It’s A Wonderful… Lie
by Gary GrahamOn this, the one-year anniversary of Big Hollywood, it is fitting that ‘One Pissed Off Dude’ should mark it with a proper lambasting of one of America’s favorite films ever: “It’s a Wonderful Life.” I’ve intentionally held off until after the holidays. I didn’t want to be a Grinch Who Attempted to Steal Christmas…or a Scrooge Who Wallowed in Contrariness… or worse, a Reid-Pelosi Christmas Eve Douchebag.
I am a huge fan of Frank Capra. And whereas it pains me to do so, I must call a proper spade a spade. In my (what I presume will be ‘lonely’) opinion…this single movie has done more to undermine America than any other in memory.
And yes, I realize I’m about to infuriate both the Left and the Right… Christians and Atheists… Socialists and the ACLU… Jimmy Stewart fans, movie buffs, my entire readership, and my mother…but I have to say it: There is an insidious lie placed smack dab within the heart of this otherwise exquisite movie. And the strange thing is – along with hundreds of millions of people worldwide — it is still one of my favorite movies of all time. And therein lies the rub.
The most dangerous and injurious of falsehoods is the one that is shuffled in with the Truth.
Let me back up. I first saw this movie sometime around the early eighties, and since then one of my most anticipated traditions has become watching “It’s a Wonderful Life” on Christmas Eve. I love the humor, the performances, the depth of character, the twists and turns, the entire story. And mostly, (the part that really gets me in the gut) is the central theme of two of the greatest human attributes known to man: humble gratitude and self-sacrifice. The nobility of George Bailey forfeiting his plans and dreams for his father, his wife, his family, his neighbors…and his eventual ‘come-to-Jesus’ moment of epiphanic appreciation of how truly rich he is…leaves me choked up every time I watch this timeless classic.
“So why, Gary Graham, are you so hell-bent on disparaging this fine work?”
Because it attacks, denigrates, demonizes and attempts to dissemble one of the main ingredients to the American experiment – Capitalism.
Picture the Baileys. A fine, upstanding family working to make the American dream a reality for themselves and their community. But hold on, there’s a major obstacle in everyone’s way – the Rich Guy – Henry F. Potter. Seems he owns pretty much the entire town. And he seems to delight in squeezing his patrons. Business is hard and brutal and has no place for ‘sentimental hogwash’ dontcha know.
Mr. Bailey puts it like this: “This town’s no place for any man unless he’s willing to crawl to Potter.” His son, George, fidgets from the specter of returning to work in his father’s savings and loan association, and of sacrificing his dream of college and creating ‘something big’ with his life. And the father’s answer is, “You know George, in a small way I think we’re doing something important here…supplying a need …[for a man] to have his own roof, and walls and fireplace…” But nonetheless his father urges him to escape from the ‘dreary’ town of Bedford Falls and go off and get an education. George leans forward and says, “Pop, you want a shock? I think you’re a great guy.” (Side note to Capra’s ghost: The line “I think you’re a great man” would have had tons more power. But I digress…)
Ask yourselves this: What was preventing Mr. Bailey, Sr. from being not just a great guy…but, in fact, a great man?
Attitude, for one.
“This town’s no place for any man unless he’s willing to crawl to Potter.” What a loser attitude! I mean, come on… What if instead of a building and loan, Mr. Bailey owned an NFL team. And on that given Sunday you’re playing the reigning Superbowl champs. What do you tell the team pregame in the locker room – “Dudes…we don’t stand a chance. Let’s just slip out back and get on the plane.”
Had Mr. Bailey, Sr. had more tenacity and drive, (and most importantly, belief in himself) he could have built his business into a standing success; and instead of scuttling about in desperation, helped hundreds, maybe thousands more to realize their dream of owning their own home. (And without all those Fannie-May/Freddie-Mac shenanigans.) Had he used more God-given ingenuity and creativity he could have taken on Potter in the arena of business competition and kicked butt, undercutting Potter’s prices and gaining market share. As his clientele grew, he could expand, hire more people and build more houses cheaply (and finally put that alky moocher Uncle Billy in a home … ha — just kidding!).
You take my point. Capitalism is what advances not only the practitioners, but the entire community, radiating out with ancillary benefits as far as the mind can see. Just because one rich guy buys up the town doesn’t keep someone else or a bunch of someone else’s to come in and throw up their shingle and compete for the business. I mean…it’s not like Potter was the government.
“It’s a Wonderful Life” depicts capitalism as a system in which only the jackals can excel…only the crooks prosper…and only evil can flourish. The system is fatally flawed and the only hope we the people have…is to rely on the good nature and charity of our friends and family.
It’s a complete and total lie.
It burns me that so many fine artists…and politicians…don’t have a clue about what makes our system of Capitalism work…and how you build a business. Sadly, these well-intentioned framers of public opinion – and policy – are the ones who insinuate themselves dead center in the middle of private business.
FDR (and Woodrow Wilson before him) perpetrated the myth and passed it down to generations of ‘progressives’. Self-gain is evil. Self-interest is a sin. If one person can’t get ahead, then no one should. And tragically — government’s heavy-hand solution to this is to tear down those getting ahead in the misguided attempt to advance those who are not. (Or at least convince you that that’s what they’re all about when, in fact, they are all about securing your vote and building their personal political power. But…again …I digress.)
We still hear the echoes of that latest most popular catch-phrase, “creating jobs”. But a job is not created by government fiat, wishful thinking, praying, or an angel named Clarence. Jobs are created by a business owner looking to fulfill a business necessity.
Self-interest drives an economy; not government bailouts, laws, restrictions, taxes or Congressional committees.
I was always fond of exclaiming, while watching the TV show, “The West Wing” – “Amazing! Liberalism works like a charm every time…in fiction.”
But what about the main antagonist in Bedford Falls, what about this figurehead of evil, this personification of greed and selfishness? The image of Mr. Potter and his sniveling, smirking cratchityness (Is that a word? It is now!) is forever indelibly ingrained within our corporate memories as the ‘typical rich guy’. Mr. Potter – the archetypal money-grubbing, tight-fisted, cruel, conniving, plotting, scheming, twisted old wretch of a geezer — such a stereotype as to have been crafted by either Beelzebub or Dr. Seuss. The poster boy for Class-Envy…the paragon of non-virtue…everything to ensure that our kids grow up resenting, even hating, ‘the rich’.
Ya see how they treat the little guy? The man be keepin’ us down.
Rubbish. Yeah, of course you get the occasional Howard Hughes…the ‘he-was-a-genius-‘til-he-became-a- nut-job’. And then there’s the twisted saga of the Koch brothers. But these specimens are the exception, not the rule.
