OpEds: The American Dream is Dead

Obama killed it
by MIKE WHITNEY
barack_obama_liar-450x320

“The U.S. worked hard to create the American dream of opportunity. But today, that dream is a myth.” Economist Joseph Stiglitz, Financial Times

If you follow the financial news, you already know that the American people are on an epic downer. Just check out some of these headlines I pulled up in a five minute Internet search and you’ll see what I mean:

“Gloom and doom? Americans more pessimistic about future” Las Vegas Review

“U.S. Standard of Living Index Sinks to 10-Month Low; Expectations for future standard of living drops more than current satisfaction” Gallup

“Americans Still Pessimistic About Economy–Almost 70 percent think the economy is in bad shape” Time Magazine

‘Slipping behind’: Are we becoming a nation of pessimists?” NBC News

Income Inequality in the United States Fuels Pessimism and Threatens Social Cohesion” Center for American Progress.

And here’s my personal favorite:

“NBC/WSJ poll: 60 percent say fire every member of Congress” NBC News

Pessimism, pessimism, and more pessimism. It’s like the whole country is on the brink of despair. Maybe Phil Graham was right, after all. Maybe we are just a nation of whiners. But I kind of doubt it. What’s really going on can be summed up in one word: Frustration. People are frustrated with the government, frustrated with their jobs, frustrated with their shitty, stagnant wages, frustrated with their droopy incomes, frustrated with their ripoff health care, frustrated with living paycheck to paycheck, frustrated with their measly cat-food retirement plan, frustrated with their dissembling, flannel-mouth president, frustrated with the fact that their kids can’t find jobs, and frustrated with the prevaricating US media that keeps palavering about that delusional chimera called the American Dream.

What dream? The dream that America is the land of “land of opportunity”?

Tell that to the 23-year old college grad who’s stuck delivering pizzas to try to put a dent in the $65,000 tab he ran up getting his Masters in engineering. See how much he believes in the Dream.

All that stuff about “working hard and playing by the rules” has turned out to be pure bunkum, just like the “pull yourself up by your own bootstraps” horsecrap or the “owning a home enters one into the middle class” thing. What a freaking joke. 6 million people have been booted out of their homes since the bubble burst, and the Pollyannas on TV still drone on about “owning a home”. Get the gun!

No one’s buying that garbage anymore. Just like no one believes that our economic system is “a level playing field”, or that our kids will have a better standard of living then our own, or that tomorrow will be better than today. Every one of those “shining city on a hill” promises have turned out to be complete hogwash. The only city on a hill you’re going to find in the US, is the privately-owned gulag where petty drug offenders are locked up for life so some chiseling hedge fund manager can report record profits to his shareholders. There’s your shining city in a nutshell.

The American people aren’t whiners. They’re just tired of the lies, that’s all. Look; the country was in the throes of the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression, but the American people rallied, right? They came out by the millions to vote for the dazzling young senator from Chicago who was going to change everything and restore America to its formal glory.

So much for that fairytale. Can you really blame the people for believing the hype and pegging their hopes on a man who never had any intention of keeping his word?

No, of course not. The people did what was expected of them. They cast their vote thinking that their vote mattered, thinking they could change the system if a solid majority supported it. But they were hoodwinked, right? Because that’s not the way the system really works. In fact, the system doesn’t really work at all. Power is just handed from one group of scheming elites to the next behind the laughable, public relations charade we call political campaigns. The whole process is designed to pull the wool over people’s eyes, and to avoid the possibility of any real change. Isn’t that how it works?

So now we’re stuck with candidate Tweedledee and everything keeps getting worse. Unemployment is deliberately kept high so big business has a permanently large pool of desperate workers it can hire for a pittance. All the profits from productivity-gains are carved up by moneybags CEOs or divvied up among shareholders instead of going to working people. And the banks are given money at zero rates so they can roll over their gargantuan pile of toxic loans at no cost to themselves or increase the leverage on their illicit hedging operations which they keep off their balance sheets and away from the prying eyes of government regulators. The entire system is rigged from top to bottom to make sure that no one who isn’t part of the inner circle is ever able to lift himself above his present, clock-punching, mind-numbing, 9 to 5 drudgery.

And now things are suddenly getting worse. And they’re getting worse because the fatcats who run the system think that working people have had it too easy for too long and they want to tighten things up. They want to trim the deficits, dismantle vital social programs, and slash the unemployment rolls. As one Paul Ryan opined, “We don’t want the safetynet to become a hammock.” Indeed. Workers, you see, have had it too cushy up to now, so Obama ‘s going to change all that.

The American people know what’s going on. They’re not as dumb as the jowly, stuffed-shirt pundits on CNBC and Bloomberg think. They can see beyond the lies and political bloviating. They know their goose is cooked. That’s why they’re so depressed, because they feel powerless. Pessimistic, frustrated and powerless. And for good reason. Take a look at this from Farai Chideya at Huffington Post:

“According to the Pew Research Center, in the first two years following the Great Recession, 93 percent of Americans lost net worth. Only 7 percent got wealthier. Forty-three percent of those sampled in a nationally-weighted survey I recently commissioned believe this is a permanent trend…

I ran the 2500-respondent query as part of an ongoing book project charting how America’s workers are faring, and (found) that nearly 35% of respondents said they had spent retirement or personal savings to supplement their wages. Twenty percent relied only on personal savings; four percent on retirement savings, like an early withdrawal from an IRA or 401k, and eleven percent spent both…

Even more arresting: 21 percent of those I surveyed agreed with the statement “In 2013, I borrowed money from friends or family specifically in order to pay household, medical or credit card bills.” (“Working on Empty: America’s Workers Are Spending Down Savings to Survive,” Huffington Post)

You’ve heard it all before. People are draining their savings just to make ends meet day to day. And what choice do they have? It’s not like they can just up-and-quit and get a better job down the street. There are no jobs! And the few jobs that are available, don’t pay a living wage. So they’re stuck. Everybody’s stuck. And you wonder why people are so glum about the future? It’s because America has changed, and not for the better.

