May Blind Spot: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre

This month’s selection is another movie that I have been meaning to check off the list for quite a long time, especially considering it is a classic with such a high reputation. I was on the verge of going in the favour of Andei Rublev(1966), considering it was free on Hulu till this weekend. However, it’s three and half hour length scared me a little. I have never seen a Trakovsky film before. So before plunging myself into his world with one of the longest movies I have seen, I went for another film as a test drive – Solaris(1972). Unfortunately that failed miserably and detracted me further from it. I’ll get to it but just not this month. This month it has to be John Huston’s Western classic The Treasure of the Sierra Madre(1948).

First and foremost, what makes this a Blind Spot movie? In other words, why is this film essential?

At the start of the year, when I was compiling this format for the Blind Spot posts I would do, I often wondered if as an answer to these questions I can just say – I don’t know, everyone says it is. I am pretty sure the reason I included this film in the list is because I have never heard anything other than praises for this movie. I literally have no other reason at all. So essentially what I am saying to this question is I don’t know, everyone says it is! I guess I will find out if I CAN say so.

So, what is the story about?

Two Americans, Fred C. Dobbs and Curtin, looking for a job in Tampico, Mexico meet one day by chance. After getting swindled for 2 weeks of hard work and no money, they return to one of the flophouses to seek cheap shelter. Here they listen to Howard talking to few other men about his adventures in gold digging. Next day, they beat their money out of the guy who cheated them and decide to get Howard’s help in trying their own luck in prospecting for gold. All three of them invest pretty much everything they have to have some decent chance of finding their own fortune. Dobbs even puts his money from the lottery he wins unexpectedly just as they are about to leave. As they head out into the wilds, Dobbs and Curtin soon learn that this whole prospecting game is not as easy as they thought it would be. They are also very lucky to have experienced Howard with them because just as they are about to give up the whole idea of finding any gold thanks to Howard and his experienced eyes they, quite literally, stumble upon their Gold mine. Back in the flophouse, Dobbs was very quick to ridicule Howard for saying he has seen what gold can do to a man. As they set up their shop on the Sierra Madre Mountain and the pile of gold collected starts to grow, ironically, Dobbs becomes the first one to give in to his paranoia and distrust of others. He starts imagining Curtin and Howard being in cahoots to swindle him of his share; he demands higher share as he put up major share of the cash to get them started even though they all agreed to split everything in equal parts. As much the other two try to put up with his mental instabilities, only way Dobbs can spiral from there is downwards. What follows is unflinching story of how fast moralities can go down in a gutter once man gives in to his greed and his insecurities to their inevitable ending.

What did I think of it? What did I like the most about it and what didn't I like?

What did I think of it? I loved it in almost every single aspect of it. Humphrey Bogart is excellent in as raw a performance as you would see from anybody. His downward spiral once he sets his eyes on gold is spectacularly pathetic and downright scary, as if he is setting an example of everything you should not be. It’s really great to see someone like Bogart, essentially a leading man and at least in my experience someone we are used to see as a voice of reason or someone who can do no wrong, shining as something diametrically opposite. And then on the complete opposite end of spectrum, is old, grizzled Howard, played by director John Huston’s father Walter Huston in his Oscar winning role. He is experienced in the ways of the world, with everything that comes as a part of prospecting. He is very enthusiastic, level-headed and as both Dobbs and Curtin soon realize, their greatest asset. He has probably seen people go down this path many times before and is much more equipped to handle that. Curtin, played by Tim Holt, is the third leg of this tent and probably the one that changes the least over the course of their expedition. He gets rather overshadowed by the other two performances but there is nothing there to fault him for. It’s this contrast between the three of them that highlights all the drama even more.

However, besides all this praise for it, there are couple of things I do want to mention here. None of them are complaints necessarily because in no way any of them bring the movie down as a whole. But still I think they are worth mentioning. First, I saw Stagecoach about a week ago which was released in 1939. This is 9 years after that but even then, the way fights were shot was so much better in Stagecoach and when I am talking about fights, I am not talking about the brawl in cantina but on the train. You would expect them to get better in 9 years, wouldn’t you? Second, again not necessarily a strike against the film but I don’t remember if there is even one female speaking part in the entire film. Being a western and majority of it spent on the top of certain mountain looking for gold, I certainly understand the male dominance but not even a single speaking character is rather surprising.

After having seen it, do I agree with its 'essential' status? And why?

