Skip to main content

Madam, I am not in the habit of substituting for spurious Santa Clauses.

Miracle on 34th Street
(1947)

(SPOILERS) Chances are, if you ask a random person who isn’t twelve years old to name three classic Christmas movies, one will be It’s a Wonderful Life, and one of the other two will be this evergreen tale of upholding the “right” kind of seasonally materialistic values. More recently, Chris Columbus attempted to inject a degree of commentary into his rewrite of Jingle All the Way, and cynicism towards the push-pull of a supposedly hallowed festival providing a chance to over-indulge and imbue kids with the qualities of greed and possessiveness crops up in most modern takes on the subject. Miracle on 34th Street has an especially canny take on the consumerist angle, and an honest one; when it comes to telling the truth about Santa Claus, the answer is whatever is best for business. Even cannier is that it inevitably means it’s also whatever is best for winning votes.


Naturally, the filmmakers were in the same bind as their fictional figureheads of business and justice, so they couldn’t offer a non-affirmative response when it came to whether Kris Kringle (Edmund Gwenn) is actually Santa Claus, a Santa who just happens to be slumming it right now at Brooks Memorial Home for the Aged on Long Island. In fairness to them, though, they didn’t do the likely route of anything Santa-related today and unequivocally have him shown to be the real deal. Everything that happens gift-wise relates to circumstance or likely parental purchase, and about the most amazing talent Kris displays is fluency in Dutch.


Kris Kringle: Madam! I am not in the habit of substituting for spurious Santa Clauses.

Gwenn’s Kringle is a jolly nice chap, of course, but not impossibly or wretchedly so. He’s only roused to ire when – probably the first of many inspirations that led to Billy Bob Thornton as Bad Santa – remonstrating an intoxicated Santa during a parade. Consequently, there’s little real tension in waiting to see him denounced or vindicated, particularly when he’s given to spouting homilies such as “Oh, Christmas isn’t just a day. It’s a frame of mind” (a frame of mind that rarely occurs on other days, probably because said mind hasn’t been massaged into a stupor from all those goodies and grog). It’s a fait accompli that we assume his right to be the bona fide Santa or a bit mad and simply claim he is.


Fred Gailey: Don’t you see? It’s not just Kris that’s on trial, it’s everything he stands for. It’s kindness and joy and love and all the other intangibles.

Writer-director George Seaton instead focuses on the importance of what Kris symbolises, and while there’s no mention of the religious meaning of Christmas herein, for all the essential sincerity of the message, the film does trump up faith in something other – not Jesus, admittedly – as essential to the human spirt. As defence attorney Fred Gailey (John Payne) says, “Faith is believing in a thing when common sense tells you not to” (I’m not sure that’s exactly the definition, but what the hell, let’s go with it).


Which underpins both the movie’s strongest suit (Santa on trial!) and its more laboured side dish, the dilemma of winsome moppet Natalie Wood, brought up by mum Doris (Maureen O’Hara, only 27, but believably a decade older in her no-nonsense eschewing of frivolity) to hold fake news in contempt. Fred, realising that she has “No Santa Claus, no fairy tales, no fantasies of any kind” in her life, and being hot on her mum (a divorcee; perhaps surprisingly there’s no judgement on her status, or on remarrying and finding happiness, except from the Catholic League of Decency in their response to the picture), is very keen to have Kris interpose himself on their lives as much as possible, with his emphasis on the power of imagination (“That’s when you see things but they aren’t really there” defines Susan over maturely) rather than cold, arid facts.


It’s a cute dichotomy to grapple with, whereby Doris thinks one should be completely truthful with children, which of course one should… Except that telling the truth rather depends on knowing the truth in the first place, and then whether it’s in the moppets’ best interests to withhold or reveal it. Doris could have come across as rather cold and unsympathetic, so it’s lucky the makers managed to secure O’Hara’s services (she had moved back to Ireland at that point). Doris is empathic even when she’s being ruthless regarding the facts. It’s a typical Hollywood cheat too, that it’s the men promoting escape into fantasy but the oppressive women are guilty of holding them back (“Whatever I want, my mother will get. If it’s sensible and doesn’t cost too much, of course” comments Susan, who most wants a house to live in, something it seems might be outside of Kris’ powers to provide). As such, Doris’ suddenly coming on board with the merits of fantasy is a little on the inelegant side, the screenplay failing to focus sufficiently on her journey, but O’Hara inhabits the part such that she makes you believe she might.


Thomas Mara: Do you believe that you are Santa Claus?
Kris Kringle: Of course.
Thomas Mara: The State rests, your honour.