In my experience, what we call ‘rich people’ are hard-working and creative individualists who rely on themselves and their wits and ingenuity to survive and build their enterprises up into organizations that make innovative products and provide invaluable services that enrich all mankind.
And oh yes – along the way they create tens of millions of jobs.
This is America. Accept no substitute.
I grew up hearing, and believing, all the old lies about rich people. “The rich get rich and the poor get poorer.” Can I have a show of hands – how many have ever been hired by a poor person? “It takes money to make money.” How many famous industrialists started as poor immigrants with less than $500 in their pockets? I don’t know either, but I know there have been many.
As I’ve grown and experienced, I’ve realized that a man having money is no sin. It’s what he does with the money that defines his character.
Riches have corrupted those who are not up to the responsibility of their money. And those who have cultivated misguided notions of what that fabric is of a full and rewarding life tend to chase excess, hedonism and desperate reflections of their own bloated significance.
I am a big fan of those beautiful commercials that run these days… ‘commercials’… that are selling nothing more than human goodness. They’re done by The Foundation For a Better Life. In one, a new student can’t find a seat in the cafeteria, is rebuffed by ‘the populars’ and sits lonely…until a brave student reaches out in friendship. In another, a youngster has wandered up onto an empty concert stage and embarrasses his parents by playing ‘Chopsticks’ on the concert grand piano…until the maestro approaches…and joins him in an impromptu and beautiful rendering, to everyone’s delight. In still others…people playing, smiling, families loving, living, and giving…the goodness of life. At the end of these beautiful vignettes a single word appears… Character…Respect… Encouragement… Generosity…and then …Pass it on.
These little spots run for barely 27 seconds. But in that brief time, they often move me to tears. Some common note is struck, some universal chord resounds. Some beautiful reminder about what it means to be truly alive.
The man responsible for these spots is a multi-billionaire named Philip Anschutz. He seeks no publicity, hasn’t done an interview in 35 years, gives millions to many, many charities, goes about his business quietly and efficiently and values his family’s privacy.
The next time you’re tempted to look upon all rich folk as Henry F. Potter… think twice. You just may have been sold a bill of goods.
It is possible to build a wonderful business…in a wonderful America…and have a truly wonderful life.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
109 Comments
FYI, the Foundation for a Better Life link goes to a story about the Koch brothers.
I believe this is the site that was intended:
http://www.values.com/
Capitalism has never been portrayed kindly in Hollywood…
Favorite bad guys have always included corporate heads and the wealthy (non-liberal, of course) elite. Capra was a populist and a left of center guy in his day.
Which would probably make him just to the left of Rush Limbaugh now…
and one note on creating jobs, business don't hire workers for a tax advantage, they hire them for a profit advantage. if you want to make more money, you hire more workers, to get more work done. but, only if there is more work to be done, and if the cost of hiring a worker actually produces a profit. setting a arbitrary minimum wage does not set a minimum profit. so when the minimum wage is raised, business can only hire entry level workers when they produce more profit than cost, otherwise, back to the unemployment line.
I so thoroughly enjoy your posts Gary. Spot on. Keep it up!
Ah, Gary. I enjoy your articles so much and also love It's A Wonderful Life as much as you do. We have a standing tradition in our home on Christmas Eve to watch this great film,too. Yet, I take a complete reverse impression of the film than you have expressed. I have always seen the Bailey's , especially George, as the ultimate conservative capitalists. They worked against the odds of the town owned rich and evil Potter to enable every working man to take advantage of his own labor to build and buy a home of their own instead of living in the rented shacks Potter 'provided'. It was Potter who was the looming evil presence in the town and the Baileys were the shining example of 'everyman' who could work against the odds of the evil Potter to pull himself up by his own bootstraps and prosper on his own without the need of a looming nanny presence, good or evil, of the likes of Potter. We never know the source of Potter's riches but we know how he thinks and we know he is not above stealing even when he knows and promotes the consequences to George and Uncle Billy.
OMG. It is as if you were reading my mind this Christmas Eve. I am sure that this movie is a Christmas Eve tradition for many, though I don't know anyone else who leaves the party early to go home and watch it. This is pretty much verbatim the epiphany that I had this year. I still love the movie and will continue with the tradition, but it does give a time marked example of just how far back this kind of class warfare and anti-capitalism sentiment began to be part of pop culture. I too can't for the life of me understand why a popular, competing bank in a small town like this cannot make a profit and expand. Mr. Potter is rich for the theme's sake (money makes people greedy and evil), not because his business model is better or more sought after. In fact it doesn't make sense why anyone in town would trust or like Potter's bank more so than the "handshake" credibility of the Bailey's, especially during this time period. It just fits the model of the movie's propaganda. Wow, sad but true wake-up call. I don't sleep much anymore.
Potter just wants to acquire more riches and acquire TOTAL control over the town. George sees clearly when Clarence shows him what would have happened had he not existed. It was HIS singular existence that prevented Bedford Falls from becoming Potterville.
We are all George Baileys. Every Tea Party member and 9/12 member who marches on Washington or goes to a town hall meeting, who works hard to end this travesty we call the Obama Administration is a George Bailey. And because of us we can and will call and end to the Potterville this administration would make of this country.
Well said! Every time IAWL is broadcast an angel rips its wings off.
Relax, Mr. Graham. Mr. Potter was the bad guy because he was a predatory, sour, miserly prick who lied and stole to get what he wanted.
Sam Wainwright – an even bigger capitalist – saved the day as soon as he heard about the troubles. George Bailey himself explained the good side of capitalist investment to his members. He did it so well he saved his institution, along with their homes and savings. Potter's own accountant thought he might one day end up working for George Bailey because Bailey's fair and honest business practices were so successful.
The difference between "Pottersville" and Bedford Falls wasn't that Pottersville had unbridled capitalism. The difference was that Beford Falls had goodness in it while Pottersville had nothing but avarice, vice and despair. The free market is the best economic engine for a society but, whatever the economic system, no society can last long without without fairness, honesty, and even love.
Enjoy the movie again next Christmas without any guilt
Regards,
Clarence (just kidding)
Wow, thanks for the eye opener…true to the core.
Although I agree with your point in general, I would suggest that the main problem with Potter was that he had likely corrupted the local government so the playing field was not level. I see Bailey as a man frustrated from living his American Dream not by the unscrupulous capitalist system, but rather by the buying of political power that monopolies tend to attempt. In my mind, that's why Bailey had trouble succeeding as well as he knew his talents should have allowed him to.
To that end, the movie has a message which is not so much a warning against capitalism, but a warning against the kind of influence that powerful men try to exert on his fellow man. Not though running a better business, but through stacking the governmental deck against the upstart, stifling innovation, and generally calcifying the social hierarchy with themselves at the top. Potter wasn't living the American Dream, he was corrupting it. You can draw all kinds of parallels with the modern world with this outlook if you would like.
