Posted on 12/19/2008 1:42:56 PM PST by AIM Freeper
The headline on a critique in today’s New York Times says it all: “Wonderful? Sorry, George, It’s a Pitiful, Dreadful Life.” Nothing more clearly illustrates the paper’s hatred of normalcy than its revisionist perspective on “It’s A Wonderful Life.”
The moral of the 1946 Capra classic — life has meaning. Even if we don’t achieve our dreams, even if our existence is seemingly hum-drum, those who lead good lives will never know how much good they’ve done.
George Bailey does, by glimpsing what his world would look like if he’d never been born. He discovers (to paraphrase the film) that every life touches so many other lives — and, if it’s not there, it leaves a terrible void. This hopeful message is why the film has charmed audiences for over 60 years.
Wendell Jamieson, author of The Times’ diatribe, hates nearly everything about the film. George Bailey is pathetic for sacrificing his dreams for the greater good of his family, friends and the depositors of the Bailey Savings and Loan. Jamieson finds the film’s nostalgic vision of small town life embodied in Bedford Falls boring and stultifying.
He much prefers Pottersville in the alternate reality. “The women are hot, the music swings, and the fun times go on all night.”
Yes, and George’s wife is a mousey, spinster librarian; his mother is a bitter, dried-up hag who runs a dilapidated boarding house; brother Harry died as a child because George wasn’t there to save him (consequently, all the men on Harry’s ship died because he wasn’t there to save them); Uncle Billy loses his marbles when the Saving and Loan closes its doors, and so on.
Jamison’s piece reflects The Times’ worldview — individuals should live primarily for themselves, self-sacrifice is stupid, fast women, gambling and loud music are fun, and life is ultimately meaningless.
People who are world-wise are attracted to one type of cinema; those who are world-weary are drawn to the opposite. One is tempted to describe The New York Times as the Grinch who trashed a Christmas classic. But it probably likes the Grinch too.
It’s a Wonderful Life was sorta PC for its time. A friend explained to me it was meant as a lift to everyone, especially men, who didn’t go to war (or leave their town because of the war) but kept things going on the Home Front.
The 2008 Wall Street bailouts decisively validate Mr. Jamison's point of view.
It’s easy to trash works from another time. A piece of cake. This one is schmaltzy, idealistic and unrealistic, enough said. I’d like these critics to apply the same kind of scrutiny to the trash on the screens today.
I have never been able to understand why so many freepers are crazy about Frank Capra films, such as ‘It’s a Wonderful Life.’ Capra was a Commie sympathizer and almost all his films contain Commie messages, eg, the villains are nearly always capitalists, like Mr. Potter in ‘It’s a Wonderful Life.’
The society in ‘Lost Horizon’ was Communistic, the villains in ‘Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,’ and ‘Meet John Doe,’ and most other Capra movies are capitalists.
I guess some viewers can’t get past the sentimentality of Capra films to see the subtle Communist propaganda inserted into the narrative.
“The Pinch who Stole Christmas”
I like it!
I'm finding it difficult to argue with this part.
Oh, those things can be "fun", so to speak. But that is just a part of life, it is not what life is all about. Not in the least. It is, in my mind at least, God, Country, Family. That is life.
There’s something to what you say, especially if you look at Capra’s precodes. There, for the most part, you see films critical of religion and especially Christianity.
However capitalists aren’t all wonderful people either, so I wouldn’t dismiss all of Capra’s films because some villains are capitalists. George Bailey isn’t a communist in A Wonderful Life just because his community helped him out during a bad time. That’s what we all should do, help one another during a bad time, regardless of political affiliation.
Sin is fun for a season but then you have to pay the piper. There are ALWAYS consequences to sin.
That is the film's low point. Since the days of Zenodotus and Eratosthenes, librarianship has been a noble profession.
