Of course, given what I’ve said before, I wouldn’t agree with you that the situation would all be over once George sold the house. The question still remains: What did Uncle Billy do with the money?
You and I know what happened. The investigators don’t.
As you pointed out, the taking of money isn’t legal in my example*. But my point is that as the examiners etc in the film know, they’re in exactly the same kind of situation. All they know is, some money disappeared from where it was supposed to be. The fact that someone donated the same amount later on isn’t relevant to the question of what happened to the money in the first place. They need to know what happened. Hence the investigation continues. If an arrest was about to take place, nothing has happened that would cause it not to take place.
*And to address what you said more directly–recall that you were supposed to be defending the position that the investigators wouldn’t care where the money came from so long as it’s there in the end. But in the situation I described, the money is there in the end and yet the relevant investigators care very specifically about where that money came from.
Up to $25,000 to be made available immediately, IIRC. And that raises another question: Sam’s going to cover the entire amount, but still people are throwing money at George. Why don’t they all just say, “Ah, good show,” take their money back and party all night at the Bailey house?
Well Siam Sam, you know that’s not how it works. You’re money’s in the loan to Ernie’s home. And Ernie’s money is being used to help fund Bert’s house. We don’t keep all of the money here.
Now just sign for your money and you can get it in 60 days like your agreement says.
The fact that the whole town showed up to support George in his hour of need is a testament, in the eyes of the bank examiner and sheriff, to George’s honesty and fair dealing.
Besides, where in that town would you find a jury to convict him?
(I like the SNL ending, where Uncle Billy remembers what happened to the money and everyone in town goes to Potter’s office and beats the snot out of him.)
Keep in mind that, generally speaking, eight thousand wouldn’t get you an arrest warrant without actual evidence of embezzlement. It might get an investigation, but in this case Uncle Billy is going to out and out say, “I flat lost it” and hundreds of people will swear on a stack of bibles that both he and George are trustworthy and living well within their means.
It’s likely the implication that everyone knew flat out that Potter was pushing hard to get George arrested, and knew exactly why. Given an excuse, the responsible parties nodded and said, “Obviously nothing wrong here.” In any case, George can prove he didn’t steal anything so the law isn’t going anywhere.
Which is largely the point of the film. George was never stuck in an unfair position without hope. The people coming to his defense weren’t just putting their money on the line, they were putting their word and reputations as well. George would make his payment and have enough character witnesses to choke a court dead, and the fact that they would do so completely stopped Potter cold.
This is the sad point that always sticks in my mind. Potter stole the money and got away with it so cleanly that it wasn’t even worth addressing the point again in the movie. Yes, all the poor working peolpe are noble and pull together in hardship but the wealthy just take large sums of money and it’s not even worth bothering to try to stop it. What a message.
Right. Something intangible, George’s reputation that had been built up over the course of a lifetime, was worth more than money. Still, it would be nice if the good people of Bedford Falls could get their $8,000 back.
Good points all. I should clarify that I have been arguing George still would (or, legally, should) be arrested, but I haven’t meant to say he would or should be convicted.
I deal with bank examiners on a regular basis and I can assure you that they care about far more than the bottom line. From computer security to personnel issues, they care about it and there’s nothing I can say to them to make them not care.
Frank Capra conceded in an interview, some years later, that yes, Potter got to keep the $8k, but that it would never make him happy and he would never have the esteem of his neighbors the way George Bailey did. Life is about so much more than money.
I can’t see it, but assume it’s the same one I saw years ago – it’s funny how Dana Carvey always tended to portray Jimmy Stewart as a mean, vindictive old coot. Did that derive from Stewart’s behind the scenes reputation in some way, or was it funny because it was such a polar opposite of the real man?