Did you know that nearly 80 percent of the people who were questioned in a recent LearnVest and Chase Blueprint survey said the American dream involved owning a home?

Unfortunately, a mere 43 percent of those respondents said they think “achieving the American dream in this economy is possible.”

43 percent! Less than half the people believe the ideological gobbledygook we’ve been spoon-fed from Day 1. That’s got to mean something, right? It means more people are giving up, they’re throwing in the towel. Why? Because hard work, a good education and playing by the rules just doesn’t cut it anymore. The opportunities are gone, vanished, kaput. That’s what 30 years of outsourcing, offshoring and corporate-friendly policy does for a country. It turns it into a two-tiered system where all the gravy flows to the top and everyone else is left with table scraps. That’s why according to Gallup “67% of the people are Dissatisfied With Income, Wealth Distribution”. Check it out:

“Two out of three Americans are dissatisfied with the way income and wealth are currently distributed in the U.S. … Americans are much less optimistic about economic opportunity now than before the recession and financial crisis of 2008 unfolded. Prior to that, at least two in three Americans were satisfied, including a high of 77% in 2002.”

And here’s more from another Gallup survey:

“Americans’ Satisfaction With Economy Sours Most Since 2001–Public more satisfied on most other issues today than 13 years ago,” Gallup

“Americans … are significantly less satisfied with the economy and the role the U.S. plays in world affairs. The 40-percentage-point drop in Americans’ satisfaction with the economy, along with a 21-point drop in the world affairs issue…

The U.S. has seen numerous changes since early 2001, but….The biggest change in satisfaction has been with the state of the economy — now much lower than it was then, at the end of the dot-com boom and before the major recession of 2008-2009.”

No one needs Gallup to tell them that the economy stinks. We all know that. Just like we know that America is no longer the land of opportunity, which Gallup confirms as well:

“In U.S., Fewer Believe “Plenty of Opportunity” to Get Ahead–Similarly, only half say the U.S. economic system is fair.” Gallup

Of course, there’s no opportunity. Why would there be more opportunity when the government is cutting spending instead of creating jobs? That’s not how the economy works. You have to spend something, to get something. There’s no free lunch.

Obama has done nothing to help working people. He hasn’t lifted a damn finger, which is why “58 percent of Americans disapprove of his stewardship of the economy” (Wall Street Journal/NBC News and Quinnipiac University) It’s also why 78 percent said of respondents in a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll said they think the country is “on the wrong track.” And it’s also why Obama’s personal performance ratings have slipped below those of George Bush in the fifth year of his presidency. Obama has been a disaster and everyone knows it. The impact of his misrule with be felt for years to come. Just take a look at this comment by University of Michigan economist Richard Curtain who explains the dramatic change he’s seen in consumer behavior due to the policies that were put in place following the Great Financial Crisis (GFC). The quote is from an analytic piece titled “Consumer Behavior Adapts to Fundamental Changes in Expectations” Economic Outlook Conference November 21, 2013:

“I have been reporting on the economic implications of the latest twists and turns in consumer expectations at this conference for nearly four decades. From the heights of expansions to the depths of recessions, consumers had never deserted their bedrock belief that the economy would produce ever increasing levels of affluence. The Great Recession, unlike any other downturn in the past half century, has not only tarnished the American Dream, but has prompted some fundamental changes in consumer expectations and behavior.” (“Consumer Behavior Adapts to Fundamental Changes in Expectations” Economic Outlook Conference November 21, 2013, University of Michigan)

How do you like that? After 40 years of watching this stuff, Curtin says he’s noticed a “fundamental change” in the “bedrock belief that the economy would produce ever increasing levels of affluence.”

This is quite profound, I think, with far-reaching implications for the economy. The pessimism that Obama (and Congress) have generated through their policies have dampened expectations and changed people’s views about the future. Most people no longer expect their wages to increase or their financial situation to improve. For a growing number of people, the American dream is dead. This is already having an effect on personal consumption, household spending and economic growth. It’s also effecting the way people view the government, and what we think of ourselves as a nation. As Curtin notes:

(The) “deeply rooted uncertainty about future economic conditions…has been sustained by the growing recognition that no federal policy has yet emerged that will restore long term economic prosperity anytime soon for the majority of consumers. Optimism about long term job and income prospects are essential for maintaining high levels of economic motivation. Too few consumers have regained that optimism.”

Exactly. “No federal policy” has been put in place to “restore long term economic prosperity.”

That’s the whole ball o’ wax, right there. The pols have done nothing.

The pessimism we now see everywhere, can be traced back to government policy. All the blame goes to Obama and Congress. They’re the ones who ended the American Dream. They killed it.

MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com.




FILMS THAT COUNT: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre or, Socrates in the Desert

By Pedro Blas Gonzalez

Bogart, Huston pere, and Holt. An unforgettable tale with moral overtones.

SOURCE: SENSES OF CINEMA, thank you.

John Huston’s old prospector, Howard (Walter Huston), in The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948), our immediate impression is one of sheer delectation. Howard is wisdom personified. He is also a fine example of the Socratic dictum, “know thyself.”

