It’s a Wonderful Life: A Utopian Vision of Humanity
8 Comments
-
You left out the meeting after George’s father dies, that’s where the two conflicting worldviews are explicitly stated. The ideologies of left and right in America as described in that scene remain virtually unchanged to this day. That’s the heart of the movie right there. The language used is full of meaning and deserves line-by-line analysis. I particularly liked Potter’s description of what would be the result of helping working class people live a better life: “What does that get us? A discontented, lazy rabble instead of a thrifty working class. And all because a few starry-eyed dreamers like Peter Bailey stir them up and fill their heads with a lot of impossible ideas.”
-
reagan@yourfilmprofessor.com says:
You are so right that I should have included this vital scene in my analysis (perhaps something I will rectify at some point!). As you astutely say, it speaks to “two conflicting worldviews” that have been around since the dawn of civilization and still “remain virtually unchanged to this day.” In short, it speaks to two points, the archaic “divine right” of rulers or the right of “absolute” sovereignty to rule over a “rabble” whose natural state is “low.” (Of course that isn’t the language or thought process elites would use today but the idea that there are innately born superiors and innately born inferiors who should know and keep their place is still strongly held by many upper class elites.) And it speaks to this idea that the low (“rabble”) are better kept “low” so as to keep them in their place, e.g., not give them any “impossible ideas” that might disrupt the status quo of “master” and “slave” or capitalist and laborer. As I say in my blog post, Potter’s thrown-like wheel chair symbolizes this archaic belief system. Thanks for the tremendous insight and I would say suggestion for making my blog post better!
-
-
Chip Garrison says:
Sorry I am seeing this article a few years late. A very telling, subtle scene is when Sam Wainwright pulls up to watch George present the Martini house. Sam’s extravagant car contrasts George & Mary’s outdated jalopy, and George’s reaction to his door once again not working perfectly illustrates it. That’s what makes the next scene with Potter’s offer so effective. If Sam can have the good life, why can’t George? Great scene. And a great article. Thanks.
-
Thanks for the thoughtful sentiment on the article and I absolutely love your additional scene and insight. When I teach the film, we look at this key scene, which, as you astutely say, punctuates the class disparities between Sam/girlfriend and George/Mary (The mirror image of the two is so, so striking! And the contrast between cars is telling as well!), with all that entails, which you nicely spell out. I think it is also interesting how, after Sam leaves, we get this brief moment of George and Mary standing there among the empty houses of Bailey Park, in effect punctuating at least what George has accomplished; despite not being as materially wealthy as Sam, it isn’t just Potter that George is “wealthier” than (in terms of what he has accomplished and his humanist spirit to the bitter end) but Sam as well. And then they walk in the opposite direction of Sam’s leaving car also punctuating the different direction George and Mary have taken, putting people before profit versus purely mercenary gains (“plastics”) and material possessions. As you also insightfully say, this scene affectingly sets up the next scene, Capra’s wipe a nice touch in this transition, as Potter will then offer George his Faustian bargain and after seeing what he lost out on with this encounter with Sam, one would hardly blame George for selling out and getting the “good life” he has always denied himself. I have to just add here that I am so thankful that with Sam at least, Capra didn’t make him unlikable; he may be a bit shallow but at least he is not Potter, and he maintains his connection to George, especially in coming through for him at the end. In other words, we get a more substantive, “good” rich guy instead of just painting all wealthy people as “bad.”
-
-
Michael Acas says:
Great article, and great comments! I take a little exception to the comment painting the struggle as a “left vs. right” dichotomy and and much prefer “connected/utopia vs. disconnected/dystopia”. I feel like we tend to politicize everything these days while politics itself is a facet (if not a tool) of the larger struggle against dehumanization.
I just wanted to point out that after chastising Uncle Billy, George goes to beg Potter for help. There George professes to Potter that he, not Uncle Billy, lost the $8,000. This is the moment for Potter, who knows exactly how the money was lost, to be human. Yet, he is not in the least touched by George’s self sacrifice and instead calls the police to arrest George and accuses him of gambling the money away and spending it on a woman. Potter kicks George while he’s down, threatens to tarnish his reputation, and tells George that he’s worth more dead than alive. Potter more than just a hints to George that he should kill himself. Instead of being human, it is at this moment we see how deep the pit of Potter’s depravity actually is.
-
Huh! I’ve reread the article and I can’t find where I “paint the struggle as a ‘left vs. right’ dichotomy”! If it’s there and I just can’t find it for some inexplicable reason, you’re right, I should have cast this binary way of being in more humanizing terms, which I do for the essay overall. And great insight into the depth of “Potter’s depravity,” yet another reflection of how he really is an allegorical character, representing those predatory, mercenary entities in society (capitalistic interests) who truly can only see people as disposable things, not human beings. Thanks so much for your positive reinforcing comments and insights Michael.
-
-
Apologies for being unclear… a previous commenter points out the “right vs left” dichotomy that they found in the film.