Um, sorry, that's the entire point. Obama wouldn't make Potterville of this country, because Potter was a successful businessman. Obama is putting his thumb on the Potters (and the Baileys!) to promote class warfare. It was the type of people who are Baileys friends and neighbors who voted for Obama, and what Obama is trying to give them is neither Bedford Falls nor Potterville, it's Stalingrad.
Admittedly, I, too, have always been bothered by the venal, pervasive presence of Mr. Potter in It's a Wonderful Life. I do wish to point out two points.
First, the Bailey Building and Loan Association is a capitalist undertaking that served as an alternative to Potter-controlled banks, offering deposits, mortgages, etc., to its customers. This wasn't a public or government option, but was a private enterprise.
Second, George Bailey's boyhood friend, Sam Wainwright, left Bedford Falls, made a fortune, and generously sent a line a credit to help out the Bailey S&L. This suggests that capitalist like Sam Wainwright can prosper and still remain generous and responsible.
Of course, if you want a cathartic resolution, you can always see this:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/4267/saturday-night-liv...
Now, what really bugged me is that Old Man Potter never got caught for stealing that $8000 from Uncle Billy
That's a true bummer.
Gary, I disagree. "It's a Wonderful Life" does treat capitalism well. Look at Mr. Gower, the pharmacist and successful small business owner. He is a kind man who never forgets how much George has done for him. What about Sam Wainwright? The son of an industrial tycoon, Sam, while living a lavish lifestyle, is generous and caring and comes to George's rescue without condition and without question. There's also Martini the Italian immigrant and bar owner. He can barely speak English but he owns his own business. Where else but in capatalistic America!
But one thing you seem to miss is the success that the Bailey Building and Loan was. Did you see the home the Martinis moved into and the surrounding neighborhood? Neighborhoods like that are not built by failing builders. Additionally, the Bailey Building and Loan epitomizes American capitalism because it creates competition and fills a market need that Potter will not.
"It's a Wonderful Life" celebrates capitalism Gary, I do not know what movie you are watching.
Amen, Mr. Graham, Amen.
I disagree. IAWL takes a shot at big banks, but Big Banks and Big Bankers (like Potter) are not what capitalism is all about. Bankers produce nothing but financial gimmickry. Wall Street is Democrat because they produce nothing and need the government behind them to survive when the gimmickry unravels (as it will inevitably do). Business that actually produces stuff is what capitalism is all about (Main Street Businesses)and IAWL does not criticize this type of business. Bailey Savings and Loans actually lends money to help build houses and finance businesses (like Gowers) and who saves the day in the end–the "Hee Haw" guy that has made a fortune in manufacturing and provides a $25,000 line of credit to cover any BS&L losses. Capitalism does not necessarily mean that you have to take every penny you can off the table and not work cooperatively within your community. Potter is a monopolist and therefore not a capitalist.
Your point about Wainwright isn't a bad one, however throughout the movie Wainwright is portrayed as a womanizing playboy (the male equivalent of Violet … but Violet stays poor and Sam gets rich because women are held down by the patriarchy).
Most people don't notice the little bit at the end where Sam offers to advance as much money as George needs. And Potter still comes off as the archetype of the "typical rich white guy".
I was surprised how much this last time I watched it I realized how much I dislike George … sure he helped people, but he did so grudgingly … and he's clearly got an anger management problem (and may even be an abusive husband and father).
Over the years I've known people like George (the helpful, self sacrificing George of the first two acts) and very few of them are the type that would fall apart and try to kill themselves over a bookkeeping error.
You seem to have missed the part where Sam was snuggling up to the stereotypical bimbo while trying to court Mary. Was that not to suggest more capitalistic vice, representing a missing morality among the wealthy?
Potter was a monopolist who took advantage of his monopoly status to overcharge on rents for substandard housing. He then took his monopoly profits and built a bank by which he meant to control the entire town, except George Bailey couldn't be bought.
When he realized Bailey couldn't be bought, Potter tried theft and blackmail.
Are you sure criminal behavior and monopoly capitalism are what you want to defend?
Jeez, next thing I expect to read is that poor Goldman Sachs is misunderstood and is engaged in God's Work.
Oh, wait.
You're absolutely correct Mr. Graham. It's a great movie, that shits all over capitalism in order to drag us through sentimental hell along with George Bailey on his way to redemption.
And its one hell of a movie, that I love anyway.
Sorry, you'll get no argument from me on this opinion.
Absolutely correct. You understand economics.
If I hire a worker, that worker must produce enough labor to cover his pay, the over head associated with hiring, and enough of a profit to keep the business growing.
Despite the populism associated with minimum wages, all it does is increase unemployment with the very people who need employment the most, those at the bottom wrung of the employment ladder.
If I have a small business, maybe I can afford to take a chance on hiring a high school drop out, or an ex-con to sweep floors and stack shelves for say $5.00 an hour. When forced to pay $7.50, I can't afford it, and out the door he goes.
I find it one of God's great ironic jokes that things that allow us to feel we are the most compassionate, in reality is the least compassionate, to our fellow man.
You should read up some time on how rent control is the most effective method for destroying a city. Next to bombing, that is.
Mr. Graham,
Your points about the demonization of capitalism are true, but I also agree with other posters here that point out other positive examples of capitalism and capitalists in the film.
I think the problem is with us (humans) not with capitalism.
People can and do abuse just about everything this world has to offer so it stands to reason there will be good people in the film (Wainwright, Baily, Gower) and in real life, your example, Philip Anschutz.
Capitalists come in the good and evil variety, just like everyone else.
Hammer, nail, hit on head.
Sam figured it out.
Hee Haw!!
In my experience, these "Bankers [who] produce nothing but financial gimmickry" are also the same bankers who "actually lends money to help build houses and finance businesses".
Still my favorite movie, but I too wonder about George's "anger management" issues. My favorite line to quote is "Why do we have to have all these children?"…I mean what good, upstanding man would ever utter those words out loud? And for clarification, being the owner of 4 Beagles, I do somewhat change the mantra to "Why do we have to have all these dogs?"
You movie-types! Why can't a story about a small town David & Goliath scenario be what it is? Why can't a movie just be telling a story about the characters in it? Why must everything be allegory?
Potter is not a portrayal of capitalism. He's a portrayal of one ruthless, greedy, and unethical old man.
For heaven's sake, let a story be a story.
Please.
Totally agree.
