Just finished watching it for the ten billionth time on Christmas Eve, and I don’t know how anybody could argue that it isn’t one of the most liberal movies ever. Take for instance this scene where George explains to Mr. Potter why the perennially inefficient building and loan serves such a grand purpose in Bedford Falls:
George: Just a minute, just a minute. Now, hold on, Mr. Potter. You’re right when you say my father was no business man. I know that. Why he ever started this cheap, penny-ante Building and Loan, I’ll never know. But neither you nor anybody else can say anything against his character, because his whole life was……Why, in the twenty-five years since he and Uncle Billy started this thing, he never once thought of himself. Isn’t that right, Uncle Billy? He didn’t save enough money to send Harry to school, let alone me. But he did help a few people get out of your slums, Mr. Potter. And what’s wrong with that? Why…here, you’re all businessmen here. Doesn’t it make them better citizens? Doesn’t it make them better customers? You, you said, what’d you say just a minute ago? They had to wait and save their money before they even ought to think of a decent home. Wait! Wait for what? Until their children grow up and leave them? Until they’re so old and broken-down that they….do you know how long it takes a working man to save five thousand dollars? Just remember this, Mr. Potter, that this rabble you’re talking about…they do most of the working and paying and living and dying in this community. Well, is it too much to have them work and pay and live and die in a couple of decent rooms and a bath? Anyway, my father didn’t think so. People were human beings to him, but to you, a warped, frustrated old man, they’re cattle. Well, in my book he died a much richer man than you’ll ever be!
Potter: I’m not interested in your book. I’m talking about the Building & Loan.
George: I know very well what you’re talking about. You’re talking about something you can’t get your fingers on, and it’s galling you. That’s what you’re talking about, I know. (to the Board members) Well, I’ve said too much. I….you’re the Board here. You do what you want with this thing. Just one thing more, though. This town needs this measly one-horse institution if only to have some place where people can come without crawling to Potter. Come on, Uncle Billy!
Cheney is the real life Potter. Cheneyville. Cheney Fields. The scene where Potter is the head of the draft board, “1A……1A…….1A”, barely scanning the selective service forms as he proclaims men he’s never seen as ready to fight. I don’t even have to close my eyes to see Cheney on the screen.
Watched for the first time in a decade. Did not think about the liberal part, but you are dead on.
Either way, I could not turn it off and if that ain’t the most uplifting ending in history, I give up.
and I don’t know how anybody could argue that it isn’t one of the most liberal movies ever.
I won’t do it today, but I could argue it easily.
I’m pretty sure Oliver meant argue it convincingly, but I look forward to it when you decide to get around to it, Jay.
(I imagine it involves something about how the war effort is fully supported at home in Bedford Falls, thereby proving it is not a liberal movie, because no liberals ever support wars ever, unless those wars kill lots of American troops, because liberals just hate American troops so very much.)
Happy holidays.
Mungen - I don’t think Cheney would be an effective Potter. Cheney would never have sat around and let a peasant like Jimmy Stewart talk smack to him. After that outburst Cheney-Potter would have had his friends on his payroll in the police detail pull Stewart over on the street and beat him within an inch of his life, and threaten that if he gets out of line with his betters again, he’ll wake up to find little Zuzu in Guantanamo.
I don’t know if that scene is liberal more than it’s anti-conservative. Clearly Potter, the conservative, has decided that only the right kind of people should even be allowed to live away from his yoke. And if there’s anything that’s consistent about conservatives, it’s that they believe that who you are determines if you can participate in building society, as opposed to what you do.
This is why conservatism and conservatives are so anti-American.
Of course, the key element in its liberalism is that it’s fiction. It’s fantasy. It’s only loosely based on the real world. Much like, say, a lot of the proposed policies put forth by Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton. (By the way, did you see that abortion of a Christmas ad she put out? What the hell kind of person gives Christmas presents that the recipients, not she, will have to pay for?)
J.
And just what did George’s Father, Uncle Billy (and ultimately George himself) do in the face of Mr. Potter’s cold-hearted actions? Did they demand that Potter pay higher taxes in order to re-distribute to the so-called rabble? Did they force the goverment to take a share of Mr. Potter’s assets and business because “it was the right thing to do”?
