Critique&Analysis: "The Treasure of Sierra Madre" - Root of Evil

by Arturo Virzi

Fred Dobbs, masterfully played by Humphrey Bogart, is the epitome of the anti-hero film archetype. The protagonist of The Treasure of Sierra Madre is dirty, brutish, savaged, greedy, jealous, and somehow (mostly due to Bogart’s screen presence) he remains likable. 

The fact the character is so despicable must have alienated audiences in 1948 who had already placed Bogart into their collective consciousness as the suave hero he played most of the time in films like The Maltese Falcon and Casablanca. But now days, I think we can all agree on the fact that Fred Dobbs constitutes one of Humphrey Bogart’s best performances.

I’ve always been a firm believer in the idea that flawed character tend to make up the best character, and The Treasure of Sierra Madre adds leverage to my argument. Fred Dobbs is a victim of his own ambition; the treasure that will free him from all responsibilities is the treasure that destroys him. 

The film places two morally mature characters as audience stand-in. Curtis, played by Tim Holt, and Howard, played by John Huston’s father Walter. These characters contrast with Dobbs’s personality. Curtis wants to buy a farm, and Howard doesn’t ever seem too optimistic about keeping the money for too long (and rightly so). Two very sympathetic characters who serve at witnesses to Fred Dobbs mental, moral and physical deterioration. 

The film still works best as a psychological portrayal of the effects that money has on the human psyche. Again attaching itself to the philosophical morality that money is the root of all evil.

The film, though, makes a clear distinction between ambition and greed. There needs to be a source of motivation for any of our human actions, and these amoral aspects are portrayed in both Curtis and Howard. While Fred, on the other hand, lusts for instant gratification, and never dwells on the idea of working after finding enough gold. What he doesn’t realize is that his ideology eventually corrupts his thought process, and enough never seems to be enough.  

Fred Dobbs’s demise is a subtle fall from grace. The character goes from being a believably sympathetic man in search of enough gold to get by (As Howard would say) to a deranged lunatic who’s willing to endanger his own life and those of others to get a bigger share. Fred Dobbs psychological profile expands as he becomes suspicious of his partners, and eventually does to them exactly what he feared they do to him. He projects his own evil onto others, and when Curtis tries warn him of his thoughtlessness, Dobbs immediately dismisses it as a strategic maneuver. 

Like any immoral personality, he justifies his actions with the motto “it was either them or me”, which is not only untrue but irresponsibly dangerous. It is impossible to base that notion of facts, because once the victimizer has acted against the victim, the victim can’t act back. And if the victim gets a chance to strike back and takes it, the actions could be justified as revenge. To right a wrong, and not as a preemptive strike.

Howard is not surprised, he says. He’s seen it all before, and these subtle insinuations of his lead the audience to believe and realize the fact that the events of the film have happened many times before. Howard remains sane, though, after being back stabbed most of his life while searching for a treasure he never manages to keep for too long. This is incredibly admirable. John Huston clearly wrote the part for his father, and it fits him like a glove. Howard might be the oldest and wisest of the crew but his spirit remains young, and his presence shines during the films best moments.   

The Film’s morality is stripped down of all the postmodern ideas. Fred Dobbs is a greedy and immoral character, and John Huston wants us to know that. The moral landscape the film presents is not gray, but completely black and white. The film leaves almost no space for ambiguities, and delivers a very objective opinion on the role of money in society. 

The matter-a-fact nature of the film is juxtaposed with the humorously ironic finale which brings some lightness to an otherwise serious film, and prevents itself from being preachy. 

It’s not just what the film does that makes it great, it’s also what it doesn’t. The moral of the story is not derived from a speech, and the film never tells, it only shows. The moral of the film is derived from the actions of the characters, from the real world, and it’s objective nature. It is clear to the audiences what the film is about because it mirrors our world and subjects as serious as these don’t need to beat around to bush in order to find a solution. The film avoids catering itself to the postmodern culture and tries to say something clear, precise, and concrete. For these and many more reasons, The Treasure of Sierra Madre is a treasure indeed.