Skip to main content

I know what I'm gonna do tomorrow, and the next day, and the next year, and the year after that.

It’s a Wonderful Life
(1946)

It’s a Wonderful Life is an unassailable classic, held up as an embodiment of true spirit of Christmas and a testament to all that is good and decent and indomitable in humanity. It deserves its status, even awash with unabashed sentimentality that, for once, actually seems fitting. But, with the reams of plaudits aimed at Frank Capra’s most enduring film, it is also worth playing devil’s advocate for a moment or two. One can construe a number of not nearly so life-affirming undercurrents lurking within it, both intentional and unintentional on the part of its director. And what better time to Grinch-up such a picture than when bathed in the warmth of a yuletide glow?


The film was famously not a financial success on initial release, as is the case with a number of now hallowed movies, its reputation burgeoning during television screenings throughout the 1970s. Nevertheless, It’s a Wonderful Life garnered a brace of Oscar nominations including Best Picture and, if reviews were not wholly complimentary, they were not hostile. Capra made the film, he said, to “combat the modern trend toward atheism”. The director’s conservative Republicanism might lead one to expect him to hew closer to Lionel Barrymore’s unadulterated malignancy as Mr Potter than the civic-mindedness of James Stewart’s George Bailey. But Capra’s libertarian distrust of big government, and avowal of the hard-working, up-from-the-boot-straps ethic, extended to wielders of power and wealth generally.


Perhaps the wielding of an overtly Christian ethic (albeit shamelessly cutesified, as evidenced by Henry Travers’ wingless angel Clarence Oldbody) was key to Capra identifying the responsibility of man for his fellow man, at the expense of pursuing any and all means to further his own goals (indeed, George Bailey is explicitly denied such avenues, either by fate or his own conscience). In Capra’s philosophy, “man is essentially good, a living atom of divinity” and this is most acutely expressed through his (man’s) compassion for others. The result is an idealised, small-town vision of Americana (one free from the tentacles of federal dictates) that persists as an impossible utopia at the end of an unlikely rainbow. This is why It’s a Wonderful Life is preeminent in his idealistic canon; it sprinkles on top the even more ungraspable “Peace on Earth, Goodwill to All Men” ethic, one that eludes most even in the season for which it is allotted (“Remember, no man is a failure who has friends”).


Some have pointed out the narrative parallels between It’s a Wonderful Life and A Christmas Carol, and that’s certainly appropriate to the final reel’s visit to a world absent of George Bailey (memorably homaged by Robert Zemeckis in Back to the Future Part II, itself a series that nostalgified small town America). But the trials of George throughout also have a strong flavour (less extreme, admittedly) of the book of Job. A good man, seemingly buffeted without rhyme or reason by the tribulations of fate. All George wants to do, like Billy Liar, is get out of town He wants to travel, to explore, and make his first million by the time he is 30.


So he is punished, despite being the dutiful son (much more dutiful than his brother, Todd Karns’ Harry, who traipses through the picture nauseatingly excused from any hardships – including on the battlefield, it seems – and is apparently to be congratulated for his lack of perseverance). George’s priorities are skewed, simply by having aspirations beyond his immediate surroundings.


When he inelegantly opines to his father (Samuel S Hinds) that he doesn’t want to be “cooped up for the rest of his life in a shabby little office”, there’s an implicit condemnation on Capra’s part of those who – intentionally or not – look down on those average Joes earning an honest (unquestioning) living. George’s dad actually deserves a cutting remark or two, as he has already attempted to passive-aggressively persuade George to stay on at Bailey Building and Loan (the one barrier between the community and mercenary mandibles of Potter). Bailey Sr makes George feel guilty for his dreams, and then gets his own way by promptly stroking out as George is on the verge of departing.


The sense of the presiding will of the Fates persists throughout the angels’ telling Clarence of his new subject’s life story. Those who are ostensibly for George prove to be the biggest thorns in his side. It’s a tale of a man who stands up for others but is too damn nice (or weak?) to stand up for himself. There’s Harry, the little weasel who blithely doesn’t care a jot that his brother has to toil away and underachieve while he reaps all the rewards (“My brother – the richest man in town!”; the confounded cheek!)


This is most evident with Mary (Donna Reed). It’s easy to see why George is smitten, and Stewart and Reed have marvellous chemistry. Witness the masterful scene where she and George silently declare love for each other while he is taking a phone call (and bringing business to town). Reed also gets the funniest line in the picture (“He’s making violent love to me, mother!”)