Capra was something you don't see today: A liberal patriot. He had strong socialist (or at least populist) views, as evidenced in It's A Wonderful LIfe, but he also did Why We Fight, some of the best pro-American war footage ever done. Where are the pro-American liberals today? I have a lot of Christmas favorites, but I've never really considered Life to be one of them. It's a bad rich guy, good common guy essay, with Christmas thrown in as a cohesive, sentimental element. The "robber baron" theme was already seriously overworked by the time this movie was made. If I'm going to watch "common man" expositions, I much prefer Grapes Of Wrath.
And to think I just gave ya props completely earlier, Gary.. and you come out with one that I disagree with you entirely on
"Had he used more God-given ingenuity and creativity he could have taken on Potter in the arena of business competition and kicked butt, undercutting Potter’s prices and gaining market share"
Gary, I think, you're forgetting one of the key scenes in regards to why this movie DID promote capitalism, and more importantly free-market capitalism.
The Auditor is talking to Potter (aka, the Monopoly) about "Potter's field becoming precisely that, a field" and mentions that he (the Auditor) might find himself working for that "smart young man". (aka, Goerge Bailey). He points out that the homes they've built were worth 10x what it cost to build them..
IF that's not capitalism and free-markets at work, I don't know what else it is?
Remember when George turned down the capitalistic opportunity to work with plastics.. and George implied (after opening the Marconi home…) he screwed up by not getting on a ground floor of a up-and-coming business.
Yes, if you look hard enough you can see the "socialistic" idea in the premise, but it's almosta subtext message that the socialistic ideal can't survive if the capitalistic society doesn't survive (see the "bank run" scene when the people realize that if they "crash" their neighbors homes by drawing out all their money, they're going broke in the process as well..)
Gary, I have to disagree this time. Potter was not merely a capitalist – as others have pointed out, Sam Wainwright was -but rather a Crony Capitalist and a monopolist. Potter is George Soros, Goldman Sachs, GE's Jeff Immelt, Tony Rezcko, Krupp, Siemens and Fiat. The rent-seeking handmaidens of fascists, the profiteers of Central Planning.
If Potter were around today he'd be heavily into the carbon-credit market- and financing AGW scaremongering.
Always right Gary! I love the movie as well especially the end when George is holding his little boo-boo and says something to the effect, “daddy when a bell rings an angel gets his wings,” …I always tear up. But you’re right if George had decided to go toe to toe with Mr. Potter, and deliver a better product he wouldn’t have to grovel with anyone. The only fear would be to worry about an attack by the Imperial Federal Government.
Wait, you're saying that George Bailey was the hero of the movie? That self-involved, ungrateful, incompetent, abusive creep?
Gary, I also disagree. Potter is a "robber baron" plutocrat, not a capitalist. He is a Soros socialist, destroying the populist real capitalists, he is in fact a socialist ruling class dictator. Capra was on our side, as are his movies.
I don't see the film as anti-capitalist, although Potter is sort of a caricature of the kind of capitalist that Hollywood demonizes. Bailey is a capitalist too, so is Sam. I think it displays perfectly that a free country with free markets also needs to have a deep sense of morality. Potter is what you get when you abandon the moral tenants that were once the cornerstone of American society. Bailey was certainly no fan of big government, he was a capitalist who also had a sense of responsibility to his fellow man and community. Neither he or his customers went begging to the government, they helped one another.
At the end of the film the Building and Loan and the town have turned the corner, Bailey's developments were winning out over Potter's slums and Wainwright was building a new factory in town. The movie ends just as the post-war boom was about to begin with Bailey as the victor of the battle of Bedford Falls and his brother part of the allied victory for freedom in the big war. It's all good.
I understand what you are saying Gary and I agree with you but I remember a debate about this very same subject a while back at an old site and what if you look at Potter as being the definitve of the liberal rich person? How many truly wealthy people prefer to use other people's money when they speak of helping people. That is why a lot of men like Jon Corzine are leftists. They are Potters. Turn it even further…what is Scrooges best line in A Christmas Carol? Are there no work houses? Are there no prisons? He goes on to say those who are poor and in need should go to those places. He pays the taxes that runs those places. I would think a great case for Potter being a leftwing democrat could be made. He does though on the face of it represent what the left thinks of the wealthy and capitalism.
Many other commenters have noted that the point is pretty ridiculous. But I have to note that I think "It's a Wonderful Life" is a great litmus test to determine if you're ideologically blinkered.
I'm a staunch free-market advocate and IAWL is one of my favorite movies of all time. And that's not just because I've had a crush on Donna Reed since I saw her show in reruns on Nick at Nite. The movie isn't socialist or communist and it doesn't say anything negative about capitalism. It's about balance and realizing that sometimes there are things bigger than yourself that are worth sacrificing for.
Potter isn't just a capitalist. He's heartless. He has nothing in his life except feeling superior to people – note the scene where George goes to his office for the friendly chat and the chair he sits in is lower than Potter's wheelchair. His money is just his way of feeling superior to people.
The movie is filled with normal, everyday people working hard, earning money, spending it. At the end they're bailed out by George's rich capitalist friend. It's even a pro-military movie, with the big hero Harry Bailey flying home in a snowstorm to be with his brother.
There aren't many movies that are pure, unadulterated, non-ideological good. IAWL is one of those few. It's a movie about Christmas and angels that even us black-hearted hell-bound atheists can love. That says something.
I'm not used to tearing up with emotion reading a political commentary… exquisite article on what makes America great and the one flaw in one of MY favorite films that I'd not really noticed before, until you pointed it out (makes me feel like a chump). Thanks for a unique (and brave) perspective on "It's a Wonderful Life" — you're likely going to be hit with a lot of negative reactions.
I'm not sure I'd agree with you 100 percent about the "capitalism is evil" message in the film… I think it's closer to "evil capitalism is evil." Also, I always wondered what made Potter such an ogre. I noticed he has no family or friends (that we see, anyway), which would make most anyone, whether rich or poor, liberal or capitalist, Christian or Jew or atheist, a potential pain in the tush or a whiny loser. He's also forced to remain in that limiting wheelchair (which may or may not have been originally written into the script for Mr. Potter, because Lionel Barrymore suffered from arthritis and a hip injury in his later years, and from about 1938 on, acted from the wheelchair). We never know why he's in the wheelchair, and that could open up many reasons for his evil ways and lust for power, none of which have to do with being a capitalist.
Having money is good, but friendship and love are better, but having BOTH can be the cherry on the sundae with extra whipped cream. Loved the article… thanks for an excellent think piece, Gary.
One recent example of a capitalist hero would be Bruce Wayne in "Batman Begins" and "Dark Knight." Both of those movies, more than any of the other Batman movies, emphasized the guy's immense wealth and that it was good old capitalism, plain and simple, that funded his crimefighting.