Howard represents that rare form of contentment that is more readily found in literature than is often exercised by people in real life. He guides the viewer through a meticulous rendering of how avarice debilitates its victims — this, regardless of the latter’s treachery and craftiness. Howard reminds us of what Havelock Ellis has to say about morals in The Dance of Life: “There is no separating pain and pleasure without making the first meaningless for all vital ends and the second turn to ashes. To exalt the meaning of pain; and we cannot understand the meaning of pain unless we understand the place of pleasure in the art of life.”(1)

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre employs themes that are much more complicated than we are first led to believe. The moralizing that takes place in the film is ruled by a spirited, categorical thought which demonstrates how intemperance breeds the seed of its own destruction. John Huston is not interested in depicting particular examples of avarice, but rather avarice itself. Avarice – a universal human character trait – is the major theme of the film. The great appeal of the film is that Huston allows Dobbs (Humphrey Bogart) to destroy himself without having to resort to anything less than universally recognized values.

Along with avarice, Huston also explores envy, and perhaps most importantly, temperance, a character trait that is the central topic of discussion in Plato’s Charmides(2) One of the reasons that the film has enjoyed such a great success is that these topics are not treated in isolation, as if existing in a vacuum.

For instance, temperance plays a direct role in the outcome of all the characters. We witness this not only in those who are intemperate, but also in the effects that this has in the lives of others. The vital interplay of the characters in the film, as they would interact in real life, is a refreshing cinematic perspective that ends in a cathartic resolution. Huston grounds the drama in a fine understanding of human reality. Real life situations serve as the foundation of the behaviour that we witness in the film.

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is a two-dimensional, visual fable of human existence. Fables are an essential source of understanding because they confront us with fundamental truths. Also, fables remind us that all our actions and their consequences are the result of our perspective or the lack thereof. While the focus of the film might be Dobbs’ self-destruction, the essential motivation for his destruction nevertheless retains universal appeal and validity.

Of course, Dobbs’ potential salvation remains an open question. To this we must add that avarice cannot exist without the interaction of some key players, events, and circumstances. Hence the overriding effect of the film is to demonstrate the correlation that exists between wisdom and temperance. Again, the proximity between these two human traits makes us wonder if Dobbs can be saved under any circumstances. When confronted by wisdom, Fred C. Dobbs antagonizes Howard in the only manner that a fool can: he struggles against himself.

Perhaps the most effective way to make sense of the impact of this film is to view it as a fable. While it remains true that fables often make use of animals to demonstrate a lesson, this is only the case because the fable is designed to teach young people a valuable moral lesson. In the absence of personified animals, Huston instead utilizes men, a mountain, some bandits, and the passage of time. Huston, I believe, employs the very same staples of the fable, except that adults often make for very bad students when learning fundamental truths.

Allegory is a powerful teaching tool that removes us from the myopia that often comes about through the immediacy of the human condition. Man’s proximity to himself can be his greatest nemesis. The beauty of The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is its ability to showcase how wisdom is often shunned for the rewards of instant pleasures or simply because it is often met by deaf ears. Howard is a teacher. Lessons are not made any truer because the teacher initiates them, but rather because the teacher acts as intermediary between the pupil and truth. Ideally, the best pupil is the one that seeks the teacher. Consider what Karl Jaspers writes about Socrates; this can easily be applied to Howard:

Socrates does not hand down wisdom but makes the other find it. The other thinks he knows, but Socrates makes him aware of his ignorance, so leading him to find authentic knowledge in himself. From miraculous depths this man raises up what he already knew, but without knowing that he knew it. This means that each man must find knowledge in himself; it is not a commodity that can be passed from hand to hand, but can only be awakened. (3)

Fables often make use of the supernatural. At the end of The Treasure of the Sierra Madre the mountain reclaims the gold in a sudden burst of wind. Intemperance which is left to its own devices, the mountain seems to assert, is always corrected by its own unforeseen effects. Hence, Dobbs’ fate is sealed by his actions. What remains to be seen is just how his life will play out. Fate plays a central role in the film.

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is a colossal tragedy. There is at least one additional observer of human reality – beside the omniscient one that seems to hover over the tale – namely Howard, who is cognizant of Dobbs’ downfall. The story also has great bearing on the destiny that Howard assumes for himself. The viewer is invited to view a common human folly from a distance.

At the end of the film Howard is rewarded for his wisdom in several ways. He earns the respect of the village Indians for saving the young boy. Howard is offered a secure set of circumstances that he can enjoy for what he calls “the rest of my natural life.” He also earns Curtin’s (Tim Holt) respect and friendship. The tragedy is intensified in the manner that their lives and destinies become intertwined. Curtin does not appear to gain much from the adventure that he is thrust into. Actually, he almost dies when he is shot twice by a delusional Dobbs. His reward is a sober perspective on life. He admits that he is no worse off at the end of the journey than when he began.

In addition, the film ends on a note of hope that perhaps Curtin will find happiness, if not contentment, in delivering the closure that Cody’s (Bruce Bennett) widow will be searching for. Cody’s death also contributes to the story. His struggle to create a better life for his wife and small child results in disaster. Fate does not always supply happy endings.

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is a moral tale that is told from the perspective of a quasi-omniscient and detached observer of cosmic human follies who takes in the action prima facie. The impact of the story on the viewer’s imagination depends, as is the case with other artistic forms, on the viewer.

This is a story told from the perspective of time and the ironic constitution of the former, as this relates to human existence. What is so daunting about Dobbs’ fate does not seem important, that is, until we attempt to make sense of it. How does Dobbs’ story play out in actual human existence? Because cinema employs a closed-ended logic, that is, a resolution, the viewer is afforded a propaedeutic for future action.