No, they went out and started their own business helping out others while making a living for themselves in the process. And with narry a mention of governmental action (except for dealing with those pesky Germans.) Conservatism at it’s finest.
Still, a well-made movie is a well-made movie and it’s a testament to the skill of the filmmakers that folks on both side of the aisle can enjoy this particular Christmas classic. (My second favorite Holiday movie, right behind … Die Hard!)
Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night!!!
Of course, the key element in its liberalism is that it’s fiction.
Last time I checked, liberalism existed. Too bad, so sad. Of course, this does fit in with the conservatives unhinged hatred of modern fiction (Harry Potter, One Piece, etc.).
Poor ultra-cons, why do they hate America so much?
No, they went out and started their own business helping out others while making a living for themselves in the process.
My understanding was that the Bailey Building and Loan had been around long before Potter came along, and I know he didn’t own the bank until he bought it during the run at about the halfway mark. And Considering how Potter was consolidating money and power at the time I find it hard to believe he wouldn’t himself have put pressure on the gov’t to keep any new sort of BB&L type operation from beginning in his town, which I’d think a significant flaw with the little paen to the whole free market conservatism ya-ya wa-hey thing there.
Conservatism at it’s finest.
If thats as you see it, then would you also see Potter, denying the poor so much as a first chance, at life, helping nobody who hasn’t helped him moreso first, giving himself every unfair and unneccessary advantage he can, and so hell bent on consolidating money and power for himself he’d allow the city he would own to become Evil-Vegas,
as being “Conservatism at its worst?” I mean you certainly aren’t about to pretend his callous indifference to the poor, downtrodden, and those who can’t help him get just that much further ahead is somehow Liberal, no?
Zython, I meant the liberalism of the movie, not liberalism itself — hence my saying “its liberalism.” And I actually not only enjoyed the Harry Potter books, but found their politics to have a strong element of conservatism/libertarianism — just how well did the Ministry of Magic (an aspect of Big Government) come across? Did anyone else see elements of Hillary Clinton in Dolores Uxbridge?
The Ministry of Magic was a lesser antagonist to Harry and the other heroes of the series, preventing the individuals (and their militia, the Order of the Phoenix) from confronting the real enemy, aiding and abetting Voldemort and his followers by denying their existence and the threat they posed.
J.
And I actually not only enjoyed the Harry Potter books, but found their politics to have a strong element of conservatism/libertarianism — just how well did the Ministry of Magic (an aspect of Big Government) come across?
In as much as they limited people’s freedoms, spied on everyone they could without specific cause to, interrogated and tortured any children thought to have any, any piece of information that may be useful and making every attempt to humiliate into silence every dissenting voice against the rulers, no I don’t think they came off very well. Though how many people do you think saw in that no traits of the “conservative” authoritatians that dominate the Republican Party today, and saw instead shadows of welfare improvement, minimum wage increases and providing healthcare to children?
This kind of reminds me of someone trying to argue Star Wars Episode 3 was a pro-conservative movie too since the Empire represented “Big Government,” as we all watched Sideous/Palpatine’s ascent to Emperor through his secular progressive agenda and not by, y’know, manufacturing a war as an excuse for his every indulgence in abuses of power. I’m expecting any day now to hear the political overtones of Sweeney Todd being put forth as explaining why liberal plans seeking “Social Justice” are inherently self-destructive or some other nonsense. People start reaching that far tend not to know when to stop.
Did anyone else see elements of Hillary Clinton in Dolores Uxbridge?
Case in godsdamn point.
Let’s see… hewing to academic orthodoxy? Check out the complaints FIRE has filed on behalf of students who weren’t sufficiently liberal. Spying on people? Like Bobby Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King? The hundreds of FBI files that ended up at the Clinton White House?
Suppression of dissent? Rex, I live in New Hampshire and I can’t swing a dead cat (not that I would) without nailing at least a couple of people expressing their dissent. If the Bush administration was half as oppressive as you imply they are, then what the hell are Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan still doing free? What is Air America doing still on the air? (Well, besides violating all sorts of laws of economics, when they’re not stealing money from children’s charities.) Why are there so many Democrats running for president?
As far as “humiliating” people, the government doesn’t have to. Most of the people “humiliated into silence” beclowned themselves without any help from BusHitler, Darth Cheney, Halliburton, or any of the other bete noires you’ve constructed.