Amen. Good thing I read back a few posts, because I almost posted the exact same thing. George's wealthy friend Sam Wainwright was a Capitalist, and portrayed very favorably in the film. Potter was just a crook.
Be not disheartened. There was only one George Bailey and one Mr. Potter in a movie filled with capitalism. George, a man who wore two hearts on his shoulder was almost ruined by Potter an unscrupulous and greedy man. Potter was the epitome of the capitalist who has abandoned do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The message is use your heart but also use your head too. Now please return to enjoying the movie.
Should send that link to MSNBC addressed to Keith Olbermann. He'd invite Jeanene Garafolo on and they coulld play that footage while claiming that those people on the video are actually lost footage of more of those evil "teabaggers" in action.
Well it burns me as well that so many artists and politicians don't have a clue. I suppose we could talk endlessly about the reasons, but I always figured, certainly in terms of Hollywood or popular music, that they wanted to be seen as cool and hip. Politicians are about trying to con their constituents to vote for them by promising stuff they probably cannot deliver.
"What Obama is trying to give them is neither Bedford Falls nor Potterville, it's Stalingrad" ..Absolutely right and very well stated.
Exactly right, I thought Mr. Potter should have been caught out with his stealing and keeping that $8000.00. Poor old Uncle Billy and your point about Sam Wainright is right on.
oops! time to fire my webmaster! oh wait, first I'll have to hire a webmaster!
I have always thought that Potter was like John Kerry, or the Kennedys, or any of the Daley Chicago Crime Family. He clearly was not a man that earned his wealth, he inherited it.
I love ya, Gary, BUT…
Potter becomes the Fascist in this movie…owning everything in the town, from means of production to means of distribution, "paying what he wants you to pay…," to quote George. The person who manipulates the system to his benefit.
Sounds a lot like that twit in the White House right now…
Yeah, its a movie, and simplistic frameworks exist in all of them. Potter is never given a true competitive market, with an informed electorate to vote out his personal cronies and an impartial legal system in the "alt universe" of Pottersville. Thus the decadence and ultimate degradation is revealed, and a glimpse is given into the Grinchy "spiders in his soul",…matches up quite nicely with George describing him and his web-spinning ways…
And the ultimate conservative capitalism is expressed when George suggests to Sam to buy the old tool and die works for plastic production, and thereby launching a new business for Bedford Falls! He puts an entire trained but idle workforce into motion, the "trickle down" effect spreads, even to the immigrant Martini family, and the "Credit Union" survives to provide a different and effective means to finance homes for the citizens, while the bank sits on its high-interest rates, losing ground to the other kid in town…sounds like capitalism to me…
And Potter, as a member of the Board of the Building and Loan, holding the $8000.00 USD that wasn't his, hopefully gets a small room with striped sunlight for his embezzlement…
The key is the line, "…living in his kind of shacks, paying what he wants you to pay…" that George lets loose during one of those outbursts of his…
Sam Wainwright is a capitalist, too, and one much more powerful than Potter…but he doesn't have Potter's need to be in CONTROL of everything and everyone…when George gets the plastic factory in Bedford Falls, he puts people outside of Potter's CONTROL…Potter's FASCIST CONTROL…
Potter wants the monopoly, its the key to his money…and more important, his power…
And I agree with you…
Mark, you raise great points. But I didn't mean to imply IAWL promotes socialism directly. Except for the bank examiner, nowhere in the movie is government even mentioned, in a bailout capacity or any other. My only problem, and mind you — I love this film — is with its thinly veiled revulsion with the 'wealthy' …the notion that money necessarily leads to greed and selfishness and evil. (although, Sam Waynright was a good egg, he seemed more the exception rather than the rule)…
But good points!
Me, too…
Perhaps.
Or maybe everyone else was reading more into Sam and Mary's relationship than what was really there…although Sam did say, "…my girl", but to me more facetiously than honestly…
I think we imply more there with Mary's mother's obvious glee over Sam's expensive long-distance call…
Nice comments — and great points all around! THANK YOU ALL for making this a lively and spirited debate!
And I reiterate — even with my one problem with it — IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE is still one of my favorites.
The other end of capitalism, the delivery of goods and services, requires effective customer service; does anyone here think Potter's extensive and myriad businesses actually have "customer" as anything other than something to drain until dry…?
Only argument I have here is that Potter bought the bank, by providing operating capital when the run was on…
Sound familiar…?
Exactly!
A +1 to you for your defining post…!
We actually own this one, and it goes in the player with "Bells of St. Mary's" and "Charlie Brown Christmas" and Boris' and Chuck's "The Grinch who Stole Christmas", every year in mid December…
We just disagree with how you and I see a part of it…
If we always agreed, we'd be lib statist Democrats…
[...] the original post here: It’s A Wonderful… Lie This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
I cannot help but say this, though I admire your instincts… Gary, you have it wrong. In the movie, the Building and Loan did just what you said… They dug in, competed, and succeeded. But, as a small businessman who faces competition from big busines, from the deep pockets, from the well funded, the portrayal isn't far off. It is no piece of cake to wrangle a business through a depression, stay afloat, and continue to be competitive, when it's the big guys who dictate the market. Bailey raised his own money, from the investors in the company, and made deals which benefitted both. But he did not have unlimited funds. Somehow, Potter was on his board of directors. And Potter's bank was his source of ready cash.
There is no lie, because the story is very apt… The small guy does NOT make it rich. He earns a living. And often, no more. He is often limited by and stomped on by the big guy. In the end, Bailey Park is a shining example of how the town was transformed by a great deal of good deals… but deals with only marginal profit for all involved.
Continued : Old man Bailey WAS the ultimate capitalist. He turned what little he had into something worthwhile, earned a livling, and still benefitted others. And George recognized the part, and the limitations of being that small guy, the David who has no stones to bring down Goliath. We'd like to think that the small guy always triumphs. That's rarely true. But it's the small guy who persists, who survives, who does the living and dying in every one of our small AND big towns, and makes that marginal difference that turns what would be a miserable oligarchy driven oppression… Into a diverse free for all.
I know what it's like to not have a paycheck, though the paychecks for the big guys are always sure. I know what it's like to have your hands shaking near the end of the month as you open the mail, hope against hope that you've gotten in enough checks to balance out the ones you have written to keep the lights on and doors open one more month.
But, see, I'm the small guy. I'll always be that small guy. I won't ever be paraded through town as hero. I will never have the clout to make many other people jump because I hold the power of solvency or destistution over them. I may succeed or may fail… But if I fail, I'll pick myself up and try again. I know that feeling, I've already failed once and this is far from my first try.