Now this is a question worth answering, especially considering my egregiously ignorant answer to the first question. Well, there can be no two ways about it. It’s amazing, superb, fantastic. Add however many adjectives you want here because it is a near perfect film. It is very easy to see now why it is regarded as one of the best classics. John Huston won an Oscar for both Direction and Writing. I don’t know much about his competition that year but I’ve got no complaints about either. Off course, it is acting that shines the most in this film. But as great as Bogart and Walter Huston are in their respective roles, I think John Huston’s screenplay deserves equal credit for painting these characters so vividly with so contrasting styles but rich emotions and his directing for invoking those emotions in these characters. What makes The Treasure of the Sierra Madre a classic of such a high reputation even after so many years is combination of high quality acting, directing and writing. It sure is a ‘Must Watch’ movie for any film enthusiast.

Fun fact: My experience of being in US over the last four years has taught me that many people think that we, Indians, talk fast. Over this period, many times I’ve been told to slow down a little. There might be some truth to it but next time someone tells me that, I am going to tell him to go and watch this film and specifically watch Walter Huston in the scene where they first find the traces of gold on Sierra Madre. If you think I am fast, go and watch that.

Does it open few new doors for me? Does this inspire to watch any other movies?

This is another occasion I will have to little vague about. Most of the entries I chose for this list were chosen as some kind of gateway for me. In few cases it was a genre I wasn’t well versed with, in some cases a director or in some cases entire industry. This movie was chosen based on its own legacy, which doesn’t leave me much room for me to dive deeper into. However if there is a Blind Spot somewhere here worth exploring, it’s John Huston. I have seen The Maltese Falcon(1941) and The African Queen(1951) but I am not well-versed with his career. In the future, I will make sure to actively seek out some of his other notable titles.

'1001 Movies' Mini Reviews - Cannes Festival Winners Edition

One of the biggest events of the year when it comes to movies, Cannes Film Festival, started on 15^th May. Even though Sidney Lumet disregards it as ‘nothing but glorified sales convention’ in his book, for many of us it is still a big deal. At least we get an idea of what to expect from many films that we are waiting eagerly for. During the time of the festival, Criterion made a bunch of their films that made splash in Cannes in the past, free for streaming on Hulu. Having many of them on my watch list for some time, I decided to make maximum of this opportunity and here we are, with the ‘Palme d’Or Winners’ edition of ‘1001 Movies’ mini reviews.

Z(1969): Politics and History are the two things that have always fascinated me. Costa-Gavras’ political drama Z, based on a book by Vasilis Vasilikos, brings these two topics together and hence has been on my watch-list for quite some time. It is very difficult to sum up Z in few sentences without giving up too much about it. Or it is difficult to sum it up in few sentences that will sound as fascinating as movie is. I probably can round it in single sentence – it is a story of murder and subsequent trial of a leader of left-wing party in the right-wing military led country. If you don’t have problem with watching politically motivated movies and that doesn’t entice you, you’ll have to take my word that every second of it was in fact intriguing. Also, what happens is probably less important than how and why? Story has many layers to it and works on multiple fronts that, as a viewer, you have to keep track of. At the same time, there are so many characters we are introduced to and so many events that happen at a very brisk pace. But, not having read the book I do not know if it the story or screenplay that I should credit, it is told in such a way that it never gets confusing. All the events line-up perfectly, all the characters get enough time to leave their impression.

Another interesting thing about it was the way it changes the protagonist in the middle of it. At the start whole focus is in Z, this charismatic leader played by Yves Montand, and various problems their organisation faces arranging the event he is in the town for, the death threat he receives and eventually the attack on him which results in his death. Enter Jean-Louise Trintignant, playing a magistrate specially brought in to investigate this case and from that point onwards, whole focus shifts on him. I am not sure if I have seen this anywhere else. Film carefully tries to avoid any reference to any particular country or place. We never get the name of any country or city everything is happening. Someone more familiar with Greece may deduce it based on the names mentioned or judiciary and military system in work, if that is a good indicator. I can’t. But if you know certain facts about this movie and the events it portrays, you can certainly see so many hidden clues pointing to the obvious. The events depicted in this movie are based upon the assassination of democratic Greek politician Grigoris Lambrakis in 1963. Everything about Lambrakis’ background, events that led to this attack, the manner in which it was carried out and the aftermath of this event matches with what we see. Also the fact that Z means 'He Lives' in ancient Greek also points towards Greece. However despite being inflammatory, everything is portrayed with remarkable candour. If you can stand 127 minutes worth of political cat-and-mouse chase, this movie is must for you.