On the other hand, I remember when John Roberts was nominated for the Supreme Court. There was a ton of speculation that his son, Jack, might be gay, based on a single fleeting expression that passed over Mrs. Roberts. And when it turned out that the would-be fruit was about five or so, the New York Times sought to unseal the boy’s adoption record to make certain there were no improprieties — not based on any actual evidence that there was any, just on the chance that they might find some. You wanna talk about hounding and harassing people purely for political and ideological reasons? Top that one, chum.
Admit it, Rex. The Ministry of Magic was put forward as a “the government can fix all the problems” kind of thing, much like most of the leading Democrats are saying when they talk about universal health care. Delores Uxbridge is pretty much the sort of person who’d be put in charge of any such program.
Thanks, but I’ll pass.
J.
If you’re having trouble deciding whether this “Wonderful Life” is a liberal or conservative movie, check out the commenters in this thread over at Malkin’s.
How many George Baileys can you find?
…I honestly cannot believe I’m having this conversation right now but fuck it sideways if I’m about to stop falling halfway down the rabbit hole.
Notably you dont try to argue against my point as much as you sort of go “oh yeah?” and point at something else that looks worse. You aren’t arguing that the MoM doesn’t behave in the way I characterize or that the WBush Admin doesnt either, rather that “TEH LIBS R WERSE AND HERS A FEW TIMES THEY WERE THAT PROVES IT SO MUCH!!1!ONE” and that implicitly makes Bush okay, but not the MoM, who are therefore like Liberals by default since Bush am the awesomesauce super happy number one.
Notably too you seem so hungry to force an argument where there isnt much of one and shouldnt be in the first place that you outright ignore the common ground we both seem to be sharing in our cases, namely that authoritarianism, be it liberal or conservative, is inherently anathema to personal freedom, privacy, prosperity, life, liberty, the professor and mary-ann. That any government that tries to forcibly consolidate power and influence in the way Palpatine does, or to use that power to manipulate public perceptions the way the MoM does, is a morally flawed one. I’m curious if you were oblivious to the concept when I suggested it, or if you actually think conservative authoritarianism is inherently good, and liberal authoritarianism is inherently bad.
Admit it, Rex. The Ministry of Magic was put forward as a “the government can fix all the problems” kind of thing
I saw it more as a “There is no problem here, move right along, everything’s fine, Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia,” kind of thing, myself. If Rowling has publically stated that her intent was as you say though, then I will admit it, of course, as being true. If this is not the case though, then all I have to admit to is allowing myself to argue with someone who thinks their personal interpretation of a work is the empirically correct one, other variations and authorial intent be damned. Which, I am given to wonder, do you suppose I will have to admit to?
Final point to close on: It is not in “blaming” Bush for 9/11 that I say that he largely ignored the threat of terrorism (possibly to the same extent that Americans did in general, possibly moreso) for other, “more important” projects such as tax cuts and Social Security reform. In much the same way, the MoM ignored the threat posed by Voldemort, telling itself desperately even that He who must not be Named must not even exist.
Here’s the rub. When confronted with the empirical fact of Voldemorts existence during his attack on the Ministry itself, and I may be misremembering this, the ministry head resigned in disgrace, Uxbridge was jailed, and in general the highest ranking people were punished and held accountable for allowing the threat to go ignored as long as it had done, and no one dared call their imposed ignorance of the truth defensible. Alternately, conservative pundits and politicians publically thanked God that we have George W Bush’s powerful, charismatic, wise, verile thunderpenis as president in these troubled times that were surely the fault of the previous administration (to say nothing of Falwell’s litany of pagans, gays, etc.) and for which no blame can be placed on our leader’s head so let’s give him carte blanche and a half. I just think its interesting, in this discussion of parallels, of the curious places where they diverge completely.
Rowling’s books are apolitical. You’re just spoiling them for yourselves if you look for an anti-Bush agenda, as conservatives these days seem to do with everything that doesn’t make them completely happy.
Rowling herself, however, is clearly more liberal than most of the GOP base. Dumbledore wasn’t out until the books finished, of course, but her critique of homophobia is present all the way back in Book 3, disguised as the magical community’s distrust of Lupin–a werewolf–”teaching their children.” Her villains were all opposed to any sort of “race-mixing,” and the curses that inflicted torture were marked as Unforgivable.