Huston achieves a beautiful demonstration of the power of fate in a condensed format. The essential problem of wisdom, as is equally true of truth, is that human reality is often antagonistic to these. Instead, their validity and worth as guides for human life are always proven in time, or what is the passage of time. The same thing occurs when Spencer Tracy tries to impart a moral lesson to a young Robert Wagner in The Mountain (Edward Dmytryk, 1956), as the latter helps himself to the valuables of the victims of an airplane crash.

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre begins with Fred C. Dobbs asking passers-by for some spare change. He is down and out in the small Mexican town of Tampico — an American ex-patriot looking for a friendly face and a break. This scene is compelling because in light of what is to follow, one wonders, at the end of the film, whether his indigent condition has made him avaricious or if he has always suffered from this character flaw.

Early on in the film Dobbs elicits the viewer’s sympathy, while later, only our pity. However, despite what we know of Dobbs, early in the film we remain curious about his personality. He is an engaging character. The world contains many Fred C. Dobbs.

From the opening segment of the film, when we see Dobbs begging for money from a wealthy passer-by played by John Huston, we question whether Dobbs is avaricious, lazy or merely wallowing in his misery. He buys a box of cigarettes with the money that the stranger gives him. However, after the two men have met a third time on the street, Huston tells him, “From now on you’re going to have to make your way through life without me.” Dobbs then gets a haircut and shave with the money that he receives from the stranger.

The next significant scene is one where we find Dobbs in a tavern and a small boy persuading him to buy a lottery ticket. Dobbs is not interested. He has just ripped up the last lottery ticket he bought. He eventually buys a ticket from the boy.

The turning point in the film comes about when Dobbs finds temporary work. When he asks a man in a bar for money the man is quick to answer, “I won’t give you a red cent. If you wonna make some money I’ll give you a job.”

While working for Pat McCormick (Barton MacLane) building a derrick, Dobbs meets a fellow drifter named Bob Curtin. After about two weeks of working for this man, they are brought back to the mainland on a ferry. McCormick tells them that he can’t pay them because he has no money. He tells them that he will pay them later. One day, as they sit in a town square they see McCormick, well dressed, with a lady in his arm. They confront him, and McCormick invites them to a bar to buy them a drink. There, a fight ensues and McCormick comes out the loser. In an honest gesture, they only take the three hundred dollars that they are owed and return McCormick his wallet, leaving the rest of the man’s money.

The action/adventure sequences in the film explore the internal condition of the characters: how they think, how they view the world, and their emotional and spiritual state. No scene serves a gratuitous purpose. The fight scene with McCormick is a precursor to the avarice that we witness in Dobbs later on in the film. The cathartic importance of these scenes is not that men can harden with unfavourable circumstances, but that Dobbs does not know how to internalize these events. Curtin, who accompanies Dobbs throughout most of the film, reacts differently.

In addition, consideration must also be given to Cody’s fate. Cody, a loner engaged in the stringent pursuit of a better life for his family, moves in the shadow of murderers. His fate is tied to the fate of the others.

Dobbs and Curtin rent a cot for fifty cents per night, where they meet Howard, a fast talking, old prospector who delivers a powerful monologue on the value of gold and human nature. Howard tells them that they can get $5,000 worth of gold from the nearby mountains. Howard explains: “The price of gold is worth what it is because of the human labour that went into getting it.” This dialogue, which is essentially a monologue in its intensity, can easily rival Hamlet’s “To be or not to be” soliloquy because of its multi-faceted probing of human reality. It is almost as if Howard is talking to himself and the other two characters are privy to his insight.

Howard warns them that they will want more gold than they can carry down from the mountain. Howard continues: “As long as there’s no find the noble brotherhood will last, but when the piles of gold begin to grow, that’s when the trouble starts.” The two men are mesmerized by the possibilities. This exchange is significant because it foreshadows the direction of the drama that is to follow. More importantly, it serves as the beginning of a lesson, a moral-of-the-story.

This is the point in the film when we realize that Howard is entertaining a wager with the viewer as to the nature of man. He is not interested in the gold per se, but rather in witnessing the transformation that some men undergo. John Huston’s direction in effect employs what the ancient Greeks called a “prolepsis,” that is, an innate anticipation of events that takes place without a rational effort on behalf of the subject. Howard tells the two future prospectors, “I’ve never known a prospector who died rich. That’s what gold does to a man’s soul.” Howard challenges the two men to disclose their genuine selves. At first, Dobbs and Curtin don’t think too much of him.

Interestingly, while Howard tries to tell them about the inherent weaknesses in human nature, the two men only manage to hear how much gold they can get. Howard goes on with his tease, “Prospecting is only good when you have a partner, but a partner can cause you to get killed. Alone is best, but you have to have a stomach for loneliness. Men are friends until they find the gold.” Are you two up to the task? he seems to ask them. This scene encapsulates the overall theme and meaning of the film. Howard is not avaricious, yet he has been a prospector for a very long time. He does not personally care for gold, but is willing to guide the other two to the mountain.

Howard’s incessant talk about gold reverberates in Curtin’s and Dobb’s heads. This leads to a prophetic conversation between the two:

Dobbs: “Do you believe what that old man that was doing all the talking at the Oso Negro said the other night about gold changing a man’s soul so he ain’t the same kind of a guy that he was before finding it?”

Curtin: “I guess that depends on the man.”

Dobbs: “That’s exactly what I say. Gold doesn’t carry any curse with it. It depends if the guy that finds it is the right guy. Gold can be as much of a blessing as a curse.”

