RoR: Forum

Thanks for raising so many important points, Alison, about the very mixed messages in "It's a Wonderful Life."

Still, I have no problem admitting that this film does tug at my heartstrings. There is something very important at the core of this movie, which does sometimes get lost in the altruist/narcissist veneer (two sides of the same coin, of course). It is this: That every individual is important, and that every action we take can have a host of unintended consequences---a ripple effect on countless numbers of other individuals.

So, in social situations, I can think of no greater reward for human benevolence than to see the good will of one individual multiply exponentially.

As for "Scrooge"---which also suffers from some of those mixed premises---I'd like to say that there is also a lot to be appreciated in that Dickens story. A man so totally alienated from his own humanity becomes a more integrated person in the end. Not too shabby from where I sit. Here's a chat I had on ~that~ film/story with THE DAILY OBJECTIVIST:

http://www.dailyobjectivist.com/Connect/integratedlife.asp

Again, thanks, Alison, for a good discussion!

Happy holidays and a healthy and happy new year!
Chris

Post 1

Friday, December 27, 2002 - 12:49pm

Thank you Mr. Sciabarra. I told Alison about your post (she's my fianc�e - I posted it for her). We discussed about the question with other Objectivists as well.

It seems there is really two ways to take the movie. If you suspend disbelief, you would say that obviously Bailey is acting in his self-interest - without him, his own life would be miserable, since everyone else would be miserable.
But I think that, taken as an expression of the maker's values, the "narcissist's dream" is definitively saliant. In real life, the fate of society does not depend on solely one man.

Scrooge, at least in the movies, doesn't seem "alienated", simply mistanthropic. But we might see the situation differently.

PS we're looking for an officiant for our marriage. You don't happen to live in Washington State ? (^_^)

Post 2

Saturday, December 28, 2002 - 7:51am

Francois and Alison... that's adorable. I ~wish~ I could officiate. How adorable. I live in NYC, of course, but would be happy to attend via cyberspace.

And, of course, you are right about the two different readings of "It's a Wonderful Life."

I wish you the greatest love and happiness in your marriage!

Cheers,
Chris

Post 3

Saturday, December 28, 2002 - 10:17am

Thanks. We're already doing well on the love and happiness part (^___^)

Objectivism tells us that an art piece reflects the values of its author. Given that, shouldn't we analyse a movie on its own terms, but also on the terms of the values and contexts it proposes ?

Post 4

Saturday, December 28, 2002 - 12:22pm

I think Chris is right to enjoy this flick: it does as well as it can with what it's got to work with, namely, a general illiberalism and maybe 75% anti-Enlightenment culture. Given the universally-accepted Western moral code/ideal of self-sacrifice to others -- what could be called "the religious/socialist ethic" -- this movie is pretty good. Nothing is more challenging to today's Dark Age esthetics and film theory than to come up with a plausible happy ending. We're all just so irrational nowadays that a happy ending is almost invariably treacly, insipid, and phony. So, on the whole, it's a wonderful movie!

Post 5

Sunday, December 29, 2002 - 8:35pm

I have recently read that Capra was a devoted propagandist for Roosevelt's New Deal. I wonder whether this was merely a coincidence, or if there was some degree of coordination involved. Can anyone shed any light on this?

Personally, I think that "It's A Wonderful Life" is an apalling film, despite Jimmy Stewart being one of my favourite actors. It concocts a series of situations where the hero MUST choose between his own personal goals and the apparent interests of the greater community, and never suggests that it might be possible to pursue both. A false dichotomy is reinforced and altruism wins every step of the way.

Furthermore, it is one of the classic (and the most influential and imitated) examples of Hollywood's demonization of businessmen and the profit motive.

Post 6

Thursday, January 2, 2003 - 5:24pm

Allison! Thank you so much!

I've never enjoyed It's a Wonderful Life and despite Chris' explanation of it, this Pollyanna just can't see it in a benevolent light. *grin*

It's depressing through and through. Maybe I'll have to pass on my Pollyanna tiara ... LOL!

I have a certain ulta-sensitivity to being played with emotionally (sexually I like, but not emotionally :) and that film intends to evoke pity, guilt and this whole feeling of 'love for our fellow man' thing. I can't get past that for anything.

Now White Christmas, there's a great holiday film!

Pure fun! Happy! They deal with each other in an honest way and don't try to take us to the gutter of guilt and gullibility! (Well, maybe not gullibility, but I wanted a 'g' word. :)

Joy :)

Post 7

Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 2:54pm

People look at me like I have horns when I tell them I don't like this movie. It IS depressing! Joy, I understand exactly what you're talking about.