“Just finished watching it for the ten billionth time on Christmas Eve, and I don’t know how anybody could argue that it isn’t one of the most liberal movies ever.”
In a year featuring anti-war box-office smashes like “In the Valley of Elah,” “Rendition,” “Lions for Lambs,” and “Redacted,” that’s a pretty bold statement.
It’s either a tribute to Oliver’s ignorance of the world or a testament to his sadly warped view of it, that he can make such an absolute statement like that and expect it to stand up.
Potter as Dick Cheney, the prototype of moviehouse eeeeeeeeevil. Personally, I prefer Sydney Greenstreet in The Maltese Falcon, but to each his own.
What’s missing in the partisan myopia, is that the generation-long battle between the Bailey family and Henry Potter is not a battle between liberal and conservative but between good and evil.
It’s no surprise that Oliver’s Army would miss the distinction; good and evil are apparently mere quaint abstractions in their eyes. Except when a political distinction can be inserted – then, according to their particularly twisted take, we have the wholesome goodness of liberalism and the irredeemable evil of conservatism. And may Mother Earth rain volcanic ash upon your house should you ever confuse the two.
But is that what IAWL shows us? That Oliver’s Neanderthal grunting of “Liberals Good, Conservatives Bad!” is but a shadow of Frank Capra’s 1946 prescience?
Not at all.
As in all of life, the tale is never as simple as the “nuanced” liberals would have us believe. There’s barely a lick of liberal philosophy to be found in this film. It is only Oliver’s twisted vision, equating apparent good to liberal principles and apparent evil to conservative principles, which allows him to argue such a thing at all.
Is it a liberal film? Well it might be…
If we believe that the Building and Loan would go to the government for a bailout after Uncle Billy’s blunder…
If we agree that Freddie Othello is justified in opening the gym floor swimming pool to give George and Mary a dunking because it’s not his fault he’s a crushing bore, George stole his girl! Freddie was just an innocent victim…
If we agree that George Bailey’s ultimate happiness depended on his personal fulfillment and self-esteem, and not on grasping that which had always been right in front of him, if only he had the wit to reach out and take it…
If we agree that none of George’s problems were his fault, but instead were unpreventable, inevitable, insolvable, due to “circumstances beyond his control…”
If we understand that Pottersville’s main drag is a precise re-creation of the means by which government keeps the poor from improving their lot by catering to the lowest common denominator: Dancing girls, lottery tickets, pawnshops, and plenty of booze to dull the pain; all heavily taxed, no doubt, to keep the government coffers overflowing, if not simply to redistribute Potter’s unchecked wealth…
Maybe Oliver is right. That’s what you get with liberal government - the illusion that life is supposed to be always fair and always happy. If you hold to those peculiar definitions of “fair” and “happy.”
No, this is not a liberal film. What IAWL is, is a film that celebrates several things: the benefits of foresight, hard work, saving, self-reliance, perseverance and thinking of the other guy first; the notion that happiness is not a destination to be reached just over the next hill but a flower always blooming beside the road, just waiting to be picked and enjoyed; and finally, that divine intervention and the hand of God are real.
Not precisely aligned with the traditional liberal canon, these.
What do we see in Bedford Falls that causes us to celebrate liberal philosophies?
Clean, decent, affordable government housing! Oh, wait…Bailey Park was filled with houses built with funding from a small business, not by the government.
Government subsidized work programs! No… the Baileys owned their business and ran it well without government intervention… Gower’s Drugstore & Emporium… Martini’s Bar… where is the hand of the state in the success of these and all the other small businesses in Bedford Falls?
Perhaps the separation of church and state! Well, yes… because the film opens with a montage of prayer, but not a single government official can be heard. Only prayerful concern lifted for a man who’s reached the end of his rope, by a town full of all the souls who have reaped the benefit of that man’s goodness and generosity for a generation. I believe Oliver would call these folks, as he has in the past, “religious nuts.” Certainly they are not the preferred poster children for Oliver’s liberal dystopia.
