Love it. Although it is a VERY dark film, it definitely delivers its message well.
And the performances are all first-rate.
And screw the investors and employees. And I’m not seeing that George has a lot of job offers outside of Bedford Falls. And I can’t imagine letting a business fail will help him get a better job elsewhere.
Of course none of this makes the B&L a charity.
I’ve loved the movie ever since first seeing it, but then I love all Capra’s movies. For those intrigued by RealityChuck’s references to the original short story, it can be read online at Zoetrope All-Story.
The investors already were willing to follow Potter’s recommendation to fold up the business. However, after George’s impassioned speech (sermon) to help the poor, they were willing to continue the business to serve the poor only if George were willing to stay on to help the poor.
The “business” exists as a community service to help poor people obtain decent homes.
The “employees” are his uncle and 2 cousins. They’re all family. Even so, Uncle Billy is oblivious to the fact that the B&L exists to help the poor. Well, a lot of people in this thread discussion also seem oblivious to B&L’s purpose so I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that Uncle Billy is clueless about it as well.
Then you missed the scene where he’s waiting at the train station with Uncle Billy showing him all the brochures of jobs available for people who travel – Venezuela and Yukon for people with “construction experience.” George has that type of background because he worked at his father’s B&L scrutinizing the cost of pipe to build homes.
The movie must establish that George had other options. Otherwise, he wouldn’t be sacrificing anything by staying in Bedford.
Either there’s a lot of cognitive dissonance happening here or you haven’t seen the whole movie to understand the context of Bailey B&L.
The movie is 130 minutes long and has 18,000 words of dialogue. I challenge anybody to find any quote or any scene that establishes the Bailey B&L as a business existing for profit vs a business existing for charity.
Well, Zuzu’s petals are soft and moist and tremble ever so slightly.
Dear God, I hope that’s the sickest thing I laugh at today! And on Christmas!
I just wanted to point out that it wasn’t just the Bailey Building and Loan that was having money problems. Even the the bank suffered similar problems.
Potter saved the bank from going under. He confirms it later in the scene when he offers George a job.
Theoretically speaking, the Bailey B&L didn’t have money problems at that very moment because the depositors were supposed to wait 60 days to cash out. The depositors bought “shares” similar to share draft accounts at credit unions. (When I had credit union shares, it was a 30 day wait.) In the big picture, the Bailey B&L always had money problems but one can nitpick and say that on the day of the bank run, the B&L had every right to say, “hey, we’d love to help you out but you need to wait 60 days. bye.”
The idea was that the bank was to be used for short term needs (daily, weekly) while the Bailey B&L was more long-term holdings. To offset the inflexibility of the B&L rules such as the 60-day wait, the institution would offer slightly higher interest rates, lower fees, lower minimum balance requirements, easier loans, etc.
Many (most?) of the customers at Bailey B&L were also customers of the bank. The bank closed their doors on them and so they went to their last safety net which was George.
George went above and beyond protocol and the legalities of contracts when he helped out his depositors with his honeymoon money.
But as this thread has shown, poor George can’t do anything to make people understand he’s a charity. Always underappreciated, even by the audience of the film LOL.
The bank couldn’t ask customers to wait 60 days.
I’ve never been able to watch more than 5 minutes of it without turning it off. Two thumbs down from me.
No, I was – and remain – under the impression that either George or Harry could’ve gone to college immediately upon Harry’s graduation from high school. It’s my impression that such was the case while Peter was running the business, and that it continued to be the case once Peter keeled over.
Regardless of Peter’s health, there would’ve been (and was) enough money for either Harry or George to leave for college that August, and there would’ve been (and was) enough money for the other one to leave for college four years later. Just so long as someone – Peter or George or Harry – can mind the store.
Let me rephrase:
PLAN A: Peter stays healthy. Harry graduates from high school. George or Harry goes to college, and upon graduating the other one can go to college – so long as someone (namely, Peter) keeps running the BB&L for a profit.
PLAN B: Peter keels over. Harry graduates from high school. George or Harry goes to college, and upon graduating the other one can go to college – so long as someone (namely, George or Harry) keeps running the BB&L for a profit.
I don’t see much of a difference.
…working at Bailey Building & Loan, which generates plenty of money for the Bailey family year after year after year.
Emphasis on “Harry” is mine.
I can’t understand why this financial computation is so confusing. The point-in-time of Harry’s graduation is 4 years later after George graduated. The Bailey’s had no money for George to immediately go to college. George had to wait and to save for 4 years while his friends (Sam Wainwright, Marty Hatch, etc) went to college and came back for a cameo appearance at Harry’s graduation party.
In George’s speech to the board about his father he says, “He didn’t save enough money to send Harry to school, let alone me.” George is not lying. Are you asserting that George is deceiving the board of directors about Peter’s lack of money?
If Peter had money, then there is no need to delay GEORGE’s college for 4 years. It’s that simple. What is the confusion? Marty, Mary, Sam all go to college without having to wait for 4 years and they didn’t have to save up for their own tuition.
You need to recalibrate your financial analysis off of GEORGE’s graduation and not HARRY’s graduation.