Great article. Nails it right on the head. Thanks Alison!

Post 8

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 2:42am

I always did think that movie was the most depressing movie ever made. Hell, I wanted to jump from the Narrows bridge, in Tacoma Washington, after I saw it.

Post 9

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 9:40am

David,
Here, here! With the exception of the scene between Steward and Reed near the beginning when he wanders by her house and they have a dialogue in the parlor (a few minutes before the scene in which they're married and Steward/George runs off to the run on the bank). That scene has wonderful romantic tension.

Post 10

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 1:10pm

I loved the movie (as I do almost anything by Frank Capra).

And I don't see it as basically a defense of altruism.

At first George Bailey hates the small town and being a businessman, even though he doesn't know what he would do or what his like would be elsewhere. But he -does- meet the right woman and have a great family and he -is- a good businessman and he saves the town, and triumphs over adversity. Those are worthy productive goals, if one finds that one can have them non-sacrificially and come to enjoy them. And he does. Some people are happy in a small town; others are not. Some people are happy being bankers; others are not. So what? Capra believes in small town American virtues, a la Norman Rockwell. Are these always consistent? No. Are there real virtues in his old-fashioned America? Yes.

Another thought on productivity: It is an optional choice, but it is a worthy productive goal to try to create a world in which you raise people up around you, make them happy and successful, whether in the country or society you live in or, depending on productive choices, in the community you live in, be in Bedford Falls or Chippewa Falls or San Diego. You can do this as a banker, as a teacher, or as a novelist or a philosopher. George Bailey has an -enormous- benign impact on his own little world, not necessarily on the whole state or country, given his profession. Whether he personally formulates it in Christian terms or not (and I don't recall him doing that in the movie!), that can be an enormously satisfying, rational, selfish, productive, non-sacrificial achievement. To have a direct, personal, hope-giving impact on the world like that is not necessarily narcissism.

You want to build cars - legitimate career goal. You want to build people or communities - legitimate career goal.

[[ Aside on reading between the lines: Someone posted that "it is one of the classic (and the most influential and imitated) examples of Hollywood's demonization of businessmen and the profit motive." Well, didn't you notice there are TWO major businessmen in the movie, Potter and Bailey? Would you say George was demonized? Wouldn't you say it is a smart, rational, ultimately profitable move by a banker to allow people an extension, more time to pay, so that you do collect eventually more a prosperous town base, allowing your own business to grow, instead of poor businessman Potter's short-term, short-sighted, short range foreclosures, creating a town that becomes a slum...and a world of shrunken people to try to profit from? ]]

So is this a great movie? One that Objectivists can look past the altruistic -form- and see a deeper value in?

Absolutely. Without the slightest question or doubt.

--Philip Coates

Post 11

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 2:55pm

Phil,
I think you are a bit misty-eyed on this one. True, the movie has mixed elements, but it's pretty clear in this (as well as Capra's other films) that the basic motivation of George, et al, is not simply to be productive, thrifty, etc. It's to pursue those in order to help others. It's this element, very plainly stated in most of Capra's films, that makes this and others of his so repugnant, despite many valid esthetic values.

No, I don't think every film has to be philosophically pure in order to be enjoyed, but Capra's are very far on the left edge. That he extols small town life is really irrelevant one way or the other.

Post 12

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 4:59pm

Note - EVERY timeGeorge was set to do something HE wanted to do, he was turned aside to doing something for the sake of others... it makes NO difference how well he functioned in so doing, the point is he did NOT live HIS life HIS way, but the way OTHERS wanted him to... This is why I for one consider this one of the evilest films ever made.
(Edited by robert malcom on 12/21, 5:00pm)

Post 13

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 4:59pm

Jeff, look at what George Bailey actually -does-, not what Clarence or anyone else in the movie or involved with it -says- he does.

I explained this in great detail in hopes people would not simply repeat the altruism bromide but would actually acknowledge and grapple with the details I posted.

[I don't mean to pick on you in particular, but nothing is more irritating to me as when I offer a post which takes a lot of time to think through and write, and I offer a half dozen details or arguments, and someone immediately fires back a one-liner but doesn't systematically engage the points I made. And no one else then picks up the issue or thread. As if I were talking to emptiness. That just happened to me as well on the Bush/Wiretaps/NSA thread. I gave a clear case that the mainstream press had twisted the story and gave a place for people to read further and instantly got two ten-second, off-target rebuttals. On a deeper intellectual level than just civility, maybe I am wasting my time and ideas on this list and should look for a more respectful, less lazy forum.]

Phil

As far as being misty-eyed? Yes, indeed: try it sometime ;-)

[Also, you are overgeneralizing about Capra's movies...they vary widely in topic and theme. "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"? "It Happened One Night"? "State of the Union"?]

Post 14

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 5:03pm

> It's to pursue those in order to help others.

Jeff, how carefully did you read my post - including the detailed explanation of how one can choose to help others, as a productive career or rational goal?

Post 15

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 5:33pm

I guess I was one of the offenders on the Bush/NSA/Wiretaps thread. I guess I should research and write an article about my misgivings about the various spy agencies based on what they have done in the past while including a disclaimer that I cannot verify whether or not those issues have been fixed now. Whether it's fighting communism or fighting terrorism, I think it is important that we take civil liberties seriously. We tortured a German citizen who happened to be innocent, we've held U.S. citizens without a lawyer or due process for several years. I think these things are serious and I don't think the current White House takes them seriously.

I'm sorry I didn't measure up to the standard of depth that is one of Phil C's impressive hallmarks. I'll be sure to keep the one-liners to myself from now on :-).

Jim

Post 16

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 6:17pm

Phil,
I've come to the conclusion that you truly don't know how offensive your comments are. I'll have a more detailed reply later, after I've thought about your entire post in greater detail.

Post 17

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 6:55pm

> 'm sorry I didn't measure up to the standard of depth that is one of Phil C's impressive hallmarks. I'll be sure to keep the one-liners to myself from now on :-).

Jim, you are one of the most thoughtful posters on Solo!! (and Jeff is an impressive thinker, especially when he sits down and writes a detailed piece, such as his excellent articles for Atlasphere)...Moreover, perhaps I wasn't clear if I seemed to be attacking brevity as such.

Sorry my irritation broke through, Jim and Jeff, but it's a genuine complaint I have, and it needs to be said directly. Other people outside of Solo have made the criticism of superficiality or lazy posting or inattentiveness to detail, so I'm not alone.

>I've come to the conclusion that you truly don't know how offensive your comments are.

Jeff, may I make a suggestion which I have already made before? Don't take offense at criticisms or the "form" in which they are taken, or use words like "offensive" or "patronizing". Unless I or someone is questioning your *character* or your *motives*. You may find that a very direct critic who has pointed out that you make a mistake in posting style or content or in attentiveness to detail has actually revealed something you can learn from. I benefited from very strong criticism of my thinking methods, accuracy, level of engagement, presentation of facts over the years. And I am certainly not going to "pull my punches" with you or anyone else on these areas which are destroying our movement and need to be criticized. In fact one of my personal *central themes* is that Objectivists do all sorts of things intellectually which are harmful and destroying our movement, from rationalism to sloppiness to laziness to incivility. [We actually already had this debate, and we don't agree. I am unwilling to do it again. That is simply one more opportunity to get away from the points I was trying to focus on with regard to the movie!!]

If anyone has any direct response to the detailed points I made in post #10 or the original topic, I will check back...otherwise I'll just take my exit.

Post 18

Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 5:21am

Note - EVERY timeGeorge was set to do something HE wanted to do, he was turned aside to doing something for the sake of others... it makes NO difference how well he functioned in so doing, the point is he did NOT live HIS life HIS way, but the way OTHERS wanted him to... This is why I for one consider this one of the evilest films ever made.

Robert, ya'know, I'm always a little surprized when people come away with this evaluation of the movie. This is probably the furthest from the actual motivations residing in George.

1) Being conflicted in life goals, as George was, isn't the same as sacrificing a greater goal for a lessor one. George's family business was important to him, no where can you find any evidence that it wasn't. Even though he could have, he never gave up.

2) George clearly was satisfied with his decision to take the reins at the little Savings and Loan, as the success of his depositors became equal to the success he sought early in his life. He could have just as easily been delighted at the prospect of the S&L's failure during the Crash scene, but instead, made a brilliant move to keep it alive. He forced no one to sacrifice anything. He merely performed the persuasion necessary by appealing to his customer's optimism in the future. Optimism was George's middle name, not Sacrifice.

3) George clearly didn't resent the fact that people counted on him, and for good reason. Loading an immigrant family into his car, along with their goat, to help them move into the new home George helped to build, it's clear to me George took well earned pride in this accomplishment. Where's the sacrifice?

4) George was perhaps a reluctant hero in the beginning, but not by the middle of the movie. He embraced his decision and worked hard to make it a success.

I'm in a terrible hurry, or I would have thought and posted more here. Phil's insights were wonderful. I just wanted to echo them in some way.

Teresa

Post 19

Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 5:51am