It’s a Wonderful Life
It’s a Wonderful Life (1946)
Director: Frank Capra
Actors: James Stewart, Donna Reed, Lionel Barrymore
Synopsis: George Bailey (James Stewart), a selfless man who has given everything to his smalltown community, is on the cusp of committing suicide until a guardian angel, Clarence (Henry Travers), intervenes to convince George of his worth.
Review: Honest confession to make here: It’s a Wonderful Life is a cinematic fable I’ve never fully understood or ‘got’. We are being asked to valorise Jimmy Stewart’s George Bailey all along because of his smalltown thrift, his sense of community, his emblematic status as the little man who has made good of himself, however, the thing that ruins his life and forces him to consider committing suicide is the corrosive quality of money. Ironically though, it’s only in the acquisition of money and the community subjugating their own savings and needs for George, that his rebirth can be complete.
Another issue with It’s a Wonderful Life is that it would have worked much better with the narrative logic of Dickens’ ‘A Christmas Carol’ – a story with a superficially similar sentiment. In It’s a Wonderful Life, the ‘now’ part of the story and sketching in of George’s life is far too long, soapy and episodic; the ghostly visitation comes ever so late and doesn’t have enough time to extract the necessary bitter catharsis, unlike in ‘A Christmas Carol’ where the lessons of the night-time fantasies form the moral centrepiece of the story.
To cut Frank Capra some slack, the film works best as a buoyant microcosm of smalltown American values: it has a real vibrancy as Capra’s roving camera tracks the giddy Bailey to all his stakes around town. That said, I can only imagine how much more exacting this story might have been in the hands of an Orson Welles or a Billy Wilder. (December 2015)
Patrick Nabarro 
“Ironically though, it’s only in the acquisition of money and the community subjugating their own savings and needs for George, that his rebirth can be complete”
I know you say you never really “got” this movie, but you missed the point. George’s “rebirth” was already completed before he knew anyone had raised any money. He came back home convinced he was going to jail, but happy, nonetheless. He was happy because he’d realized the value of his life and that he had positively impacted other people.
“… the thing that ruins his life and forces him to consider committing suicide is the corrosive quality of money”
Again, I think you missed the point. George had taken the blame for Billy’s blunder, unwilling to let Billy suffer – even though it was Billy’s fault and George told him he wouldn’t take the blame. The money – as a thing – meant nothing to George. The impact the loss of the money would have on his family was paramount. He was going to commit suicide to prevent his family from having to live in debt.
George spent his life giving to others. He gave up hearing in his ear to save his brothers life; he gave up his college money to his brother, staying behind and keep the Building and Loan running; he gave up his plans when Harry got a great job offer from his father-in-law, instead staying at the Building and Loan; he gave up on his dreams to travel by staying in Bedford Falls to help the community there; he gave up his honeymoon savings to the community when the bank closed; he was even willing to give up his freedom to save Uncle Billy and his life for his family. And in all of this, he never felt he’d made much of a difference and failed to understand what his sacrifices had truly done.
If he cared about money or its “corrosive quality”, he could have at numerous times in his life taken his savings and left Bedford Falls for good. Instead, he continually put other things ahead of money; his brother, his community, his uncle. In the end, he was allowed to see how much of a positive impact his life had on his friends and family and understood what a wonderful life he’d lived.
Thanks for your thoughts Martin. It’s a film I saw 3/4 years ago, and I’ve only seen it once, so IF I catch it again this Christmas, I’ll see where I stand on my initial reading of the film and let you know.
Patrick, Did you get a chance to catch up with it again last year? If not, please do so this time around. I found your review on Rotten Tomatoes, astonished that anyone had given it rotten so was curious.
The point you made about not having enough time to review his life in comparison with a Christmas Carol is interesting, but I see it that George is a bit like Scrooge before his spectral interception in that he doesn’t actually take any joy in the happiness of others. Everything he does for other people is done through his sheer innate morality, he’s always kicking off about having a rubbish job, car, house and he’s really jealous of the people who aren’t restricted by his moral compunction. It’s only at the end when he actually realises the pride that he should feel in himself.
Also, the townspeople aren’t bailing him out and subjugating themselves, they’re showing their appreciation for George (most of them wouldn’t even be in the position to help without him anyway).
Oh man, I’m welling up. I’m going to have to go and watch it again when I get home now!
wow, intelligent, concise and insightful, in true English fashion, I tip my hat you sir, I was going to write a similar response , but I couldn’t possibly have been so erudite and ironically “so on the money”
Wow, I couldn’t have said it better. The townspeople coming forth with their monetary generosities is a reciprocity to and validation of George’s years of self-sacrifice for their betterment along with the town’s.
I think Martin hit the nail on the head with his review. I can only add that this is a film that’s often thought of as “feel good” but before George Bailey gets his redemption, he really is staring into the abyss, and there’s some really, really dark moments. One scene that always moves me to tears is when George (as a young boy) stops a drunken Mr Gower from accidentally killing one of his patients on the day that he gets news that his only son has died in the war. It’s one of the most visceral and moving scenes I’ve ever seen. The utter dispair in the middle of the film also makes the ending all the more sweet.
John, completely with you on the scene with Mr Gower, that’s the first bit that gets the whole family going too.
What really frustrates me is that so many people think of it as a schmaltzy or sentimental film if they either haven’t seen it, don’t remember or just remember “everytime a bell ….” it’s really dark in places and the ending is truly deserved as you say
Yes, you missed the point. George’s redemption happens when he says he wants to live again, not when the town gives him the missing cash. The money is also symbolic; when Harry tells George he’s “the richest man in town”, he’s not talking about dollars and cents. Easily one of the top films on the 20th century.
They’ll let anyone have Rotten Tomatoes certification these days, won’t they? I might as well see if my Letterboxd reviews or even Tweets qualify, because they have about as much substance as this.