If Peter had money, then his wife (George’s mother) could just lounge around the house as a socialite trophy wife. Nope… George’s mother also has to chip in with the family finances by make their house serve a dual purpose: a boarding house. To add insult to injury, even with both parents working (Peter at the B&L, and the mother collecting boarding house rent) they STILL didn’t have money to send George to school immediately after he graduated.
The summary is simple:
If the kid goes to college immediately after high school, the parents have money.
If the kid waits for 4 years and saves for his own tuition, the parents do not have money.
George Bailey himself explains this in the movie. Hmmm… did you actually watch it?
Hm. I just saw the film (for the thousandth time) yesterday and I don’t recall anything about Mrs. Bailey running a boarding house – until the scene shifts to Pottersville. Does she really take in boarders during the “regular” timeline? How the heck did I miss that?!
I’m not sure there’s evidence that George paid for his entire college education; maybe he paid half his way with Dad supplying the rest? Because it seems hard to believe that George could save not just enough for college but also his trip. Remember, he was going to take a three-month trip to Europe (hence the huge suitcase gift from Mr. Gower) prior to going to college. Isn’t it possible that Peter paid for half of George’s education along with George, who also scrimped extra for the ability to go to Europe?
In any event, I disagree that George was running a charity and that laying out his honeymoon fund to keep the B&L going was purely charitable. He had to keep those customers in place or close his doors. The conceit (which may or may not be legit, I don’t claim to know much about this stuff) is that Potter threatens that if they close their doors before 6PM, the B&L will be through. So George’s using his own money in lieu of the cash that he would normally have available–which isn’t around because the bank called their loan–isn’t just to help the poor Chicken Little townspeople, it’s to keep the B&L afloat.
Plus, those were loans, not gifts.
Obviously it’s a rosy view of business and George’s behavior is selfless to the point of martyrdom, but I don’t think it’s anti-capitalist, it’s just pro-community-minded business.
To change the subject: one thing that doesn’t often get mentioned in discussions of IAWL is how funny it is. It gets marks for being soppy but there’s a lot of wit there too.
-
Angel Joseph to (Archangel Michael? Don’t remember…) that Clarence “has the brains of a rabbit.”
-
High school dude to Alfalfa: “Feeling jealous, Othello?”
-
Ernie snarking on Bert the cop’s sudden need to see his wife after glomming Violet: “Family man.”
-
The whole dinner scene between George, Harry, their parents and Annie. The direction is wonderful and so very natural.
There’s much more but this is already too long. Just wanted to say how much I love the film. I overdosed on it many years ago when it used to be on fifty times a day during the Christmas season, but I hadn’t seen it in several years, and watching it yesterday made it fresh and magical all over again. James Stewart makes George so sympathetic and believable–a real man, not a saint despite his goodness/selflessness.
“My Cage” comic strip has been dealing with one person’s ambivalence toward this movie.
It’s easy to miss because George makes a quick comment about it to his father at the last dinner. He says, “oh, boy – my last meal at the old Bailey boarding house.”
After his mother is too old to continue that side gig, he continues to assist her on his meager salary. This is mentioned later in the movie by Potter.
The only difference in Pottersville is to show that Mother Bailey is still running a boarding house but as a bitter broken down woman instead of a cheerful mother of 2 respectable men.
George didn’t really save up for Europe. He was financing his Europe transportation by working to earn his keep on a “cattle” boat. He defends the sneers he gets about it by sarcastically saying he “likes cows.” This would be somewhat similar today to traveling to Antartica cheaply by offering to work as part of the crew, mopping floors, handling cargo, whatever.
Once off the boat and in the shores of Europe, he can scrimp by cheaply because he will stay at budget locations with a budget itinerary designed for “college backpackers.” This type of itinerary can be determined by watching closely the type of Europe travel brochures he throws away at Harry’s homecoming before his mother comes out of the house to talk to him. One brochure in his hand is titled, “Student Tours College Travel Club.”
It’s to keep the B&L afloat for the benefit of the poor people. It’s not for the benefit of George. If it was for George’s benefit, Mr. Potter would not have any emotional buttons to press when he’s meeting with George to offer him a job!
Ok, suppose somebody wanted to purposely write a screenplay that has a charity disguised as a business. How in the world would one write such a scenario? How would it be different from how Frank Capra depicted Bailey B&L and how he also depicted the family running it? I’ll expand on this in a separate post because the cognitive dissonance about this topic is baffling to me.
As I’ve asked before, can someone show which of the 18,000 words of dialogue and which scene out of the 130 minutes of film show that Bailey B&L was run for profit?
Those loans were provided above & beyond the contractual agreement between Bailey B&L and its depositors. It’s not in the movie but I think we can safely assume that George didn’t not calculate nor collect extra interest on the “loan” he provided people.
The first time I saw it, I was immobile in bed with a fever. I had nothing to do but watch IAWL back-to-back-to-back 3 times. I’ve probably seen it at least 20 times since then. I’m sure I’ll see it 50 more times.
I’ll gladly go head-to-head with anybody (except for maybe Frank Capra) about this movie.