What about George Bailey himself, liberal crusader for truth and justice? Hardly! Is it by the power and benevolence of the government that George acts and gives and sacrifices to save his brother’s life? No. To prevent Emil Gower’s life-threatening mistake? No. For the Building and Loan after his father’s death? No. So that his brother can go to college? No. So that selfish bastard Harry can pursue his own marriage and his own dreams? No.
Is it with the power of the government, or by the sacrifice of his own honeymoon stake, that he again saves the Building and Loan from Potter’s hands?
Is it the power of government, or George’s own position as head of the Building and Loan, which ushered in a period of growth, prosperity and personal gain for Bedford Falls which so galled Potter that he finally was reduced to offering George a job in an effort to end the Building and Loan’s encroachment on the Potter empire?
Was it government regulation, or free-market entrepreneurial capitalism, that allowed the Building and Loan and Bailey Park to thrive?
George’s self-reliance and self-determination guided him in every case, in every crisis, with never an expectation that a New Deal program or a government dole, or even the person he helped would come back around to bail him out.
Even Ma Bailey, without husband Peter, never-existing son George, or long-deceased son Harry, made her own way. She converted her home to a boarding house. Where is the government to provide her cushion?
And was George himself a religious man? The evidence is unclear. In Martini’s bar, just before the final thread snaps, a desperate George Bailey, about to be arrested, picks up the phone and calls the government to bail him out, right?
Nope. Like a universe full of desperate men before and since, when there is no other help to be had, whom does he seek?
“God…Oh, God…Dear Father in Heaven, I’m not a praying man, but if you’re up there, and you can hear me, show me the way. I’m at the end of my rope. I… Show me the way, God.”
George admits he’s not a praying man… in the middle of a prayer. We learn from Joseph, the narrator (an angel in heaven, but surely that’s a mere cinematic storytelling device, not a true representation like the evil conservative Henry Potter!), that on V-E day, George wept and prayed, and on V-J Day, he wept and prayed again.
Turning to God before the government? A liberal champion like George Bailey? Just another atheist in another foxhole.
Oliver, what movie are you watching?
But what do you gain with conservative financial principles like planning and foresight, with a plan to save money and avoid debt?
If you want to, you can put off going to college for four years, work, save and earn enough to pay for college without borrowing. Or send your brother if your father’s untimely death leaves you to take over the family business.
If you plan, work and save, you can gather enough cash to go on a lavish honeymoon and not have a crushing debt follow you home. Or you can save your family’s livelihood.
Because, damn, you just can’t plan for these sorts of disasters in life, can you? Unless, of course, you do.
If you save money, if you exercise foresight and planning, you can buy a big, old, drafty, rundown mansion and spend years slowly painting and hanging new wallpaper and building a showplace (eventually you might even be able to fix the finial atop the newel post at the bottom of the stairs), and not risk losing it to the bank. Wow, that’s a lesson that endures, isn’t it?
What about happiness? Was George ever going to find happiness outside Bedford Falls? Why should he? It took him 25 years to see it, but he finally realized everything he had overlooked – a devoted wife and loving family, a war-hero brother who after all his accomplishments understood that his big brother was a better man than he, a town full of friends and people who loved and respected him with such feeling that they emptied their collective coffers for him in a time of need.
It was not what he did or didn’t do, not what he had or didn’t have, not who he knew or didn’t know that made George Bailey a happy man; it was nothing more than who he was, a man of strength, character and values. A man who in the final moments saw how the little efforts he made had the greatest effect, saw not the world he wished for but the world he lived in. He finally understood that his happiness had been there underfoot all the time, and his endlessly delayed chase for the end of the rainbow would have only taken him farther from it.
And of course, the framing device in the film, opening with a town’s prayers for a lost soul, and ending with a redemptive miracle that not only saves a man’s eternal soul but earns an apprentice angel his wings?
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? George Bailey certainly hasn’t.
George Bailey, a liberal?
I must admit he did have that irritating habit of wishing for a million dollars every time he walked into Gower’s drugstore. That’s a pretty liberal trait, but George also had that annoying work ethic and habit of saving that betrays the liberal faith.
But, George Bailey, a liberal?
He jumped into a river to save a drowning man. Would Ted Kennedy have done the same?
Wow, that’s a lot of insanity to type out. Hope you get the help you need in the New Year.