The trek up the mountain embodies a kind of moral cleansing for Howard. What are we to make of this simple yet wise character that appears on the scene out of nowhere? Surely, he is atypical of one who seeks riches. In Howard, we have the key to the meaning of the story. He embodies the perennial point and purpose of all Aesopian tales: No matter how much advice one offers, fools will still rush into things. Howard’s character acts out the part of a wager, a jest. He seems to be betting on the judgment that his wisdom is sound and thus wants to prove it. Howard acts as a sort of neutral narrator of the tale in that he is certain of what is going to take place, but he is not capable of stopping it. In the subsequent scenes of avarice, infighting, mistrust, and cynicism we witness Howard intently looking on, as vindicating his wisdom all along. From the look on his face, he enjoys the other two jostling for the gold. Howard’s countenance and well-placed words are indicative of his anticipation of a total moral collapse in Dobbs’ and Curtin’s makeshift friendship.

Getting that memorable haircut.

Three weeks after purchasing his ticket, Dobbs wins the lottery. The three men pool their money together and buy the equipment needed for the trek and set out for the mountain. When they shake hands in a show of partnership, the old man looks on in curious anticipation. This is significant because Howard tells them that prospecting costs a lot of money. Howard tells them that the gold can’t just be ripped out of the mountain with one’s own hands. He tells them that they need equipment. This equipment will cost them money. Dobbs and his companion are young men, but they are nowhere as tough as the old man, who is constantly seen climbing ahead of them. The old man’s toughness is mental, not necessarily physical. This is John Huston’s manner of stating that wisdom is much more valuable than youth and physical strength.

Howard’s mental and spiritual resources allow him to endure the many difficulties that the other two men can hardly accommodate. Given the disparity between Howard’s age and that of Dobbs and Curtin, these scenes of physical travail can only be interpreted as a spiritual prowess that Howard possesses. Dobbs and Curtin are surprised by Howard’s stamina. “The old man is tough. He’s part goat, part camel,” they utter, but Dobbs never stops to think what makes the old man so tough. As they ascend the mountain, Dobbs is vexed by Howard’s stamina. He says: “Hey, if there was gold in those mountains how long would it have been there. Millions and millions of years. What’s our hurry? A couple days more or less ain’t going to make any difference.” This is merely a roundabout way of not admitting that he is fatigued. Also significant in the action scenes is the moral condition of the two men. This is especially exaggerated in Dobbs’ character. Dobbs’ will is defined by exhorting minimum effort to achieve the greatest gain.

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre interweaves the clash of physical exertion and a strong will in a manner that goes a long way to point out the import of the inner workings of man. Bernard Travern (1882–1969) wrote Treasure of the Sierra Madre in 1948. The novel, like most of his other works:Bridge in the Jungle (1971); Ship of the Dead (1959); Rebellion of the Hanged (1954), are essentially action/adventure tales.

When a sand storm paralyzes their progress, Howard is the only one that has any clear understanding of what is taking place. A northern, Howard informs them. Dobbs’ violence begins when he becomes exhausted and attempts to hit Howard with a rock. “Leave him alone,” Curtin tells Dobbs. “Can’t you see the old man’s nuts?” Howard rebuttals, “Nuts. Nuts, am I? Let me tell you something, my two fine bedfellows. You’re so dumb there’s nothing to compare you with. You’re dumber than the dumbest jackass.” Howard then breaks out into a mocking dance as he continues, “You’re so dumb you don’t even see the riches you’re standing on with your own feet.” They finally find gold.

Part of Howard’s charm as a character is his ability to tell the truth while not moralizing. In a very prophetic moment, Howard tells Dobbs some essential truths while talking about gold. Howard says: “You know, gold ain’t like stone in a river bed; it don’t cry out until you pick it up.” This could easily apply to truth and wisdom. He continues: “You’re learning. Pretty soon I won’t be able to tell you a thing,” after he tells Dobbs how they are going to hide the gold from each other. Dobbs objects, “What a dirty, filthy mind you have.” Howard seems to be way ahead of the game when he answers: “Oh, no. Not dirty. Not dirty, baby. Only I know what kind of idea even supposedly decent people get when gold is at stake.” Howard is quick to cite the differences between being trustworthy and honest. He considers himself trustworthy because he is old and slow and can’t easily run away from the two younger men. Whether Howard knows more than he is letting on is a matter for speculation, but in telling them this, he is suggesting that he understands just how they think.

The problems begin shortly after the initial elation of finding gold has subsided. Dobbs, out of mistrust, wants to split the proceeds. At this point the old man gives them a speech about what honesty is and what gold does to people. This is the second major turning point in the story, given that now we begin to see that the old man is right. When asked how he will spend his money, the old man offers an unassuming reply: “I’m going to spend my time reading comic books and adventure stories.” Dobbs’ goes out in the middle of the night to check on his gold. Dobbs’ mistrust becomes pathological when Howard asks him to go down the mountain to the village to buy some materials. He objects.

Next we see Dobb’s paranoia manifesting itself as Curtin stumbles into his gold while looking for a gila monster under a rock. Dobbs points his gun at his partner. It is Curtin who goes to the village to buy provisions, instead. There he meets another American who also wants to dig for gold. The man follows Curtin back to the camp, where he is not welcomed. Dobbs is the first one to let the man know this. The stranger wants a percentage of the gold. But when they are about to “bump up” the stranger, a band of bandits is seen riding up the mountain toward their camp. Cody, the stranger, helps them to ward off the bandits in the gun battle that ensues. Cody is killed. As they look through his pockets to find out who he is, they find a letter from his wife telling him that she and their son miss him dearly.

“Badges? We ain’t got no badges! We don’t need no badges. I don’t have to show you any stinkin’ badges!” As a fierce, but fatalistic bandido, Alfonso Bedoya still owns the role.

