Earlier this week Star Tribune theater critic Chris Hewitt offered a charming and informative salute to the 75th anniversary of the classic Christmas movie favorite "It's A Wonderful Life" ("It's a 'wonderful' anniversary," Dec. 20).
Don't hold it against Hewitt's fine piece that it has provoked me to excavate some history of my own. I'm increasingly easy to provoke in this way.
More than 30 years ago, I published an essay about director Frank Capra's ubiquitous holiday classic for another (long defunct) publication. Like the film, my analysis is now antique — but it hasn't changed much more than the movie itself has. I offer here a slightly updated version as yet another quaint tradition of the season.
"It's A Wonderful Life" is quite a serious film, at least as so-called "feel-good" movies go. It is in fact one of Hollywood's genuine philosophical achievements. As such, it is one of the most widely disseminated philosophical works ever produced, almost rivaling the story on which it is rather shamelessly patterned: Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol."
Dickens' masterpiece is one of those artistic treasures that has become such a firm fixture in our culture's psychology it seems as if its plot and characters must always have existed. It is hard to fathom that long ago a prolific storyteller simply made the whole thing up.
Anyway, George Bailey, the hero of "It's A Wonderful Life," is the Ebenezer Scrooge of the modern age. It's a not uncommon mistake nowadays to suppose the movie's wicked banker, Mr. Potter (so brilliantly played by Lionel Barrymore), is the "Scrooge-like" character in the tale.
But while neither Capra nor Dickens was an uncritical admirer of capitalism, both had deeper themes than banker bashing in mind.
"A Christmas Carol" was a protest against avarice and miserliness, vices that especially plague impoverished societies. "It's A Wonderful Life" is a protest against a vice that especially plagues fortunate societies. That vice is self-pity.