It’s Payne who makes the most of a gift of a part, though (he has few other notable roles), since Fred espouses all the most virtuous principles, identifying precisely where Doris is wrongheaded and proving it to her and winning her, indulging Kris without a hint of doubt, and only practising law in the first place for underdog cases like this (leading him to quit his employer when he’s accused of “jeopardising the integrity of an old and established law firm”).


Fred Gailey: I intend to prove that Mr Kringle is Santa Claus.
Thomas Mara: He’s crazy too.

The case succeeds due to equal parts Fred’s deft defence and Judge Henry X Harper’s (Gene Lockhart) Pilate-like desire to go whichever way public opinion will vouchsafe his re-election (plus, even his family is shunning him for agreeing to try the case). The latter’s attitude is essentially the corridors-of-power equivalent to RH Macy (Harry Antrim) coming on board with Kris’ altruistic approach to Christmas, beguiled by the idea of “The store that places public service ahead of profit… And consequently, we’ll have more profits than ever before”. Harper’s looking for a quick exit and finds it, despite the interjections of District Attorney Thomas Mara (Jerome Cowan).


Thomas Mara: Your honour, the state of New York concedes the existence of Santa Claus.

There are two standout defence manoeuvres, the first as Fred calls Mara’s son Thomas Jr (Bobby Hyatt), who unreservedly announces that his father told him there was a Santa Claus, and “My daddy wouldn’t tell me anything that wasn’t so, would you daddy?” The second comes by way of the logic that it’s a criminal offence to wilfully misdirect mail and so, since the US postal service, an arm of the US Government, is delivering mail to Kris Kringle, the Government must be implicitly accepting of his veracity.


The movie includes a number of other notable asides adding to an air of playful irreverence, dampening its sincerer impulses. Despite a cautionary line that he is non-representative of his profession, there’s clearly a desire to paint psychology as a promulgator of all life’s ills, with the instigator of the case, Granville Sawyer (Porter Hall, who’s great in the role), an unrepentantly meddlesome and misery-inducing individual, one who even resorts to pretence to make his mark (and ends up fired when his plans don’t suit his corporate boss). Then there’s Julian Shellhammer (Philip Tonge), the Macy’s man initially persuaded to put Kris up, but who knows Mrs Shellhammer (a very funny Lela Bliss) will need some inducement; a couple of double-strength Martinis after dinner should put her in a more receptive frame of mind. “I’ll call you as soon as my wife’s plastered” he announces. When he does, she has already knocked back triple-strength ones.


The Hon. Henry X Harper: Since the US Government declares this man to be Santa Claus, this court will not dispute it. Case dismissed. 

Miracle on 34th Street is ultimately in the same tradition as Harvey a few years later, where escape to a benign fantasy world is inarguably a better place to be, and even allowing a slight caveat that this delusion may not be delusion at all. It’s a good sell, certainly, although the level at which Miracle initially hit the spot with audiences varies by the source (45th in Variety’s contemporary list of top grossers, based on distributors’ rentals, but ultimatemovierankings.com gives it third position, and the equivalent of $167m gross, by whatever special formula they’ve been taking). Releasing it in June probably wasn’t the best way to ensure its success, mind, the decision based on Darry F Zanuck’s logic that more people go to the movies in warmer weather. What probably clinched its status was the Oscar attention, garnering four nominations including Best Picture and winning Best Supporting Actor (Gwenn), Original Story and Original Screenplay. And yes, it’s a picture that ought to be in anyone’s pantheon of Christmas favourites; it’s easy to see why it was remade, and easy to see why it didn’t deliver second time. Perhaps if they’d cast a yukking Tim Allen rather than Sir Dickie…


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.
Labels:

Popular posts from this blog

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.
Read more

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.
Read more

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?
Read more

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.
Read more

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.
Read more

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.
Read more

This guy’s armed with a hairdryer.

An Innocent Man (1989) (SPOILERS) Was it a chicken-and-egg thing with Tom Selleck and movies? Did he consistently end up in ropey pictures because other, bigger big-screen stars had first dibs on the good stuff? Or was it because he was a resolutely small-screen guy with limited range and zero good taste? Selleck had about half-a-dozen cinema outings during the 1980s, one of which, the very TV, very Touchstone Three Men and a Baby was a hit, but couldn’t be put wholly down to him. The final one was An Innocent Man , where he attempted to show some grit and mettle, as nice-guy Tom is framed and has to get tough to survive. Unfortunately, it’s another big-screen TV movie.
Read more

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.
Read more

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.
Read more

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.
Read more