But, if one looks at the web Mary weaves to entrap George as her own, one might conclude she was some kind of sinister sorceress bent on his destruction. No sooner has he declared his intentions to better himself and broaden his horizons, than Mary casts a spell to ensure this never comes to pass (“Remember the night we broke the windows in the old house? This is what I wished for!”) Indeed, one might conclude it was her magical design that killed George’s father and ensured Bailey Jr remained in Bedford Falls. 


It is Mary who volunteers their savings to the selfish, small-minded townsfolk George has done nothing but help (except Grandma Walton; she’s alright). At one point it is said of George that he “doesn’t think of himself”, but he clearly does, and harbours resentment that, as he predicts, causes him eventually to “bust”. It is Mary who induces George to live in their rundown home (“like living in a refrigerator”) and who has bound him hand-and-foot with countless children (“Why do we have to have all these kids?”). She drains the life force from him; he has prematurely aged, with Mad Max grey temples, despite only a few years passing, while she is unchanged.


Mary is instrumental in shattering George’s dreams, arguably much more so than the machinations of cartoon villain Potter. The vision Clarence presents to George has the expected shock treatment effect (“Get me back to my wife and kids”), but of course it does; it was tried and tested on Ebenezer Scrooge, and Clarence speaks of it as a tried-and-tested last resort. There’s a nagging feeling at the back of this is that Capra spends an enormous amount of time building up a glass half empty picture of George’s life (yes, yes, but he has friends and a loving wife and adorable children and they more than make up for some incomplete dreams and unfulfilled goals of being a great and travelled architect) and justifies it by asking “What if it was wholly empty?”


Highly dramatic, yes, but George’s pressing question throughout has been one of what he might have achieved. And who knows what greatness might have awaited him? It doesn’t serve Capra’s design, which is to encourage the common man to forsake ambition. George might have failed thoroughly, but he might have done good out there in the world that far eclipsed the wonders he works in Bedford Falls, given half a chance (rather than be comforted by Pottersville, President Bailey might have helped the whole nation).


That would hardly snap a suicidal man out of his funk, but thematically it is every bit as urgent a preoccupation of the picture. Or, maybe, George would have done all those great things but never found true love (in which case he might “selfishly” have admitted his more limited path was the better one). Or, further still, perhaps George would have flunked it out there, all talk and no follow-through, so something is better than nothing. As it stands, one night’s festive salvation is unlikely to dispel all doubt from George’s mind. On Christmas morn he will awake with a thumping hangover and a thick lip. And then, all that’s left on Boxing Day is leftovers. And reality dawning. Conversely, it would be entirely understandable, given the loaded vision presented by Clarence, if, rather than emphasising that George is important, he was induced to believe that he is all-important, such is the decisive effect on the happiness of everyone he has ever encountered. They are revealed as abject, mad, or dead, without him.


We are told that Potter is “sick in his mind and sick in his soul”, and it seems the FBI suggested the picture was guilty of a common Commie trick of attempting to “discredit bankers”. Capra does a convincing hatchet job, and it is notable how much of the conversation between Potter and George feeds into themes present in the current financial crisis. Potter suggests the exerting of pressure on townsfolk, to persuade them to pay their mortgages, to which George responds that many of them are out of work.  The Bailey enterprise is constantly in danger of going under, taking those who depend on it at the same time. When there is a run on the bank, it is only George’s external means that provide a stopgap. While Potter’s model is to keep people dependent through charging extortionate rents as a slum landlord, George’s home ownership ethos might be seen as (in perverted form, but nevertheless part of the same idealised aspiration) leading to the subprime mortgage crisis.  


George also does not avail himself of the classic means of laying the foundations for a country’s financial ruin, or at least depression (he holds no intangible assets; “No securities, no stocks, no bonds”). One might argue that it is the refusal of a George-type to challenge Potter head-on (notably, it is Billy’s crowing over Potter that “George fought The Battle of Bedford Falls” that leads to the tidal wave that engulfs our hero) that allows the villain to persist unchallenged past the end credits.


Justice does not come calling for Potter; he is allowed to make off with stolen goods, even, His verdict of “Sentimental hogwash!” is seen to reign supreme and even entitle him. (It’s interesting to note that, for all his avariciousness, Potter is set to return the money until he sees how he can turn the situation to his own ends.) It’s easy to see a critique of unfettered capitalism in Potter. Yet, under Capra’s rules, no one should impede him, certainly not in a state-sanctioned manner. The only relief from Potter’s rule can come in setting one’s sights on nobler, non-material things.