Capra did get it right. Life and Capitalism are an aweful lot like that. One little $8000 mistake, one Potter would steal and use to his advantage, without any qualms, and Bailey was done for. Even after years and years of struggle and sweat. There's millions of really good capitalists who live in that zone, that one where success and failure have only a very thin line separating them. And it's what makes us tough. It's what made George and his father tough. It's what made George's friends generous, because they knew from their own lives, that's just how fragile our little enterprises are.
As I posted upthread, I believe this is a capitalist movie, actually…
And I believe this is actually a movie of the human condition, ultimately…
There is an entire first part of this movie not discussed…God, Joseph, and Clarence…
Discouragement can drive man into that "why me?" place of feeling sorry for yourself, and easier than most people think. George has been pushed there since saving Harry…always coming up just short, always being driven by circumstances, rather than driving them his way. Men of this era would not have discussed their frustrations over this, but movies without dialog get boring, SO, Stewart drives it a bit over the top to express the sentiment…
Saving the Building and Loan after his father dies, and forever tying himself to Bedford Falls…
His old, drafty house…
All those kids…
A scatterbrained Uncle Billy…
Sam Wainwright going down the path he was looking at…
And Harry the winner of the CMH…
And there in the middle is 4-F George…hasn't got his vision tuned to the true blessings he has…Mary, his fellow citizens of Bedford Falls, that old Building and Loan…and all those kids…
All the rest is a construct for George to realize something he's too discouraged to see…he has, through his efforts, whiny and unwilling they may be, saved an entire populace, and through Harry, even farther than that; from "…a warped, frustrated old man…", who treats the very customers that support him as nothing more than serfs to exploit as far as he can get away with…
That's what I see…
Nice article, Gary. Always good to read your stuff on BH.
Not sure about It's a Wonderful Life, but I think you hit the nail on the head with your comments about character. It is indeed character that makes the difference between a "good" capitalist like George and an "evil" capitalist like Potter. Unfortunately, H-wood tends to lump them all into one group – the generic Evil Corporation. It's one of today's favorite stock villains along with the Shadowy Government Agency and the Psychotic Military Commander. I'm sure this is partially due to leftist thinking; a lot of it, however, is simply laziness.
As an aside, one of the reasons I really enjoyed Alien Nation was its departure from the usual sci-fi aliens-come-to-earth template. You know the one I mean. (1) Aliens come to earth, either by accident or to bring us a message of peace. (2) Paranoid government and mindless military immediately attack peaceful aliens for no apparent reason OR paranoid government and greedy corporation try to capture aliens to perform painful experiments on them. (3) Aliens escape with the aid of good humans and spend some time running from evil government, military and/or corporation. (4) Aliens make final escape with the aid of good humans, in the process making evil government, military and/or corporation look weak and stupid and teaching everyone a Valuable Lesson. Alien Nation started with completely different premise, it was complex and it had DEPTH. The Newcomers weren't just victims and the Authorities weren't just nefariously trying to harm or exploit them. I think Alien Nation was a good example of the quality shows Hollywood can produce when its denizens stop thinking in cliches.
Hey, Lawhawk, long time no hear from…!
And I think Capra as more populist, too…
"Mr. Bailey puts it like this: “'This town’s no place for any man unless he’s willing to crawl to Potter.'”
Is it really capitalism if there's no competition?
Mjolnir: Andrew Price and I have been laboring hard over at our Commentarama site, but we both realized we were neglecting our friends here. We've made a new year's resolution to spend more time here, and not kill ourselves over there. Messrs. Breitbart and Nolte have been very good to us, and they have the right to expect we won't leave what was really our home base.
And another +1. Potter may as well have been the mayor too. Either way, you KNOW the guy had all the local politicians in his pocket. Ain't nuthin' conservative about THAT. Besides, the film is loaded with capitalists and sole proprietors:
George's father and Uncle Billy
Harry's father-in-law
Sam Wainwright
Mr. Gower
Mr. Martini
Nick the Bartender (sure, he isn't happy, but you can't blame him for booting two "jailbirds" out of his bar, it was HIS bar)
Hell, Violet Bick and Ernie the cab driver were probably operating as sole proprietors/freelancers and you have to assume they were paying taxes through the nose thanks to FDR.
Also, you gotta love the way George Bailey killed that tree with his car and escaped on foot with absolutely zero worries about his carbon footprint.
I had similar thoughts as I rewatched the movie again this Christmas. What I think is missed in the film is the fact that Bedford Falls wouldn't have been the same place without Potter, either.
If we accept that George Bailey isn't a total loser because his little kindnesses resulted in greater good for his community, oughtn't we also extend that same grace to Potter? Surely Potter's various projects resulted in profit that benefited Bedford Falls and enabled the Building and Loan to exist in the first place. Aren't Potter and Bailey actually an unwitting TEAM?
What would happen in an "alternate" version when Potter decides to end it all? Would Clarence still come down and talk him out of it? Or would he have said, "Yeah, Bedford Falls really WOULD have been a better place if you'd never been born. Go ahead and jump"?
I'm a big fan of the film, but the glimmer of a future redemption of the old miser at Christmastime seems sorely missing. But then, I suppose that's another story…
Ayn Rand couldn't have said it any better than you, Gary.
No sweat here, pal…these are the times that try men souls…
Tell AP I said Hi…
Just because George's dad didn't want to grow didn't mean he wasn't successful. One of the joys of freedom is that you can decide just how much success you want. George's father wanted to spend time on things he considered important more than he wanted monetary success. Sam Walton was a great man but you don't build a Wal-Mart on a 40 hour work week. The Baileys were in business just as much as Potter. There are greedy businessmen just as there are greedy bureaucrats and greedy clergymen. A story thrives on conflict and in most cases that necessitates a villain. For Capra's story Potter was a good villain. Potter was not, however, a stereotype of a capitalist because each person in a stereotyped group is the same. Potter and Bailey were both capitalists but each possessed radically different views about how business should be conducted. Now if Potter had been a union boss or a bureaucrat set on taking over honest Bailey's Savings and Loan, that would have been a stereotype. Albeit one not typical of the time.
But on a larger note, Capra's villains did not find their villainy in ideology, but rather in emotion. Potter's besetting sin was greed. He wanted to own everything it town. Is that bad? Yes. But opposed to that you had Pa Bailey who was also a capitalist. But Pa Bailey valued friends and family more than building a bigger business. It wasn't the capitalism that made Potter bad, it was the greed. Potter could have been a good person and still been in business. In fact, at the end of the movie, some might be led to believe that Potter had reached a redemptive moment when he gave money to the Baileys to help them out.
Sorry if I sound a little harsh. I'm not trying to be.