I’m ashamed firstly that I actually read it completely, and moreso that I bothered trying to understand it. Your argument seems to be that, since George Bailey does not conform perfectly and simultaneously to every negative stereotype of liberals that conservatives have built out of straw (in short, victim culture terrorist loving god hating welfare queens who just stand there and let people drown, I mean honestly what the fuck is it with you people that makes you think its in any way clever to bring up Ted Kennedy any more? Suppose we’re lucky there’s no room to mention gay marriage and abortion or you might have actually ejaculated on your own keyboard there) then it cant possibly be liberal because dammit I get to decide what is and what isn’t around these parts, and I don’t care how much of it’s about offering helping hands to the working class and communities working together to help just one man down on his luck, because if it isnt adamantly pro gay-communism then it’s not liberal, because its impossible for anyone on earth to simultaneously have a good work ethic and want to help people. Have I just about got my finger on it?
I’m going to yield to matt on this one. He makes a compelling argument that It’s A Wonderful Life transcends politics — at least as it is practiced today. That much like a Rorshach blot, what people see in it tells us far more about them than it does about the film. It has elements that appeal to everyone, it taps into universal themes and archetypes that can just as easily apply to everyone. That it touts virtues of each side and both, while casting as villainous the downsides of each.
All in all, a classic.
And one that didn’t even become associated with Christmas until it fell into public domain, and more and more stations started running it during Christmas.
Thank you, Frank Capra. Thank you, Jimmy Stewart and Donna Reed and Lionel Barrymore. Thank you, Philip Van Doren Stern and Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett and everyone else who helped give this great gift to all of us.
J.
He jumped into a river to save a drowning man. Would Ted Kennedy have done the same?
Right. Because all liberals are alike? Because Ted Kennedy did a schmucky thing in 1970, no liberal could possibly be any different ever, right?
Seriously, fuck off.
I’m going to yield to matt on this one.
That because you think that Ted Kennedy didn’t save a drowning woman in 1970, no liberal could?
Of course, you’re a conservative. What was I thinking?
Fuck off.
Jay Tea,
Thanks.
Everyone else,
you misspelled “KILL THE MESSENGER!!!!”
But you all did manage to drop that rhetorical treasure, the F-bomb.
It’s a wonder anyone would ever take you seriously.
How does Matt make a “compelling argument” that the film “transcends politics” by using the film to make a shrill and inaccurate argument demonizing liberals and concluding that the politics of George Bailey are wholly conservative?
That’s like using war in the Middle East to create peace in the Middle East.
Oh. Okay. Never mind.
And no, Rex, you haven’t just about got your finger on it.
You miss the point entirely, but not unexpectedly.
Oliver’s thesis was clearly stated in his original post, and repeated, verbatim, once in my first comment, and now, a second time, here:
“Just finished watching it for the ten billionth time on Christmas Eve, and I don’t know how anybody could argue that it isn’t one of the most liberal movies ever.”
See it there?
And for backup, what does he provide? One monologue, highlighting one idea.
And you, with your obvious intellectual depth, eat it up like so much Christmas candy. Sweet, maybe…but satisfying? No chance.
What does Oliver want when he drops these idiocy grenades? Someone to argue the converse.
So I did.
And I brought a lot more to the table than he did. More than you did, before your laser focus was pulled into the Harry Potter Universe. If you can’t stay on point, that’s fine, but at least have the honesty to admit it out loud.
And I definitely could have worked abortion into the mix (wasn’t it right after Potter offered George a job, right after Potter reminded George that he was doing well, but that a baby would eat up the surplus he was saving, that Mary announced her pregnancy? Isn’t the implication obvious? But they kept the baby.) Gay marriage would have been a challenge, but you did of course know that the Sesame Street characters Bert and Ernie were named after the cop and cabbie, right? Two male Muppets living together?
But such a stretch would have been nothing but a cheap shot.
Like the one I purposely took at Ted Kennedy (you must agree that the context was perfect, was it not?) just to watch you all go bonkers.
Looks like I misread the audience there, huh?
But I did find it interesting that when Chappaquiddick comes up, Teddy’s just a guy who “did a schmucky thing in 1970,” but do yourself a favor - try Googling “liberal lion of the Senate” and see which name you get all over the front page.