As with the most capable of villains, Potter is also highly perceptive. George may be a “boil on his neck” but he recognises that his nemesis “hates the Building and Loan almost as much as I do”. George has allowed resentment to blight his life, suppressing his denial, and Capra’s ending retroactively condemns his ambition. One might suggest that Potter is at least honest about his motives.


There is also the convenience of George’s financial remedy. Most of the townsfolk seem to be gossips and ne’er do wells, making the deus ex machina charity pot money all the more unlikely. Had George’s predicament happened a few weeks later, in sobering January, perhaps Potter’s pronouncement of a “discontented, lazy rabble”, the consequence of lending to one’s friends, and the experience we saw with the run on the bank, would have been the harsh sermon of the day.


In the alternate reality where George escapes the town, perhaps his ideal companion would have been Gloria Grahame’s sex-on-legs Violet. It’s notable that, although she is coded as the bad girl (marked by the gossip of an extra-marital affair with George), she is as unable to fulfil her dreams as George. She, like George, appears to accept her town-bound, wholesomely restricted fate come the picture’s close.


Another questionable aspect of It’s a Wonderful Life relates to the supernatural influences, designed to inspire faith but operating to more ambiguous effect.  There are the angels, of course, but there is also Capra’s raven, entering scenes as a portent of doom for George. It adds to the sense that he is being puppeteered by forces beyond his control. The ostensible forces of light are, it seems aspirant ex-humans scaling the rungs of angelhood. As such they are happy to be rude about one of their juniors (Clarence has the “IQ of a rabbit”), and Clarence himself is only in this for his wings. We hear this repeatedly; he doesn’t actually care about George’s fate, whatever Travers’ benign and bumbling performance may suggest to the contrary.


The key to the appeal of It’s a Wonderful Life, however, is that it epitomises exactly the kind of sentimental hogwash Potter so reviles. By milking the emotional teat of the audience, and doing it so expertly, Frank Capra gives voice to cold, harsh realities but then ensures they are held in check. The stark misery that repeatedly rains down on George Bailey throughout is thrown into sharp belief by spotlighting all his blessings, so much so that no one has to worry about what happens next, or ponder what might have happened he had been given half a chance.




Popular posts from this blog

Abandon selective targeting. Shoot everything.

28 Weeks Later (2007) (SPOILERS) The first five minutes of 28 Weeks Later are far and away the best part of this sequel, offering in quick succession a devastating moral quandary and a waking nightmare, immortalised on the screen. After that, while significantly more polished, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo reveals his concept to be altogether inferior to Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s, falling back on the crutches of gore, nihilism, and disengaging and limiting shifts of focus between characters in whom one has little investment in the first place.

The Bible never said anything about amphetamines.

The Color of Money (1986) (SPOILERS) I tend to think it’s evident when Scorsese isn’t truly exercised by material. He can still invest every ounce of the technical acumen at his fingertips, and the results can dazzle on that level, but you don’t really feel the filmmaker in the film. Which, for one of his pictures to truly carry a wallop, you need to do. We’ve seen quite a few in such deficit in recent years, most often teaming with Leo. The Color of Money , however, is the first where it was out-and-out evident the subject matter wasn’t Marty’s bag. He needed it, desperately, to come off, but in the manner a tradesman who wants to keep getting jobs. This sequel to The Hustler doesn’t linger in the mind, however good it may be, moment by moment.

Doctors make the worst patients.

Coma (1978) (SPOILERS) Michael Crichton’s sophomore big-screen feature, and by some distance his best. Perhaps it’s simply that this a milieu known to him, or perhaps it’s that it’s very much aligned to the there-and-now and present, but Coma , despite the occasional lapse in this adaptation of colleague Robin Cook’s novel, is an effective, creepy, resonant thriller and then some. Crichton knows his subject, and it shows – the picture is confident and verisimilitudinous in a way none of his other directorial efforts are – and his low-key – some might say clinical – approach pays dividends. You might also call it prescient, but that would be to suggest its subject matter wasn’t immediately relevant then too.

I said I had no family. I didn’t say I had an empty apartment.

