I watch Wonderful Life every few years. I enjoy seeing Jimmy Stewart in most of his roles.
It’s not a movie I’d want to see every year.
I think this was Stewart’s first role after leaving Hollywood for military service.
I love It’s a Wonderful Life. It’s one of my all-time favorites.
Very few things make me tear up, but this film does…every time.
Plenty of things in the movie are hopelessly dated or unbelievable, but the story is timeless.
No Heinkel ever got past Poughkeepsie! 
I saw it for the first time as an adult, so it lost the benefit of nostalgia right off the bat. And I hate, hate, hate old movies. And the acting and writing was just as cheesy and awful as I expected it to be. But I’ve got to tell you…
…I really hated it. 
How can you hate old movies so much? Do you despise old books and old music too?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Well, they did implicitly criticize the idea of a town being run by the local banker/slumlord.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
One of the networks has broadcast rights and they show it just once a year. IIRC the film itself is actually still in the public domain, except that someone discovered that the music was still under copyright. That’s why it went back under copyright.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
He never really looked at her in the scene.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
In the alternate reality Nick’s Saloon scene that was the one and only Meade Lux Lewis pounding out the boogie at the old eighty-eights.
While I appreciate and enjoy the movie for what it is, I can’t help but think Alternate Reality Bedford Falls or Pottersville seems to be miles ahead in the nightlife department.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
There were two savings institutions in Bedford Falls: the bank and Bailey’s Building and Loan. Potter didn’t originally own the bank; he used his wealth to take it over when there was a run.
The movie isn’t socialist. It’s against selfishness and class exploitation. The Building and Loan was a capitalist institution that worked for the good of all (except Potter). Presumably, the bank did too until Potter got control of it.
It’s a Wonderful Life came out right after World War II. Many people had to set their personal goals aside because of that war. Young men were drafted; many of those who weren’t in the military nevertheless were engaged in the war effort. Families were separated. Marriages were postponed. Lives were lost. Soldiers came home with missing limbs. Educations were delayed. The movie was Capra’s way of saying that the sacrifices that people made were worth it, because they led to a better world.
Dunno if anyone’s addressed this in the years between the first page of the thread and now, but:
-
His entire life, George has wanted to get out and explore, see the world. It’s there in the drugstore scene with Mary when he’s 12 when he tells her about the South Sea islands where coconuts come from, then he’s all set to see the world when his father has a stroke and dies (after he’s told his father earlier that he can’t stand the thought of being cooped up in this town a minute longer) which keeps him there a bit longer, then he’s about to go off to college at last when the board of the Bailey Building and Loan votes to keep the institution going and not let Potter dissolve it, as long as he’s there to run it, then he and Mary are just about to go traveling on their honeymoon when the bank run happens, and the honeymoon money goes into keeping the building and loan solvent…at every turn, his deepest wish, from childhood on, is frustrated.
-
As has already been mentioned, the building and loan is always just this side of failing. He’s been under the stress of keeping it afloat ever since he took it over from his father. Meanwhile, he’s made a lot of other people’s lives better, while only just getting by, himself. He can’t even get away when Sam Wainwright and his wife offer to take him and Mary to Florida with them. Sam gets to go off and do big things, so does his brother Harry, and he’s stuck.
So George, for all he’s done, is not a happy man. When we get to Christmas Eve 1945, he’s 38 years old, overworked, always stressed, frustrated by the perpetual denial of his dreams, and in another era, he’d be ready for a mid-life crisis at the very least.
- Then the war ends, his brother gets the Medal of Honor and the town’s getting ready to celebrate - and Uncle Billy loses $8000 (that’s the equivalent of $111K today, according to theBLS inflation calculator - it’s worth remembering that was very nontrivial money back then: if you needed that sort of money today, could your friends scrape it up?) which would sink the building and loan, and (at least in the movie) send George to prison. When he goes to Potter out of desperation, Potter smugly tells him that he’s worth more dead than alive.
Yeah, he might feel like jumping off a bridge.
Also, as Potter pointed out, he had been seen giving money to Violet Bick, which makes it look like he embezzled money to spend on a mistress. George thought his reputation would be ruined and his marriage would be destroyed.
From what I understand, the movie was out of copyright, but it was found that the original story was not. The whole thing is confusing, as it uses older copyright law that allowed rights to revert back in some cases.
I just suspect that whoever made the gender-swapped version is not able to show it anymore, since they’d be violating the same original story copyright. But that also makes them reluctant to take it down off of YouTube or try to monetize it. I was calling that “copyright hell.”
Sure, if you ignore the fiction, someone cannot steal something and be absolved because they can immediately compensate the victim(s) when caught. If I have millions of dollars, I will not be immune to prosecution for stealing thousands of dollars because I can pay it back easily. However, it requires a fundamental misunderstanding of how movies are made (stories are told) to not understand the relevance of that final scene. The victims of the perceived embezzlement, the community, was (not surprisingly) not put-off by such perceived embezzlement. They knew they owed George much more than the $8,000 that was purported to be stolen. If a victim denies they are a victim, there isn’t much the law can do. It wasn’t the fact that George made enough money on the donations to pay back the deficit, it was the fact that none of the alleged victims gave a shit. Who, as a victim, gives the “crook” money to pay themselves back? The auditors understood that the “victims” were clearly stating that they were not victims and there could be no prosecution without a victim. That was Capra’s intent in that final scene, not some adherence to legislative propriety.
With something like the legalities of whether George Bailey would have gone to jail, or whether replacing the missing money would have made a legal difference, the only reasonable thing to do while watching the movie is to accept what they’re telling you about it. A story is being told, and if it’s internally consistent, that’s really all that matters.
But since we’re not watching the movie at this moment (at least I’m not, can’t speak for anyone else), and since this is the Dope, where we’ll work through stuff like this anyway, my thought is: when George Bailey invites the bank examiner in on Christmas Eve morning, the books should be fine. Uncle Billy is over at the bank with the $8000 that he’s going to deposit there. Until he comes back with neither the $8000 nor a deposit slip for it, life is good. But when he comes back with neither one, everything falls apart.
Presumably if Uncle Billy had wandered around all day without ever going to the bank and having his money swiped by Mr. Potter, and put the envelope with the $8000 back into the Bailey Building & Loan safe at the end of the day, everything would still be square, and the bank examiner would be satisfied with what he found at that point.
And with money being fungible, it really wouldn’t matter whether Uncle Billy brought the $8000 back, or whether the townspeople brought it to George and Mary, and George put it in the Building & Loan safe. From the POV of the books, and of the bank examiner, it’s all the same.
And I think Billy’s testimony, that he was given the money and lost it, would’ve been sufficient to relieve George of any suspicion or guilt. No way George would have been indicted, if we’re speaking legally.
And tossed her back her robe when he had to leave to see what had happened to his dad.
Well said.
Here’s more on the movie’s on-again, off-again copyright status: It's a Wonderful Life - Wikipedia
There’s also prosecutorial discretion. They don’t have to prosecute at all, for any, or no, reason.
And they wouldn’t.
As an aside, as a person who hates coconut, I’m really upset at George for his tirade against Mary for not wanting some on ice cream. Who cares where it comes from if it sucks! I can still like Tahiti and hate coconut.
“Help me down?” “Help you down!?”
“You like every boy.”