Rating(out of 5):

Taste of Cherry(1997): When I saw Certified Copy(2010), that was the first time I heard of Abbas Kiarostami. Since then I’ve seen his name constantly making rounds through various sources though I never saw any of the movies he did apart from that. Even though I wasn’t the biggest fan of Certified Copy, there were quite a few of his films that interested me. But I never got around to any of them until this weekend when I saw that criterion had Taste of Cherry streaming for free on Hulu, being previous Palme d’Or winner. This was a curious film. In fact, all the three films I saw for this post were curious. Taste of Cherry is about a middle-aged man, Mr. Badii, who has determined that there is nothing in his life worth leaving for and therefore wishes to die. He has already decided how he wants to kill himself; he has even picked up a spot for his own grave. All he needs is someone to bury him after he is dead. In his truck, he drives around the various parts of city in search of someone who is alone so that he won’t go on telling anyone and is willing to help him. This is pretty much what the whole movie is about and majority of it, almost 90%, takes place while he is driving in his truck.

Until last 5 minutes of the film, it doesn’t use any kind of background music. All the sounds we here are natural sounds coming from various things in the surrounding. It can be birds, people talking around or machines running in the vicinity but they are all actual sounds direct from the source. I have only seen a couple of other Iranian films but I’ve noticed the similar trait in them as well which gives it a very different, curious feel. In this case, this complete lack of music helps add to his desperation, his loneliness, his lack of any interest in anything. Desolate landscapes of cement factory only add to this void. It is interesting to realise that as the old man tries to get him to live with his tale of cherries, talking about all the pure, beautiful things in this world worth leaving for, background changes from barren desert to trees and bustling city alleys probably suggesting there is still a faint hope he might change his heart. I have never seen Homayoun Ershadi, playing the lead role of Mr. Badii, in anything else but like Michael Shannon in Take Shelter(2011), he has a natural look on his face that goes long way in convincing us of his problems. I don’t know if all the actors from this movie are trained actors or not but in any case, there is something in their natural disposition that adds a lot to the overall mood of this movie. And then there is that ending; but to tell you the truth it was such a fascinating journey, I was perfectly content with not knowing. I was rather happy to leave it open-ended.

Rating(out of 5):

Paris, Texas(1984): For some reason I was under the impression that this is a time-travel movie. Imagine my disappointment when it turned out it wasn’t. I swear I was devastated. Paris, Texas is a very personal story of Travis, a lost man who walked out on his wife and son four years ago. When he first see him, he is somewhere in the middle on Mohave Desert in Texas. He runs out of water and so he goes into a bar nearby. As it turns out, that bar is closed down for some time and he soon collapses out of exhaustion in that bar. When he wakes up, he is in the hospital and doctor informs him that he has already called his brother to let him know about Travis. His brother, Walt, owns a billboard business in L.A. and he, even though surprised to know Travis’ whereabouts after four years, rushes as soon as he can to reach this middle of nowhere. By the time he reaches there, Travis has taken off again but he soon finds him somewhere off the road and they start their journey back home. Travis has stopped talking; he doesn’t eat or sleep at night. Walt tries to break his defenses off one by one and by the time they got back home, he is pretty much back to his old self. With his footing back and Walt and Anne’s, his wife, encouragement, he starts working on getting his life back together that he left four years ago.

Like Taste of Cherry, Paris, Texas is a movie in no hurry to reach anywhere though it does not mean it is an uneventful journey. Couple of times, I even doubted if it meant to go somewhere because I had no idea where can it lead to from that point for a while but Wenders directs this ship masterfully. In many ways, slow pace of this movie allows everything to make its full impact. It allows you to settle down, process everything you see on screen and form your own notions. It allows you to be the part of their world, understand all the characters. Visual beauty of this film also aids us, the viewers, to enter this world. However what impressed me the most is not the visual beauty. It is such a beautiful film, not just in its look but also in its tone, in its feel. There are many very personal but beatific moments in the film like Travis and his son Hunter looking at the old photographs or whole family watching an old super-8 film of the family trip they took before Travis disappeared. However, nothing is as beautiful and sad, as deeply moving as the final conversation between Jane and Travis. It’s his catharsis, his moment to repent for the life he has given to Jane and Hunter. If that doesn’t move you, you might even be made of stone.

Rating(out of 5):