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.
Interesting info.
I see it a bit, but don’t see it thoroughly. Perhaps Capra was a genius of couching his true meaning in subtler, less-extreme ways.
I didn’t really see Potter as the “capitalist” vs some communist guy. It was more miserable lonely old man making everyone else miserable vs. likable man who helps people as much as he can.
The latter man I see no problem with; he doesn’t entail anti-capitalism. He does things himself, not as a government agent or pushing government power.
Sort of like John Galt would have behaved?
“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.”
He didn’t forget to go to the window, he forgot the MONEY. He left the money on the slip table when he did indeed go to the teller line. That letting go of the money is what caused all the hoo-hah.
Didn’t Fountainhead sort of have an anti-capitalist bent to it, too, if you go by the simple definition of “capitalist”?
The difference is those poor people are honest and will try to pay it back.
Yes, they may have difficulty so yes, they may not be GOOD at “paying it back”, but they would try.
Unfortunately, THAT is the idealism in the movie.
In our real world with our big cities, there are tons of people who really don’t care if they pay it back or not. They are dishonest as well as simply “poor”.
Nah. John Galt would have made such a long speech that the whole town would have followed George Bailey off the bridge just to make it stop.
My mother has said that for ages (”hogwash”), living in that era, and even in the big city. She truly thought life then was great and it was “all that” good stuff.
Tidbits about ‘Mr. Smith’ from Wikipedia...Hollywood censor at the time, Joseph I. Breen...warned the studios: [W]e would urge most earnestly that you take serious counsel before embarking on the production of any motion picture based on this story. It looks to us like one that might well be loaded with dynamite, both for the motion picture industry, and for the country at large.
Breen specifically objected to
‘the generally unflattering portrayal of our system of Government, which might well lead to such a picture being considered, both here, and more particularly abroad, as a covert attack on the Democratic form of government.’
Alben W. Barkley, the Senate Majority Leader, called the film “silly and stupid,” and said it “makes the Senate look like a bunch of crooks.” He also remarked that the film was “a grotesque distortion” of the Senate, “as grotesque as anything ever seen! Imagine the Vice President of the United States winking at a pretty girl in the gallery in order to encourage a filibuster!” Barkley thought the film “...showed the Senate as the biggest aggregation of nincompoops on record!”
Joseph P. Kennedy, then American Ambassador to Great Britain, wrote to Capra and Columbia head Harry Cohn to say that he feared the film would damage “America’s prestige in Europe”, and because of this urged that it be withdrawn from European release.
Pete Harrison, a respected journalist, suggested that the Senate pass a bill allowing theatre owners to refuse to show films that “were not in the best interest of our country.”
The film was also banned Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Soviet Russia and Falangist Spain.
Actually, Uncle Billy got distracted boasting about Harry’s CMoH and folded the deposit ticket and cash into the newspaper which he then thrust at Potter in punctuation of his speech.
When Potter opened the newspaper, the $5000 fell into his lap and he made as quick a getaway out of the bank as his wheelchair would allow.
A world without George Bailey is just right for Jamison. I wonder how he would feel about one without a Christ child.
“The film was also banned Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Soviet Russia and Falangist Spain.”
And what does that tell us?
Sometimes even the intentions of the producer/director don’t quite pan out. Largely that seems to be the case with these Capra films, to go by popular viewpoints.
Likewise with “PATTON”, intended to make Patton out as an ass, when in fact largely he seemed just the kind of guy people liked and wanted on the front lines.
Great story. Thanks for sharing.
Where did you hear that about Patton? The film was produced by Frank McCarthy, a Brigadier General who had always wanted to make a film about Patton. Omar Bradley was a consultant.
I got that impression from my mom and my husband. I know Bradley wasn’t a big fan.
Director Franklin J Schaffner certainly wasn’t inclined to that sort of thing. Screenwriter Francis Ford Coppola doesn’t mention anything like that on his DVD audio commentary.
How do you mean, that it contradicted the principle of
“the customer is always right?”
Sort of. But mostly that the people he fought against were the “establishment” in business, and ipso facto were capitalists.
Oh, I don’t know!
Kind of like the second “Back to the Future” movie where Marty discovers that Biff controls the town. Nice casino handy to all residents, no school taxes to worry about (no high school anymore), judging from Mr. Strickland reaction to the motorcycle gang the second amendment rights of the citizens remains, and girls like Lea Thompson has boob jobs. There was a lot to be said about the alternative future.
Nah. John Galt would have made such a long speech that the whole town would have followed George Bailey off the bridge just to make it stop.
I dont think Galt would have stolen the monies now that I think about it...although he might have...would have thought of it as Chump Change.
If the NYT goes any lower they will be guaranteed a Federal bailout...
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.