Skip to comments.Did Mr Potter get away with the money? [Wonderful Life] - Vanity
Posted on 12/23/2011 2:21:48 PM PST by SES1066
This wonderful Christmas perennial is very unusual for films in that Hays Code Era, a villain gets away with the crime. Does that affect your feelings about this movie? For me, when I saw this movie in my youth, it did catch my thought and I remember asking my parents why. Now as a seasoned adult, I think that I appreciate a movie that does not wrap up all of the threads into a neat package.
And, upon my research on this I read for the first time in a while, the Hays Code of 1930 - Have you? I would suggest you see how far Hollyweird has come in the years since this Code was active (1930-1968) until succeeded by the MPAA 'standards'.
Example: "X. National Feelings
1. The use of the Flag shall be consistently respectful.
2. The history, institutions, prominent people and citizenry of other nations shall be represented fairly."
Your post is kind of all over the place.........hit the egg nog a little early??
Villians get away with crimes all the time. Life is not always fair.
I was behind a woman and two men at a dollar store earlier today. My daughters and I had been looking at Gourmet Truffles and concluded we couldn’t afford them. When we got to the register, this woman and two big strapping guys had five boxes. As we watched, this woman swiped her EBT card to pay. I thought I was going to cry.
We paid for our Christmas pencils that we will be handing out to our Shepherds at church and realized, maybe we don’t need the truffles. Or as my daughter plainly stated, maybe the woman will choke then get a stomach ache.
Potter was played by John Corzine.
Corzine is a 300 year old vampire in real life.
Jimmy Stewart’s Character would have been lucky to get away with being fired and a huge fine. Just because you can put the money back in the till does not mean it wasn’t stolen in the first place. Bank examiners are p&4cks.
Mr Potter relocated to Goldman
You've never seen the missing ending to "It's A Wonderful Life", have you?
“It’s a Wonderful Life Lost Ending”
And, after all, they were ill-gotten gains and we know that no good can come of those.
The Hays Code is interesting. Prior to its adoption, movies in the U.S. were increasingly using nudity (the full frontal kind) and sex to attract audiences. Growing up in the fifties, I just assumed the country had been a much, more prudish place back in the day.
It’s a Wonderful Life was a natural for me since it reaffirmed the things I had been taught by my mom and dad - things like honor and commitment even when it isn’t easy or popular, things like “life isn’t always fair” and “There’s no such thing as a free lunch”.
Makes me somewhat of an anachronism these days...
I understood it pretty well and I ain’t had a drink in over five years. Scrooge much?
I was waiting for that one to show up.
In the olden days when US citizens were of higher moral fiber, the antagonist could succeed in evil or criminal activity, but the protagonist could not.
In this case, the success of the evil criminal is a vehicle that leads the protagonist to engage in a noble act, which ecourages moral strength in the community. The good of the moral man who suffers for the greater good is returned in the form of rescue by the greater community for whom he suffers.
It is notable that American audiences since the early 70s will accept, praise and identify with the successful crimes of a protagonist, when before the 1960s, all protagonists had to fail their crimes.
In the old Ocean’s 11, they were successful in stealing the money but audiences of the day would have protested their keeping it. The only acceptable ending was for them to lose their ill-gotten gains, and the only money kept was small amount used for good, when the father was reluctantly part of the crime. Audiences could accept that.
Today, we see protagonists who are successful drug dealers, successful thieves, bilkers, extortionists, con-men. Today’s Americans are not disgusted with a protagonist keeping his ill gotten gains.
This is a clear illustration of the rapidly declining morals of Americans in the past 50 years. This is how you get a society that is OK with murdering unborn children, that previous moral societies would never accept.
Yes, Potter is evil and he keeps the money which 40’s audiences could accept because he is indeed evil. It is today when the good guy pulls off a heist and keeps the money and the audience cheers, that depresses me.
Weird seeing Dennis Miller sans beard.
This has been gnawing at you for how many decades? I think it is time to let it go. It was a movie. Not real people.
Thanks for the defense, I was puzzled myself - reassuring.
Potter absconded the money at the bank; however, he did not not get ‘away’ with it. Oh, no one caught him with the money but he was forced to watch how goodness prevails. He knew full well what he did and he hoped it would put George Baily under; Instead, just the opposite happened. George was rescued spirtually and made to realize the true meaning of Christmas and the true meaning of helping our fellow man.
I like to think once Clarence got his wings he was able to sneak into Potter’s house, steal back the money, give it to Violet Bic who then ran off with Mr, Gower making his last years very happy.
Yes, he got away with the money. But no he didn’t get away with it - he was still Potter: old, bitter, and crippled. More money won’t make him happier or less crippled.
Right as rain friend.
You must have worked in a bank.
Dunno about the thread topic but I had the hots for Donna Reed all during my ‘yoot.
Frankly, I don’t recall ‘Bruce’ in the original movie.
Potter getting away with the money always bothered me. It’s why I don’t enjoy watching it every year. The family pulls the video out as a Holiday ritual. I’ve always preferred “A Christmas Carol” starring Alistair Sim.