The three men decide to leave the mountain after they have secured about $35,000 worth in gold each. At this point, Howard, in a mystical vein, tells them that it will take about another week to “break down the mine and put the mountain back in shape.” Dobbs finds this idea startling and asks, “Do what to the mountain?” Howard then gives them a lecture on the nature of gratitude: “Make her appear as she was before we came. We wounded this mountain and it’s our duty to close that wound. It’s the least we could do to show our gratitude for all the wealth she’s shown us. If you guys don’t want to help me, I’ll do it alone.” Again, the scope of Howard’s understanding transcends what he lets the other two men know. His decision to clean up the site of their digging for gold can be viewed as simple superstition. But this would be an oversimplification, given Howard’s character and the scenes of respect and veneration that he receives from the Indians for saving the child.

Howard reminds us of Charmides telling Socrates, “For I would almost say that self-knowledge is the very essence of temperance, and in this I agree with him who dedicated the inscription ‘know thyself!’ at Delphi.” (4)

But right when they are about to leave, some Indians come from the village to seek help for a dying boy. This can be explained as coincidence, but it is also consistent with the idea that good will is repaid in very vexing and unexpected ways. Howard says at one point: “You start out to tell yourself you’ll be satisfied with twenty-five thousand handsome smackers worth of it. After months of sweatin’ yourself dizzy and growing short on provisions and finding nothing, you finally come down fifteen thousand and then ten, finally you say, ‘Lord, let me just find five thousand dollars worth and never ask for anything more the rest of my life.” After the old man saves the boy’s life, the Indians come back to make Howard their guest of honour. The child’s father feels that he must pay his debt, otherwise all of the sacred spirits will become upset. This is consistent with Howard’s loyalty to the mountain. Dobbs, on the other hand, cannot make more out of this episode than to tell Howard, “Remember this next time you try to do a good deed,” as Howard goes away with the Indians. They promise to meet the old man two weeks later in Durango. Dobbs becomes suspicious and paranoid of his partner as they head to Durango alone without the old man.

A powerful scene ensues when Curtin has to constantly watch Dobbs. Dobbs’ paranoia becomes pronounced on their first night alone, when he attempts to kill Curtin. Dobbs shoots Curtin during the second night, off camera. When he goes to sleep, leaving Curtin for dead, he begins to reflect on the nature of conscience. “Conscience?” he questions. “What is it anyway? If we don’t have a conscience, I won’t worry.” Dobbs prescribes to the view that ignorance is bliss. The next morning when he is going to bury Curtin, he breaks out into a monologue about the dead man’s eyes being open. He begins to blame the dead man for bringing about his own demise.

Dobbs’ eyes become the central attraction of the scenes that follow. He sweats, walks around aimlessly, and talks to himself like a man who needs some convincing. His eyes tell a tale of repentance, of understanding what he can’t will himself to do. This is the first time in the film that we see conscience eating away at Dobbs, like a tormented soul.

Dobbs goes into his venerable conscience soliloquy, “What if his eyes are open, looking at me?” John Huston does a marvelous job of bringing the viewer into Dobbs’ head. The soliloquy is a particularly effective device in this instance given its non-dramatic, personal, and claustrophobic qualities. What we get instead is qualified, rationalized behavior that struggles to attain genuine justification for its motives. He goes back in the morning to bury Curtin but Curtin is not there. Dobbs searches for the wounded man in the surrounding area. Then he gets a brilliant idea. He convinces himself that perhaps a “tiger” took the dead man. “I got it. A tiger. Ah, yeah, that’s it. A tiger must have dragged him off to his land,” he tells himself. And then, in the manner characteristic of those who shy away from personal responsibility at all cost, he goes on, “Pretty soon not even the bones will be left to tell his story. Done as if by order.” He is happy to see that nature is on his side, thus assuaging the weight of his heavy conscience.

Howard is seen enjoying himself in a kind of Shangri-La, promise land of rest, food, drink, and women in the Indian village. He is revered as a medicine man for saving the life of the boy. The Indians inform him that Curtin has been found half dead. Howard and some Indians go out to find Dobbs, but poetic justice has already taken care of him.

The rest of the film involves a search for Dobbs on behalf of Howard, Curtin and several Indians who saved him. Retribution is the call of the day now, as some bandits kill Dobbs and steal his gold. They store the gold in some ruins outside of town, only to be captured by the townspeople while trying to sell Dobbs’ mules. Later the three bandits are executed.

The last sequence of the film entertains what seems to be the perspective of the mountain itself. Howard and Curtin go to retrieve the bags of gold. As the search party arrives on the site where the gold has been hidden, a sudden windstorm develops, blowing all the gold out of the bags and back into the mountain.

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is a brazen look at human life that avoids a trite climax. The film captures the essence of avarice without making a political statement of any sort. What we have here is a metaphysical rendering of human destructiveness and how this manifests itself in the physical world. I suppose that what John Huston has attempted to portray is akin to Luigi Pirandello’s Six Characters in Search of an Author. In other words, Huston has, in my estimation, avarice itself searching for a manner to tell a story.

The final episode has Howard breaking out into frantic laughter. He says, “Laugh Curtin old boy this is a great joke played on us by the lord, fate, nature or whatever you prefer. But, who or whatever played it had a sense of humor. The gold has gone back to where we found it.” The fable as allegory comes full circle when those involved reach the understanding that human existence possesses an underlying structure that must be respected.