The Apartment (1960) (SPOILERS) Billy Wilder’s romcom delivered the genre that rare Best Picture Oscar winner. Albeit, The Apartment amounts to a rather grim (now) PG-rated scenario, one rife with adultery, attempted suicide, prostitution of the soul and subjective thereof of the body. And yet, it’s also, finally, rather sweet, so salving the darker passages and evidencing the director’s expertly judged balancing act. Time Out ’s Tom Milne suggested the ending was a cop out (“ boy forgives girl and all’s well ”). But really, what other ending did the audience or central characters deserve?

Your desecration of reality will not go unpunished.

2021-22 Best-of, Worst-of and Everything Else Besides The movies might be the most visible example of attempts to cling onto cultural remnants as the previous societal template clatters down the drain. It takes something people really want – unlike a Bond movie where he kicks the can – to suggest the model of yesteryear, one where a billion-dollar grosser was like sneezing. You can argue Spider-Man: No Way Home is replete with agendas of one sort or another, and that’s undoubtedly the case (that’s Hollywood), but crowding out any such extraneous elements (and they often are) is simply a consummate crowd-pleaser that taps into tangible nostalgia through its multiverse take. Of course, nostalgia for a mere seven years ago, for something you didn’t like anyway, is a symptom of how fraught these times have become.

Captain, he who walks in fire will burn his feet.

The Golden Voyage of Sinbad (1973) (SPOILERS) Ray Harryhausen returns to the kind of unadulterated fantasy material that made Jason and the Argonauts such a success – swords & stop motion, if you like. In between, there were a couple of less successful efforts, HG Wells adaptation First Men in the Moon and The Valley of the Gwangi (which I considered the best thing ever as a kid: dinosaur walks into a cowboy movie). Harryhausen’s special-effects supremacy – in a for-hire capacity – had also been consummately eclipsed by Raquel Welch’s fur bikini in One Million Years B.C . The Golden Voyage of Sinbad follows the expected Dynamation template – blank-slate hero, memorable creatures, McGuffin quest – but in its considerable favour, it also boasts a villainous performance by nobody-at-the-time, on-the-cusp-of-greatness Tom Baker.

Listen to the goddamn qualified scientists!

Don’t Look Up (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s testament to Don’t Look Up ’s “quality” that critics who would normally lap up this kind of liberal-causes messaging couldn’t find it within themselves to grant it a free pass. Adam McKay has attempted to refashion himself as a satirist since jettisoning former collaborator Will Ferrell, but as a Hollywood player and an inevitably socio-politically partisan one, he simply falls in line with the most obvious, fatuous propagandising.

Archimedes would split himself with envy.

Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger (1977) (SPOILERS) Generally, this seems to be the Ray Harryhausen Sinbad outing that gets the short straw in the appreciation stakes. Which is rather unfair. True, Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger lacks Tom Baker and his rich brown voice personifying evil incarnate – although Margaret Whiting more than holds her own in the wickedness stakes – and the structure follows the Harryhausen template perhaps over scrupulously (Beverly Cross previously collaborated with the stop-motion auteur on Jason and the Argonauts , and would again subsequently with Clash of the Titans ). But the storytelling is swift and sprightly, and the animation itself scores, achieving a degree of interaction frequently more proficient than its more lavishly praised peer group.

You just threw a donut in the hot zone!

Den of Thieves (2018) (SPOILERS) I'd heard this was a shameless  Heat  rip-off, and the presence of Gerard Butler seemed to confirm it would be passable-at-best B-heist hokum, so maybe it was just middling expectations, even having heard how enthused certain pockets of the Internet were, but  Den of Thieves  is a surprisingly very satisfying entry in the genre. I can't even fault it for attempting to Keyser Soze the whole shebang at the last moment – add a head in a box and you have three 1995 classics in one movie – even if that particular conceit doesn’t quite come together.

You have a very angry family, sir.

Eternals (2021) (SPOILERS) It would be overstating the case to suggest Eternals is a pleasant surprise, but given the adverse harbingers surrounding it, it’s a much more serviceable – if bloated – and thematically intriguing picture than I’d expected. The signature motifs of director and honestly-not-billionaire’s-progeny Chloé Zhao are present, mostly amounting to attempts at Malick-lite gauzy natural light and naturalism at odds with the rigidly unnatural material. There’s woke to spare too, since this is something of a Kevin Feige Phase Four flagship, one that rather floundered, showcasing his designs for a nu-MCU. Nevertheless, Eternals manages to maintain interest despite some very variable performances, effects, and the usual retreat into standard tropes, come the final big showdown.