I’ll give you an hint - it’s not Robert Byrd.
It’s pretty simple word association. You say liberal, I say Ted Kennedy. So does Google.
Pretty pathetic if the standard bearer of your party in the Senate is just some guy who “did a schmucky thing in 1970.”
Would it be stereotypical if a liberal said something that stupid, or is it a “you can’t hit my brother, only I can hit my brother” thing?
In the end, Rex, it’s not about tearing down liberals and their emotion-slanted philosophies (easy as it is to provoke you from reason to rage, which only proves the point), it’s about disabusing Oliver from his idiocy.
His endless penchant for “Liberals Good, Conservatives Bad” doesn’t fit in with IAWL. There’s no liberalism there, just good and evil.
How can Oliver argue that IAWL is one of the most liberal movies ever made? What single liberal policy made George’s life wonderful?
While the evil can pretty easily be colored conservative, so too can the good. As I said before, it’s about the good and the evil, not the partisan label. But still, that’s all you see, because it’s all you can focus on. Partisan myopia, remember?
You know, the party of S-CHIP and the New Deal, of tax increases and peace at any cost, of amnesty and never-ever-ever-touch-Social-Security-we-know-better-than-you, doesn’t easily get to stake a claim to George Bailey, a man who pretty much did it on his own.
You say liberal, I say Ted Kennedy.
You say conservative, I say Eric Rudolph.
More than you did, before your laser focus was pulled into the Harry Potter Universe.
Conversations change topics. Besides, Jay was the one who dragged the conversation to Harry Potter.
And I brought a lot more to the table than he did.
Not really, unless we count your hatred for America. *Sigh* when will you conservatives just give up and admit that you hate this country more than anything?
But I did find it interesting that when Chappaquiddick comes up, Teddy’s just a guy who “did a schmucky thing in 1970,” but do yourself a favor - try Googling “liberal lion of the Senate” and see which name you get all over the front page.
Hmm…I could link the phrase “conservative bear of the senate” to Larry Craig, and spam it across a ton of sites. It’s very easy to alter Google this way.
You know, the party of S-CHIP and the New Deal,
Translation: I hate children and poor people.
Not suprising.
we-know-better-than-you
This is coming from a guy who’s political affiliation claims to be descendant from God himself (or herself if you believe in Haruhi-ism, which you undoubtably don’t and elitestly label a “fake religion”).
Poor matt, why do you hate America so much?
I’m sure I’m interrupting halfway through your next essay for the comment page here, matt, but… well see how you’re not talking about ideas, context, politics and philosophies as much as you’re just trying to talk smack about people you will never meet? See how some of us are trying to talk about themes while youre making fun of Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, Me and O-dub personally, Bert and Ernie, homosexuals, and all the other strawmen youre frantically assembling so you can tear them down publically, point, cheer, and declare that wherever you’re stanging at any given moment is automatically the moral high ground? Yeah… just so you know, you’re not accomplishing much of anything.
But I did find it interesting that when Chappaquiddick comes up…
Look, thats kinda the point. Why is Chappaquidick brought up at all? Good lord it happened before I was even born. Know what else happened before I was even born? Bush’s three arrests. That right there is the first time in five years I’ve even brought them up. Know why so infrequently? Because they don’t really matter too damn much. By contrast, how many times this month alone have you made or heard a Chappaquidick “Joke,” counting the two in this thread alone?
George Bailey, a man who pretty much did it on his own.
For a town full of people that otherwise couldn’t. That’s been the whole point that you’ve been struggling to avoid this whole time you’ve been building your ridiculous strawmen(abortion loving, homosexual, work-avoiding, god loathing, etc etc etc throughout the litany that is as long as it is tediously predictable). In a town that seems to have no other significant social welfare programs George Bailey effectively was the social welfare program. And you think he’s a “good” person? Hardly surprising coming from such a damned godless gay welfare loving socialist as yourself, matt!
Also, Haruhi-ism is a false religion. Kona-chan the benevolent will destroy the false God Suzumiya. The reckoning will come. None will be spared, not even the children.
Zython, 9:39 p.m., December 25:
Zython, 6:16 a.m., December 27:
Response 1: Zython, why do you hate the truth so much?