Several times in Potter's office we see a bust of Napoleon. This is Capra's way of telling us who Potter is….not a "capitalist," but a tin-horn, bush-league dictator, a plutocrat, a would-be Bonaparte. This movie is free from Marxist analysis and stereotypes. It is about good vs. evil and traditional Americanism pitted against the kind of Old World authoritarianism our ancestors came here to get away from.
I think you are right. Potter was kind of like Scrooge, but without the redemption. He is "capitalism" without morals, whereas the Baileys and even Sam are capitalists with morals (even if Sam was a playboy).
I'll do that, Thanks.
Damn, this is what I LOVE about this site! Gary gives this awesome argument about a point of view I'd never considered – and my thought is, 'wow, I never thought of that before!'. But then I scrowl down and read the comments and I find myself being talked out of it by counter arguments. And the whole thing is so damned much FUN! Now this is what I love about this site! You think, you learn, you change, you see things a different way, you hear arguments and it all adds up to your stretching your mind. Damn, I love this site!
Great post, Gary.
Frank Capra was a man of his time; and his time was the heyday of Progressivism. In Capra's case, I think his progressivism was absorbed through osmosis. Capra champions the cause of the Little Guy, and making Potter the evil capitalist was easily understood shorthand for a generation raised on the New Deal. He's a throwback to the "Company Store" monopolists of a few generations earlier.
Ironically, what broke the tyrannical power of the Company Store was not the Trust-busting legislation of Progressives, but the development of better ways to provide goods via mail-order companies like Montgomery Ward and Sears.
But Capra's main message is the inestimable value of each individual. This runs counter to the cold elitism which is at the core of progressive ideology. It is this quality which makes IAWL such a treasure, and allows us to forgive the nod to populism, and deem it a conservative movie at heart.
Potter was Walmart personified.
If you champion WalMart as the business model for successful Capitalism, then you are merely celebrating financial success and discounting (haha) everything else of import in daily life.
I'm so glad that I do not look at classic films wearing my political lenses.
Gary makes an interesting point and that a film can be interpreted so many different ways. I can see his point of view and what we all feel how great this film represents the greatest of America and capitalism. For me the story is very simple, it isn't about capitalism if it is good or bad. This is a film about morality and integrity. Capitalism works and is a perfect system if people have good morals and decide to make a business to make money and not be greedy. On the other hand Potter in his old age is a miserable person and his God is owing more of the town and keeping as much of the money the town creates. This isn't a bad reflection on the system of capitalism, this is a deep personal moral problem and Potter lacks any kind of integrity. He could have given Uncle Billy the lost money, but he is a crook, the system is still pure and it works. He was just the bad guy who happen to be and old miserable rich thief.
America has become an economic and military giant and no nation or empire can do what America has done. We are this successful because before 63 this nation was a God fearing nation. Even the mafia went to Church. This country was built on individualism and the freedom to create and invent and what you reap the profits was your success. Life is and will never be fair, some make it and others won't no matter how hard they try. That isn't capitalism's fault, that is the way the cookie crumbles.
Liberals today have to find fault to attack capitalism in order to sell this socialism and share the wealth nonsense. It has been my experience that all the liberals who are rich have a huge disdain for money, wealth and success and like Henry Potter this abuse, disdain of capitalism and money is a trick of the rich to keep the poor from wanting it. Again, it all goes back to morality of how people want to conduct their lives.
I have dealt with very successful distributors who I felt were the dumbest idiots on the planet. Sure they were successful but only for the short end money and in the end time and the lack of product destroyed them. The main reason is greed, jealousy and ego. These are not part of the capitalistic system this is a human error. On the other hand when you work with people who are honest, fair and you have a common goal to make profit the system works like Mozart's music.
I have always saw the film about good and evil. In America where freedom is the playing field and capitalism is the game on that field. You have honest business men like the former owners of Entertainment Partners, Jack and Bob who I always felt were the two greatest businessmen on the planet, then you have John Gotti who made billions for his people. They both thrive in this capitalistic system and no laws can really regulate this, only our own nature can make this work as it should or we all end up in Pottersville.
Actually pretty accurate for the time, there were robber barons who completely controlled areas. You can call it capitalism, I prefer reality. Its through freedom, as enforced by the rule of law (and morality) that restrains the excesses of capitalism (again reality, not capitalism, acting in the self interest and ultimately greed are inherent in human nature). Remember Soros is a "capitalist" but he is no fan of freedom. Potter is just an early 20th century version of Soros, rich, amoral, and in complete control of various political outlets. A George Bailey is a rare thing, taking on the establishment as he does. Without him its all Donald Trump without the glitz and catchphrase.
Watch the 1938 version of A Christmas Carol. At the end of that movie Scrooge is giving away everything. He is giving raises and hiring everyone. He does not care about the business and the balance sheet. Good formula to go bankrupt. I always thought a sequel to that classic to take in place 2 yrs later. The business has gone under, Scrooge and the rest are on food stamps or in the poor houses or prisons. All because of the idealistic notion that business is just made up of "Free Money" for all.
Dickens lived in a time where poverty was a crime, sadly today poverty is a badge of honor in far too many places.
good article and keep up the great work!!!
I will write that movie sequel to a Christmas Carol. Holly Wood makes only crap anymore.
See ya in 3 yrs
Right on, Gary. Write on!
Like several other posters here, I had the same "epiphany" on Christmas Eve about one of my most favorite movies. Thank you for articulating my more random thoughts. Like you, I still consider this movie one of my favorites, along with "A Christmas Carol" which sends much the same message. Money is evil. Though the fact is, It's the LOVE of money that's evil, not the money. Potter loved money more than people; the Baileys loved people more than money, but were lousy businessmen.
But it got me wondering why their aren't more great capitalist movies. There was a nice indie film some years back, "The Ultimate Gift." James Garner was in it. Brian Denehy (sp?). Low production, etc., but a terrific story and really heralded hard work and compensation for that hard work — depending on the person. I recommend watching that film. Great soundtrack too.
Bottom line: We need more films showing the ruth about work, money, and capitalism.
Gary, write a script!
I must say thank you to Gary and all posters here. It warms me to know we can be civil, curteous and debate opinions and thoughts in a polite, respectful and factually based way.
If we ever hope to have the same kind of discussions with the other side, we must start by being able to have it with ourselves. Kudos to all!!!
Hear, hear!
"Tell the Senator to wait," Potter tells his secretary. It's clear, albeit subtle that Potter has politicians in his back pocket.
And who sweeps in at the very end of the lovefest with the trump card? Sam Wainwright, capitalist. "Mr. Gower cabled you need cash. Stop. My office instructed to advance you up to twenty-five thousand dollars. Stop. Hee-haw and Merry Christmas. Sam Wainwright."