John Huston’s direction does a marvelous job of effacing any sense of strenuous moralizing. Cinema achieves this best when it becomes so transparent that it does not become bogged down by its own medium. Cinema always places us in a given arena, while, depending on our sensibility, we can incorporate its meaning in our own lives. Ernst Cassirer reminds us of this when he writes in An Essay on Man: “Every work of art has an intuitive structure, and that means a character of rationality. Every single element must be felt as part of a comprehensive whole.” (5)

ENDNOTES

  1. Havelock Ellis. The Dance of Life. New York: Random House, 1929, p.265. 
  2. The Collected Dialogues of Plato. Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns (Eds). Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985, p. 99. Benjamin Jowett, who translated the Charmides in this edition writes about the Greek word Sophrosyne in relation to arrogance: “Sophrosyne was the exact opposite. It meant accepting the bounds which excellence lays down for human nature, restraining impulses to unrestricted freedom, to all excess, obeying the inner laws of harmony and proportion.” 
  3. Karl Jaspers. Socrates, Buddha, Confucius, Jesus: The Paradigmatic Individuals. Translated by Ralph Manheim. San Diego: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1990, p. 8. 
  4. The Collected Dialogues of Plato, p. 110. 
  5. Ernst Cassirer. An Essay on Man: An Introduction to a Philosophy of Human Culture. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972, p. 167. 

___________________________________________________________________________________________
PROMOTIONAL MESSAGE
A TOOL IS USELESS IF IT’S NOT USED. Don’t just sit there…introduce a friend or relative to The Greanville Post and help us expand the reach of remedial ideas and information. If each of you brings merely ONE additional reader to the table, we will be able to double our circulation!

_______________________________________________________________

If you liked this article, why not support The Greanville Post by buying our T-shirt, a mug, a mousepad, or any other item now in our store? That way you donate a few dollars and also get a nice gift. It’s a win-win formula!

Created By CrankyBeagle for The Greanville Post
This and many other items at our store. Stop by today!




ANIMAL DEFENSE—Muscles and a good heart may not be enough

Exclusive from ANIMAL PEOPLE,  November/December 2009:

“Reality TV” & Rescue Ink Unleashed

National Geographic Channel:  10 p.m. Fridays.  Debuted September 25,  2009  [print_link]

BY MERRITT CLIFTON

rescueInk-ensembleAFTER THE SUCCESS OF Animal Precinct, So-called “reality” TV scraps the costs of scripting, choreographing,  and hiring professional actors,  in favor of editing impromptu footage into something with enough semblance of a plot to hold viewers through the commercials.  Yet,  despite the pretense of being “real” because it is unrehearsed,  “reality” TV tends to closely parallel the conventions of scripted TV,  which evolved in the first place because those conventions work.

Early “reality” crime shows,  like Animal Precinct,  which debuted in 2001,  follow actual law enforcement personnel on their actual rounds.  After Animal Precinct became a smash hit came virtual copies:  Animal Cops Detroit,  Animal Cops Houston,  Miami Animal Cops,  Animal Cops San Francisco,  Animal Planet Heroes:  Phoenix, Animal Cops South Africa,  and Animal Cops Philadelphia.

Then came cartoon time.  Much as the private detective genre follows the cop show,  with protagonists who have more liberty to violate the constraints of real-life law enforcement,  the Rescue Ink rescuers aid animals without having to observe warrant requirements and carefully maintain a chain of custody of evidence.  Instead of being neatly outfitted and clean-shaven public servants,  the Rescue Ink characters are tattooed bikers,  with the muscle-bound bodies of power lifters.  Rather than driving mundane animal control vans, they are shown with flamboyantly painted motorcycles and hot rods. At times they use language that animal control officers cannot use on the job.

Mostly,  on camera at least,  they do things like feed pit bull terriers whose person is hospitalized,  drive animals to sanctuaries,  take animals to be sterilized,  and talk about how they feel about animals.  The image they project,  however,  constantly cultivated by the voice-over narration,  is that they are vigilantes on behalf of abused animals,  who at any moment might knuckle a bad guy’s head.

Like Animal Precinct,  Rescue Ink Unleashed is videotaped in New York City.  Knowingly or not,  it follows a tradition begun locally by ASPCA founder Henry Bergh.  On November 21,  1870,  Bergh coordinated a police raid on a dogfight at Kit Burns’ Tavern,  the animal fighting venue depicted in the 2002 Martin Scorcese film Gangs of New York.   One of the raiders,  apparently a Captain Allaire, dropped through a skylight into mid-ring in mid-fight to call an abrupt halt to the proceedings.

Later renditions of the raid,  including on the ASPCA web site,  mis-attribute the plunge to Bergh himself,  who at six feet tall,  age 47,  probably could not have fit through the skylight and made the hard landing safely enough to confront the dogfighters. Bergh loved to tell the story,  though,  to impress upon animal abusers and potential donors that if diplomacy failed–and Bergh himself was a former diplomat–any means would be taken to bring perpetrators to justice.

The tradition of the tough guy for the animals has played out through countless variations since,  including the quasi-piracy of Paul Watson and the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society,  the undercover videography of Steve Hindi and SHARK,  the nightrider tactics of various factions operating as the “Animal Liberation Front,”  and the feral cat feeding done by the late New York City crime boss Vicente Gigante.  Though examples exist everywhere,  New York City seems to produce a disproportionate number–at least of those that get high-profile media attention.      Of note as a possible antecedent for Rescue Ink Unleashed was The Witness,  a 1999 Tribe of Heart video,  much aired at animal rights conferences during the next few years,  which dramatized the animal rescue work of then-Brooklyn building contractor Eddie Lama, an ex-convict portrayed as a tough guy.  Actually a soft-spoken fellow who acknowledged the decades of work of many little known rescuers before him,  Lama even at the peak of his transient celebrity tended to stand in the back of the room at conferences and listen attentively to the other speakers.  His most confrontational activity appeared to be airing animal rights videos to sidewalk passers-by on a widescreen TV mounted in the back of his van.     Lama and partner Eddie Rizzo,  also an ex-convict,  in 1998 founded the Oasis Sanctuary in Callicoon,  New York.  Rizzo died in 2004.  Donations fell as The Witness was shown less and less.  By mid-2009 Lama was trying to find other homes for the remaining animals,  and trying to sell the property,  after paying $25,000 in back property taxes.  “The plan remains to relocate,”  Lama told ANIMAL PEOPLE in November 2009,  “but unfortunately that can not take place unless we sell some of the property.  Our concern is that unpaid property taxes will once again put our place in jeopardy.”