For example, one of my favorite things to point out is Mary’s behavior when she and George are talking to Sam and his girlfriend when they stop in town to check on the factory. At 1:06:47 into the movie, Mary puts her left hand on her tummy as if it’s a subtle signal to herself that she’s pregnant (and possibly foreshadowing a future announcement of pregnancy). Sure enough, later that night, she reveals to George that she’s going to have their baby. This tiny detail is not mentioned in the script and I also don’t believe is mentioned in any book about IAWL.
Good points about the Europe trip! Still, I’d like to think he must’ve saved some money; I can’t imagine even adventure-seeking George going overseas without some extra cash on hand. That’d be downright nuts.
OH. That’s the reference? Is it possible you’re taking that line too literally? I’ve always thought it was just a joke – simply referring to George living at home with his brother, mom, dad and (possibly live-in) help, i.e. Annie. I don’t think it was literal – we never hear of anyone else living there, and that dinner scene is definitely family-only. Consider it, maybe? And it could be possible foreshadowing what Ma Bailey has to go through in the alterna-timeline.
Speaking of Annie, they couldn’t have been dirt poor since they’ve got a housekeeper/cook on hand.
Anyway I don’t wanna go head-to-head with you, Ruminator, because I know I’ll lose. I’m not very good with business myself. 
That’s a great find re: Mary holding her belly. Well-spotted and typical careful eye to detail in Capra (or possibly Reed herself). Another great detail is in the Pottersville shoot-out. As utterly ridiculous it is for the cop (is it Bert? I don’t remember) to shoot in the middle of the crowd, I love how one of the lights in POTTERSVILLE winks out after the shooting. And it stays out in the next camera angle, so good continuity there too.
Right before George’s comment about “boarding house”, Annie says to Ma Bailey, “That’s why all children should be girls!”
Ma Bailey responds, “But if they were all girls, there wouldn’t be any… Oh, never mind.”
Ma Bailey cut herself off mid-sentence. But, it makes sense if you insert the word “boarders” like this: “But if they were all girls, there wouldn’t be any boarders.” No boarders means they wouldn’t need employment of Annie. I think Ma Bailey was being very tactful. 
If I had 2 young nubile daughters, I’m not sure I’d want random boarders sharing my house either. So I’m inclined to agree with Ma Bailey’s wisdom on that one.
Annie is not a servant for the whims of Ma Bailey. She’s hired help for the boarders.
Keep in mind that Frank Capra depicted the ENTIRE family as earning their keep. Remember that earlier in the movie, young George is working at the Gower drug store. Right before he enters the store to start his shift, his friends (Sam, Marty, etc) toss him in and snicker that he has to work as a “slave.” If you notice, all of George’s childhood friends are wearing baseball outfits. The contrast is deliberate: George must work, while his friends can go play.
The contrast is repeated (and beat into audiences heads again) when George is a young adult: George must stay back and save for college while all his friends start immediately.
George Bailey saves for that tuition by being on the payroll at the Bailey Building & Loan, which cuts a check to him (and Uncle Billy) out of whatever money is left over after breaking even on the loans this month. It’s not about whether they have money or don’t have money; they have money coming in. That’s not rich, but it’s not poor; the family business rakes in plenty enough money for a Bailey to get put through college – and four years later, it’s sure to have again raked in plenty enough money that another Bailey could get put through college. The first time around, Peter was running things. The second time around, George was. It didn’t matter; the plan was the same; the money comes in for those Baileys like clockwork, year after year.
Sure, like Peter before him George the owner apparently has nothing left for himself after paying everyone’s salaries from the CEO on down; the company doesn’t seem to turn a profit above and beyond that. But he is that CEO drawing that paycheck, and so has a solid chunk of the BB&L’s revenue coming his way after deducting the make-work job for Uncle Billy; the Bailey Building & Loan isn’t losing money, it’s reliably bringing in enough for Bailey after Bailey after Bailey.
I think you’re over-thinking this one.
“That’s why all children should be girls!”
“If they were all girls, there wouldn’t be any children!”
(Er, eventually.)
So… you’re saying George is lying when he says, *“He didn’t save enough money to send Harry to school, let alone me.” *
I don’t think George is lying about his father. The movie doesn’t show he’s lying. Why do you keep insisting otherwise?
If the missing word was as harmless as “children”, Ma Bailey wouldn’t need to diplomatically cut herself off. The word has to something with more bite so that when she is making that statement while having eye contact with Annie, there’s a reason to stop herself. The word “children” doesn’t accomplish that, IMO.
He didn’t save enough money to send either of them to school. He ran a business that put George on the payroll while steadily bringing in plenty enough money to put one son and then the other through school. If Harry had taken over for George, George could’ve gone right after Harry graduated from college. If Peter had remained healthy, George could’ve gone first and Harry four years later.
The money comes in like clockwork, regardless of which Bailey is running things.
The bite is that it involves people screwing. Ma Bailey’s essential point, IMO, is that if all children were girls, then in no time flat there wouldn’t be any children, because girls can only make new children by having big hairy men ejaculate into them – which, IMO, is exactly the sort of sentiment that would cause her to stop herself while making eye contact.