"It's a Wonderful Life" is like Santa Claus: It means entirely different things to (ideological) children and adults.
Granted, Potterville is a pretty happening place. No boarded up storefronts. (I wonder what the unemployment is in Potterville?)
Right on! And for George, it's that moment where he contemplates suicide — in part because he's "worth more dead than alive."
In a weird way, "It's a Wonderful Life" shows that it's okay to want things, to ask for help when you need it, and not be so quick to sacrifice yourself when your back is against the wall. In a way, it's about coming to terms with your limitations, man up and face the consequences of the life you live.
If there was a "novelization" of "It's a Wonderful Life," I would assume Potter was born into aristocracy, albeit the Washington, D.C. or NYC kind. He didn't strike me as a capitalist, and so I don't get the impression he was a man who earned his power and wealth.
Filmed right before the (official) outbreak of WWII, could it be that Capra didn't quite realize the FULL POTENTIAL of capitalism and the Everyman until we were officially players in the War game?
"Hot dog!" Gary, you've tackled a legendary film, but I think you took George Bailey's train when it left Bedford Falls: it's not about Potter and prestige….but about a man's character. That George Bailey doesn't see himself as his wife, his friends, and his family see him. And the journey to realization takes him half of his life.
Or did I miss what you were saying entirely?
This is a visceral and willful misreading of grand proportions. One would think this analysis would praise that the film's resolution would be regarded as an affirmation of conservative values: there's the manifestation of an interventionist, and caring, God via Clarence the angel; there's the salvation of a man, and by extension, a community, by a successful capitalist (as noted by many here via Wainwright); there's the charity of the community, rather than the government, in honor of both a man and Christmas; there's the hero who faces his own troubles only to the extent of his own suffering, not begging for the help of others; there's the repudiation of those like Potter who steal and oppress rather than pursue self- and community-betterment; there's even the affirmation of living a spiritually responsible life. Natch, there's even a nuclear family at the center of it, one member a local hero and another a war hero. It's as if Capra were making the story meet a conservative checklist of ideological goals– and yet this analysis chooses to whinge about the depiction of the monopolist Potter while wasting most of its word-space on tangential rant and splutter. I can only surmise that this analysis is a deliberate misprision of the film, in the Shakespearean senses of that word. I'll refrain for suggesting reasons for this act of misprision, but none of the ones I can imagine can be described as intellectually or creatively sincere.
In this Topsy-Turvy world the most frightening and deplorable capitalists are Communist.
No, Wainwright is only a womanizer in the one scene, in which George and Mary are talking to him on the phone immediately before George declares his love. Later on, when Wainwright looks on as George welcomes the Martinis into their new home, he clearly has a wife (not the same woman hanging on him when he talks to George on the phone about making plastics from soybeans).
Agim Zabeli has it just right: the conflict isn't between capitalism and socialism, but between cheaters and honest men. Potter's defining moment is when he doesn't return the $8,000 to Uncle Billy and George, an act that–while not strictly illegal–doesn't pass even the most generous moral sniff-test.
Another great article Mr. Graham!!! In my life, as I have gotten older and more politically charged I have always turned to the "classics" to escape the bias in today's current hollywood. You make some great points. Points that have actually crossed my own mind, especially in my later years. The only thing I can possibly offer to you as a fellow fan of "It's a Wonderful Life" is too think of movies like the recently released Avatar!!!! Even with it's "minor" flaws, I'll take "It's a Wonderful Life" any day of the week.
Excellent point, and I almost forgot about Sam.
Also, I down dinged ya, but I meant to upding.
To be fair, I do think the comparison is an insult to Napoleon (at the very least, he had his motives beyond simply dominating everything, and he did have his positive aspects), but a good observation.
Exactly what do you mean by "fascist?" You do understand that fascism is a socialist ideology, right? I think Potter would hardly have been a fan of socialism. You do also understand that the megalomaniacal businessman is almost entirely a creation of Hollywood and it's anti-capitalist agenda.
I guess the thing that bugs me about this film critique is that Mr. Graham doesn’t seem to know there is a difference between self-interest and greed. Self-interest just means taking care of yourself, doing what is beneficial to your success. Building a business that makes lots and lots of money is not wrong, in and of itself. However, if you make money by cheating, abusing, and taking advantages of the weakness of others—then it is wrong. Then it becomes greed. When you want gain for yourself regardless of the pain and suffering of others, it is greed.
Bailey, Sr., as everyone said, was not a businessman. Yet, he saw a need and he started a small family business. His son was a brilliant businessman. He had more innate talent for business than his father, more than Sam Wainwright and more than Mr. Potter. However, he was fatally flawed; he did not know himself or what he wanted from life. He was always looking for that magic something to make him feel great and be important. If he a better attitude, if he had known what was important, he would have been a better businessman, but we wouldn’t have a story.
good point… and so with Ironman's Tony Stark as well. Characters created in a different age- and in Stark's case by a conservative comic genius, Stan Lee…
When one barrel is shot, we wait the second. Gary describes a view of the movie. But he doesn't fire the second; no he loves the movie. I share Gary's view on much of Capra's work. I've become convinced that Rand too was of two minds about Capra; there are plot arcs similar to his movies [esp. Meet John Doe]. My point- and most of the comments re-enforce: this is a benevelent universe created by Capra- a universe where deeper values are celebrated. But those values have long been at odds with percieved views of the ethics of Capitalism. Only in a Capra universe can they be resolved. It is his genious and that too is celebrated. But as Gary bravely states: it is still a lie.
Exactly. George was on the verge of something big (in a capitalist way) because of what he was doing. The young man who was going to work for the Bailey's was evidence of that. Also, how did George afford the house and the kids if he was not making money. The movie shows that he was right on the edge of his dreams and he was going to quit 5 minutes before the miracle.
I guess the trouble I have in understanding Gary's point is that I don't view capitalism as an ideology as Marxism is an ideology. In my view Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations and his discussions of the Invisible Hand was trying to describe effects of how humans engaged in economic activity. He was describing the effect of supply and demand in much the same way Isaac Newton was trying to quatify the effects of gravity.
In the movie Potter is somehow able to unduly influence the other individuals in the town. How could he possibly acheive this. In the end he has to have some control over government. Regulations are funny things. For instance when the FDA was established and meat inspections were mandated many smaller meat packers had to go under not because they could not pack meat safely but rather because the cost of the regulation meant they could not. The regulation caused the industry to be more oligarchial in nature thus giving the owners this level of power. This I think is the greatest irony. The complaint is it is Capitalisms fault meaning free market individualism but in reality it is government that causes the situation by trying to right the perceived lawlessness.
I could take issue with some of it, but at least it´s a solid argument.
You must be logged in to post a comment.