Animal advocates,  frustrated by the slow pace of trying to bring abusers to justice through often inadequate laws and a clogged, sometimes indifferent judicial system,  tend to like the idea of tough guys for the animals meting out vigilante justice.     Yet,  while this is the image that Rescue Ink Unleashed plays up,  reality is that the show frequently illustrates the limits of the tough-guy approach.The alleged cat-shooter they confront in the early episodes is a scrawny apparent immigrant who stands up to them and calls the police on them.  They yell in the man’s face,  and offer him non-violent help to keep cats out of his garden,  but appear to be no more successful in amending his outlook and his ways than the neighbors who summoned Rescue Ink.

Neither do the men of action accomplish anything extraordinary in two afternoons of trying to help an animal control officer catch four free-roaming chickens.  Instead of baiting and netting them all at once,  as successful chicken-catchers do every day all over the world,  Rescue Ink chases the chickens all over the neighborhood.  The chickens are finally caught,  but only after the Rescue Ink members demonstrate many ways to stress already frightened animals–albeit animals who soon receive good homes at a sanctuary.

Polling other animal rescue agencies,  Patrick Whittle of Long Island Newsday found Rescue Ink praised by Associated Humane Societies of New Jersey chief executive Roseann Trezza and Katie’s Critters Small Animal Rescue founder Wendy Culkin,  but criticized by Michelle Curtin of Second Chance Wildlife Rescue and Suffolk County SPCA chief Roy Gross.  Rescue Ink members had crashed a Suffolk County SPCA press conference a few days earlier to denounce how the agency had handled a major serial cruelty and neglect case,  and argued with Curtin at the scene–in front of local TV news cameras.

rescueInk-bigant

"Big Ant" (Anthony) is one of the team's most engaging members.

Regardless of the apparent sincere intent and efforts of the rescuers,  Rescue Ink Unleashed  is more about television than humane work.  But there is also some real-life crime drama behind the TV scenes,  exposed on November 14,  2009 by Mark Harrington of Long Island Newsday.

“Robert Misseri,  40,  has alternately been described as the executive director,  organizer,  dispatcher,  CEO and principal” of Rescue Ink,  Harrington began.     Rescue Ink itself is nonprofit,  but “two separate entities, Rescue Ink Productions and Rescue Ink Publications, are for-profit enterprises that pay members for participation in the TV show” and a book deal,  Harrington explained.  “Misseri is managing partner of both companies.”

The book was co-authored by former Newsday reporter and columnist Denise Flaim.

Misseri told Harrington that he has donated at least $12,000 of his money to the nonprofit Rescue Ink entity,  said the production company pays expenses for the show,  including ‘payments to all participants,'”  Harrington added.     “In a 2000 indictment against him and 10 others,”  Harrington revealed,  “Misseri was accused by federal prosecutors of directing the ‘Galasso-Misseri crew’ of the Colombo organized crime family. But as the case neared trial,  the charges against him largely disintegrated.  According to the indictment,  a witness had accused Misseri of being in a car during the 1994 murder of Louis Dorval,  an accused mobster.  Prosecutors have since charged a Long Island gym owner,  Christian Tarantino,  who was not among the original 11 defendants,  with ordering Dorval killed. Tarantino’s lawyer said he denies it.”

Misseri was also charged with arson.   “The arson accusation involved a fire at the Have-A-Home Kennel in Old Brookville,”  wrote Harrington,  “in which Misseri denied any role.  A police report made no mention of him having been in a car of men who confessed to the crime,  court papers said.”     The murder and arson charges were dropped,  but Misseri pleaded guilty to alleged money-laundering in 2002.  “In addition to 37 months in prison, Misseri was sentenced to three years supervised release and ordered to pay $109,349 in restitution, court papers say. He was given credit for time served,  and he says he served 32 months,”  Harrington wrote.

Another Rescue Ink cofounder,  Joseph Panzarella,  allegedly survived an attempted mob “hit.”  According to Harrington,  “In court papers filed in the 2008 racketeering and murder trial of convicted mobster Charles Carneglia,  Panzarella is described by prosecutors in Brooklyn as a ‘Gambino family associate who was shot in a 1995 mob conflict.  Carneglia,  according to the papers,  sought to avenge the shooting of Panzarella by another accused mobster.  The court papers in a footnote describe Panzarella as an ‘unnamed co-conspirator’ in five racketeering acts of the Carneglia case.  He has not been charged with any crime.”

In April 2000,  when Misseri was jailed for five months awaiting trial,  “the North Fork Animal Welfare League recalled [in a letter to the court] how Misseri and his wife happened to be driving by when a dog escaped from its kennel,” Harrington noted.  The Misseris helped to slow traffic and recapture the dog.

Thus there is some evidence that Misseri and friends were always tough guys for the animals.  But the most serious work done against animal abuse in New York City is still done by the direct successors of Henry Bergh et al,  the ASPCA officers featured in Animal Precinct,  who have badges,  search warrants,  and gather evidence that stands up in court.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR