It's a Wonderful Life (1946) Review

Lucas Versantvoort / January 18, 2015

Holy mackerel. What a film. I must confess I didn’t really expect to like it very much. Modern successes like Love Actually aside, you have to admit that going into a full-on comedy—made in the forties mind you—with Christmas overtones makes your inner cynic brace for impact as the result can be cheesy and self-important. But it really grew one me and I can’t deny I felt that life-affirming rush as the cathartic ending came to its ‘Alle menschen werden Brüder’ close.

            The film starts with shots of a typical American neighborhood during Christmastime. Via voice-over we hear voices supposedly emanating from within of people and children praying for a man named George Bailey. We cut to a shot of angels communicating with each other in the form galaxies. Immediately, I’m liking the film. They confirm that a bunch of people are praying for George, so they decide to have Clarence, a down on his luck angel who hasn’t earned his wings yet, go down there and help poor George out. The angels first show Clarence and us George’s life in flashback, so that he—and we—understand what kind of a man George really is. This basically takes up everything but the final half hour or so. When Clarence finally reveals himself to George, George makes a remark about how he wishes he’d never been born. Clarence is struck by inspiration and twists reality into how it would’ve been had George never been born. Clarence is thus able to show him what would’ve happened to the town and its people had he not lived. As it turns out, George finally realizes he had a wonderful life.

            What struck me was how modern the humor still is. Both in terms of dialogue and little touches. Old films can be plagued by dated humor, but It’s a Wonderful Life’s comedy is still highly watchable. The film’s packed with nice touches, like a drunk friend of George asking where his hat is even though its already on his head. George grabs it, causing the friend to turn around and look at it and asking which one is his (get it? Because he’s drunk…). There’s a long scene where George and a girl, Mary, are walking around town late at night. Because they fell in a pool before, he’s dressed in wet clothes, while she’s wearing a bathrobe. At one point, George accidentally stands on the robe’s rope which causes her to lose the robe. When he looks, she’s hiding in a nearby bush. At first he reaches to give her the robe back, but then hesitates, stating with wide eyes that ‘this is a very interesting situation!’ It would be sexist if it wasn’t so funny. There’s also a romantic scene where a record player is kept playing via some rope tied to a rotisserie; the list goes on. I also like the nod to Chaplin’s The Great Dictator. (See if you can spot it.) Even more important is that Capra knows when to show restraint, how to intersperse comedy and drama. He always inserts little comedic touches to prevent things from becoming too melodramatic or cheesy. It must be why the film’s still so insanely watchable. Also, during the long scene where George and Mary are walking late at night, there’s obviously a lot of romantic tension. What they don’t know is that a random dude sitting on his porch is hearing them talk as they pass by. When George suddenly interrupts himself and asks Mary whether he’s talking too much, the man promptly speaks up, ‘YES. Why don’t you kiss her instead of talking her to death?’ Even on the evening of their eventual wedding when George arrives in a decrepit old mansion to find Mary having made dinner and all that (including the rotating record player), two men start singing a duet outside. Afterwards, one of them kisses the other on the forehead, prompting the other to smack him on his rain-soaked hat. Even during a dramatic part of the story, when George is desperate and alienates those around him and drunkenly drives his car against a tree, Capra still manages to inject some humor into the proceedings by having a man walk up to George and complaining, ‘Now look what you did. My great grandfather planted that tree.’ Even the supernatural part of the story, the angels, is executed in an altogether not too serious way. The angel isn’t some philanthropist; he just wants his wings and he needs George to reconsider his life to get them. It’s things like this and the general sense of self-awareness that prevent the film from becoming too melodramatic. One thing’s certain: Capra knew what he was doing.

            Stewart’s acting is also noteworthy. I had only seen him in a few Hitchock films, but it wasn’t until I saw The Philadelphia Story that I realized his comedic gift. It’s his gift for humor that’s on full display here, but not at the cost of drama. There’s an early scene where George’s father has died and he has to spend months discussing financial affairs with his father’s associates. When a rival, Potter, starts badmouthing his father, George stands up to him. Although in terms of the script, it’s actually quite cheesy, Stewart makes it work. You quickly start to realize why he was considered one of the greats.

            Donna Reed as Mary is also pretty great. I suppose one could unleash one’s inner feminist and complain about the rather house wife-y things you see Mary doing, but it’s the acting—smart and alert—and the plot that make Mary’s character above average. If you observe closely, you’ll see that Mary is responsible for two big moments: when George tries to prevent the people from going to Potter, it’s Mary who offers her and George’s money to help. Also at the end, when George realizes what a wonderful life he has and comes home again, it’s Mary who in the meantime told everyone about George’s financial plight which in turn causes the townsfolk to donate money.

            My complaints aren’t complaints so much as throwaway observations. For one thing, I didn’t like how the big twist, George losing 8000 dollars, came about: it’s his assistant who accidentally loses it. I know George’s fortunes have to turn, but for it to be so random… I suppose it’s a metaphor for how, as opposed to love, it’s easy to lose money, but still. Also, I thought it would’ve been interesting if there had been good consequences if George had never lived. But I suppose that would make the film a bit too complex and ruin the Christmas spirit. It’s an interesting thought though and it’s the kind of idea that makes you realize how this kind of film is one big balancing act. It aims to passionately convey the spirit of Christmas, but one wrong move and you’ll have turned it into a fake, schmaltzy mess. I suppose that’s why (according to Imdb’s trivia section) a few of the writers didn’t like the film and never saw the finished product.

For me, however, the film was a success. I can’t deny that, in spite of some things showing their age, I was quite moved by all the sheer positivity emanating from this film and how downright life-affirming it is.