos/FOTOS%20BURROS/burros2.jpg)


Title: Re: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - No Badges Needed to Enter -
Post by: Moorman on March 02, 2017, 09:05:59 PM
This was a good movie. I didn't know what to expect. I don't like adventure epic movies, which i always thought this was.  Instead, this movie is a more of a western.  I was pleasantly surprised...

1. Cinematography.  Very good.  The scenery, mostly shot on location, was fantastic.

2. Script.  Very good and kept me guessing.  I hated the ending though.

3. Acting.  I hated Bogart in Maltese Falcon.  This was better. A different genre, but better... Huston was great.

4. Musical Score.  Fantastic.  A very good compliment to the film.

Overall.  Very good picture.  A saw this on Turner Classics.   I rate this a solid 8 out of 10...