Bumped.
IIRC Paula Poundstone did a bt where she said they were remaking the film but it would be based on her life. And it turned out that actually, everybody’s lives would have been better if she’d never been born. So the angel was forced to apologize to everyone.
I believe Married With Children had a similar episode where everyone has a better life without Al. So he chooses to live out of spite.
My wife and I watch this every Christmas.
We always struck by several things.
- George is kind of a dick.
- George did Violet at least once.
- Everyone would be better off if Uncle Billy never worked at the Building and Loan.
- Mary would’ve been better off if she married Sam.
No. No, he’s not. He’s really not. He’s a serviceable actor for just this kind of schmaltz. This movie rates right up there with Bobby Goldsboro songs and Thomas Kinkade paintings. Yuck, yuck, yuck.
It’s a Co-Dependent Life is basically just an overextended episode of The Twilight Zone, and not a good one. I’ve always found the final message that having money makes everything okay to be kind of disgusting. Mary shows imagination and hustling to save George at least twice in the film, making George’s decision not to tell her about his financial troubles the second time a serious dick move. Pottersville looks way more fun and economically viable than Bedford Falls. And while no film with Gloria Grahame can be all bad, fuck Uncle Billy.
I used to watch It’s A Wonderful Life every few years. I’m a bit burned out. I’d watch it with my family. Keeping the tradition.
I wouldn’t seek it out on my own.
There’s some plot holes that bug me. The greedy developer is still around at the end. He’ll continue trying to ruin George Bailey’s building and loan. But at least that years Christmas is saved.
You may not like the film, but in no way is anyone in the film co-dependent. That term gets overused. Codependency is an “excessive emotional or psychological reliance on a partner, typically one who requires support on account of an illness or addiction.” It basically describes someone who gets their life worth by being an enabler to their partner.
You also didn’t understand the message–money didn’t make everything okay. George’s kindness to everyone else was worth more than money, which is why they were willing to give him their money to help him.
You are, however, correct that him not telling his wife about the problem was a flaw. But I would argue it’s an entirely understandable flaw: people often don’t want to burden their loved ones with their problems. This is especially true in depression (an illness), and George did try to commit suicide not long after, and wished he’d never been born.
Sure, we have to accept the conceit that Clarence was able to alleviate that depression with his stunt, but he is an angel and seems to have miraculous powers. It’s no more absurd that the ghosts in A Christmas Carol changing Scrooge in only one night. It’s a bit of magical realism in a film that is set in such a universe.
It’s part of the message of these types of films–in this case, that things are not as bad as you may think they are. That things can be fixed. That doing the right thing will have its reward.
I saw it one year we were in Florence, Italy , dubbed in Italian.
Frank Capra’s. Autobiography is a pretty good read.
Ultimately, A Christmas Carol, is better, more universal, more relatable.
Over time George Bailey has worn on me. I like the original story better, where the lead is more ordinary but still shown to have made a difference. Yeah, maybe Peter Bailey should have taken a higher salary so George could play on the baseball team. Building and Loan was supposed to be a business. The conceit that it’s the Baileys against Potter, with the whole rest of the town slack jawed gawkers, doesn’t play that well for me any more.
Bores me to tears.
To me, it’s one of those “classic” movies, that I only needed to see just once.
I watched it for the first time this year because I wanted to know if it was as schmaltzy as I always believed. Verdict? It’s pretty good up until Zuzu shows up. I really, really hate her character. And that last line…[shudder]…there’s no redeeming that.
It did redeem Jimmy Stewart for me. The last of his movies I watched was Vertigo which totally freaked me out. His character in that movie was entirely too creepy. I can deal with George Bailey much more easily than Scottie Ferguson.
I haven’t read the story, and I don’t disagree with your main point, but I think these points are a bit too rosy to be real. One of George’s biggest characteristics is that he feels Responsible. If the audit happened and the savings and loan was short, there was a real possibility that it could be closed by the government or put up for a forced sale, which no doubt Potter would buy so he could own all those mortgages, and that George would be ruined and possibly go to prison. (I take the film’s word for this point, it seems plausible, but I’m no expert.) And his entire life had been a struggle, look at that rickety old house they lived in. They had enough, barely, but “things had been so good” seems like a gross exaggeration.
My favorite part of this film is the relationship between George and Mary, and the way it builds into something like what you hope your parents had, and that you might have one day. It’s aspirational but still very real. So yes, I like the film, although I have no urge to watch it any more, I’ve seen it so many times.
I don’t think the message is buried at all. The world needs responsible and loving people in it, without them it goes to (almost literal) hell. It isn’t necessary to screw every possible last cent out of people and to drive them to disaster doing it, while enjoying the power to do so; you can just make a decent profit and live a good life. George and Potter are archetypes, between whom most of us live our lives. Is it bad if more of us try to be like George instead of like Potter?
How is committing suicide being responsible? It’s just letting everyone else deal with the issues with the added burden of grieving George’s death. He would avoid jail, but the suicide would “prove” he was secretly a crook. Mary would be left without a source of income (George’s insurance policy would probably not pay) and Billy would be the one taking the rap. The bank would fail and Potter would take over.
Essentially, in two years after the suicide, it would be as though he had never been born (with a few exceptions of his brother and the pharmacist).
Since I wrote the post, I had a chance to see the script to Capra’s earlier American Madness. Capra borrowed plot elements heavily from that: it features a banker who is George Bailey in everything but name., and who is nearly ruined by a run on the bank, but is saved when all his friends and people he helped raised money to cover the losses. Instead of Potter, you have the bank’s Board of Directors, who complain about the business practices and try to oust him.
Essentially, It’s a Wonderful Life is American Madness with the story “The Greatest Gift” grafted on.
It isn’t, of course, but by then he is in such despair that he is not able to reason this out for himself. He is tortured by his own (perceived) failure to prevent the catastrophe that has descended on him. If he was more care-free he might be plotting and planning various ways to escape, such as by throwing his uncle under the bus, but he can’t do that sort of thing, it’s not in his character or personality. He wasn’t considering suicide because he was personally afraid of prison, he was doing it because he thought he had failed in his life. All the outcomes you list were going to happen anyway (or so he thought).
And I’m not sure that him going to prison would have led to any better outcome for his family. At least as a blameless widow, his wife had a (possibly remote) chance to meet and marry someone else, and I have a feeling that old beau (“Hee Haw” was, I think, his usual greeting on the phone) would be a generous benefactor.
Like I said, I’m not disputing that the film varies widely from the original source material, but I think the film should be able to stand on its own regardless of those changes.
Yeah, I saw it once. It was okay. However, I rarely see any movie more than once. I’m weird that way I guess.
His reasoning was that his family would get his life insurance payout. But wouldn’t there be a clause invalidating the policy if he did commit suicide?
Like @Roderick_Femm said, George wasn’t thinking clearly at this point.
I saw as a kid and didn’t pay much mind to it but when I got older and sentient of the world I love it.
I just finished watching it 10 minutes ago.
It’s been many years since I’ve last seen it. I enjoyed it muchly, more so than previous viewings from what I remember. I can see why some folks watch it annually.
mmm