Hanging around my new grandchildren and their family, I see how “soft” their parents have made their lives. The babies have no worries, they watch only Backyardigans and educational television. They eat nutritious food and go for walks together. They socialize with other families with children. They don’t watch the news or follow politics. It is an insulated world that my children have intentionally created for their kids.
That is what family-oriented societies do. The children will grow up believing in Santa, in romance, idealism and their ability to change the world. That is what traditional societies do. That is what Capra’s movie represented to me -the adult Dad who was an idealist and an opptomist. One worked to create a living environment of goodness, warmth and safety for his young family. An environment that extended into his community.
What we have from the sophisticates is the hard bare bulb realism of adult self-indulgence, pornography, violence, jaded pessimism and a coarsened culture. Not a good world for families or for raising kids.
Actually, and speaking as a banker here, the problem started when Uncle Billy absent mindedly forgot to go to the teller window to make the weeks deposit in Potter's bank. Potter pocketed the money to put Bailey S&L out of business.
Potter would have been a super star at Bear Sterns.
Yes, that’s my sense of it too. How might Ayn Rand have written IAWL?
Funny, I always considered that movie to have leftist bent. George does good business but doesn’t seem to what to ‘dirty’ himself by making a good profit at the same time, plus he pretty much follows the Fannie/Freddie concept of lending money to people who will not be good at paying it back. Also, the rich Potter is the Dem’s poster boy for their idea of what evil rich Republicans are.
Money quote of the day, maybe this week.
Thank you.
This is another reason why the libs hated Palin so much - she is clearly a happy woman.
Capra had a portrait of Mussolini in his office.
Besides do you have to agree with a film’s worldview to recognize it as a great work of Art? A lot of stuff from that period was about the Miserable Rich / Noble Poor dichotomy.
Also, for those who don’t know, ‘Mr. Smith Goes To Washington’ was considered anti-American propaganda many at the time. Hedda Hopper thought it was thought to be tailor made to discredit the American system as inherently corupt overseas. Funny considering that film is trotted out nowadays on Fourth of July.
The drivel here is the obtuse whining by the reviewer.
IAWL indeed does point out the meaningfulness of life. The biggest is how you can affect others in ways you can’t imagine.
I learned that for sure last year.
(Sorry in advance for long story here.)
I met a friend my senior year in high school, but as usual for me, I didn’t keep up with her (she was a year behind).
She is a black woman (”crispy black”, as she would say, LOL) while I am white. She transferred from another HS. When I 1st met her in the art room (but not in class, which was what we would share), I heard her say something about “white” vs black or whatever, and I thought oh boy, here’s another with a chip on the shoulder. She looked like 1 of the tough kinds you stereotype. I was popular-hip-punk in a way.
But we quickly became friends; I don’t remember how. I just remember we laughed and laughed, and she became friends with many of my other (diverse, I might add - oriental, white, black, punk, grit, nerd, normal, Mormon, Mennonite, etc etc etc) friends. She literally threatened a girl who was constantly picking on 1 of our friends and scared her away from the friend.
So last year out of the blue I get a note from this woman I haven’t heard from since HS, through Classmates.com. She quickly wrote that she wanted to say hi, and that she was grateful we had met. I wrote back excitedly and told her she was being too flattering.
She wrote back a long note and said no, that I changed her life. She said she was feeling disgruntled about schooling and that the change to the new school felt worse. She was thinking about quitting and dropping out. But she met me and my friends and suddenly school didn’t seem like such a burden. She stayed on - even when I left - and even became a star on the lacrosse team her senior year.
She continued schooling and works helping cancer patients through their trying times.
I was really touched and dumbfounded 20 years later to find she decided to stay in HS and she thinks it’s all because of me.
Interesting. I can see that being the viewpoint.
However, Mr. Smith also spends alot of time admiring the giants of America’s past, not tearing them down. To me the film seems more to point out “America’s” flaws at the time rather than as a whole. Just as we’d probably do now.
But that movie also shows a corrupt senator “losing it” and admitting to all the corruption. Never happens now! Probably doesn’t usually happen either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.