Response 2: Zython, why are you such a lying sack of shit?
Response 3: Zython, are you so stupid that you couldn’t remember you brought up Harry Potter first, or do you think everyone else so stupid that they couldn’t simply read up and see that simple fact?
Choose any or all of the above.
J.
I said dragged, not brought up. By that, I mean, for example, that I brought up both Harry Potter and One Piece, but you chose to focus on Harry Potter, and ramble on about that.
“If we agree that none of George’s problems were his fault, but instead were unpreventable, inevitable, insolvable, due to ‘circumstances beyond his control…’ ”
Matt’s was a pretty long and rambling rant but I’d like to just point out just one of his glaring idiocies. The incident that triggers the film’s climactic crisis is, indeed, entirely beyond George’s control. Unless you think he should have fired Uncle Billy for incompetence years before, George had nothing whatsoever to do with the loss of the $8,000 that brings the auditors and the law down on his neck.
It’s fascinating that Matt is at such pains to suggest that government has nothing to do with George’s success. Indeed, it doesn’t because government has no direct representation in the film until the very end in the form of the sheriff and the military, in the form of George’s brother Harry. The institution’s of capitalism, however, are directly represented through out the film through both Potter, the banker, and Sam Wainright, the industrialist. Within the symbolic structure of the film, these institutions set in opposition to the institutions of family and community.
George’s tragedy is that despite the joys of his family and the great good he does for the community, he still considers himself a failure because he lives in a drafty house, he doesn’t have the best dressed kids in town and he can’t travel the world doing big things he always wanted to do. He is an Everyman who can’t see the beauty of his own life because of the dominant values of the culture around him. Those values are embodied in Potter and Sam Wainright, who represent the two faces of capitalism. Potter is obviously the darker side of capitalism in which the ruthless pursuit of profit erases all else: friends, family, community. Wainright, on the other hand, represents the positive aspects of capitalism as much as Sam helps to build community (he reopens a factory in Bedford Falls on George’s advice) and he appears relatively happy with his trophy wife. Sam is happy but also shallow. His pleasures are superficial.
Because George has bought into the materialist values of capitalism, George feels hemmed in and tied down by friends, family and community. He aspires to Wainright’s superficial happiness but when thwarted by the bonds of family is tempted to become Potter, by taking the job in the bank.
The figure of Sam Wainright is evidence enough that the film is not anti-capitalist. It nevertheless recognizes that capitalism left unchecked has a negative influence on society as witnessed in Pottersville. The name of this nightmare town binds its condition to the policies and practices the figure who most explicitly represents unbridled capitalism in the film. It’s hilarious that Matt would praise Ma Bailey for turning her home into a boarding house when in the film, this is clearly presented as a capitulation: the ultimate destruction of the family sphere by an unchecked capitalism. Any one who could read this any other way understands absolutely nothing about films or how they function.
Ultimately, George recognizes the value of his life but even more, he recognizes the value of the path he has chosen which stands as a middle way between Potter and Wainright. His path represents a capitalism made responsive to friends, family and community. It is a capitalism brought down to size and put in the service of values other than the values of pure profit or fleeting pleasures. It is, in other words, a regulated and tamed capitalism which was the central goal of FDRs New Deal. This is in keeping with Capra’s own personal politics. He was a New Deal supporter but he was also no communist or socialist.
Anyone that wants to claim this movie is conservative in nature not only has to deny the explicit critique of capitalism in the film, as does Matt and Jay Tea, they also have to ignore Capra’s own politics were closely aligned with FDR and the New Deal left.
In short, they have to be idiots.
Oh and i will add that it is significant that the film’s only two direct representations of the state — the sheriff and the military, in the form of Harry bailey — are present in the final scene. For all the money that pours in from friends and family, George’s fate is ultimately in the hands of the state as a warrant has been issued for his arrest. It’s significant that the sheriff tears up that warrant and tosses it on the pile of cash. It is also significant that it is Harry Bailey who delivers the toast at the end, declaring that george is “the richest man in town.” Of course he means rich in friends, family and community.
Both representatives of state power in the film explicitly endorse George’s path of a tempered, regulated capitalism yoked to the service of friends, family and capitalism.
oops, that should be friends, family and community …
Very well said fafaroo
Sorry, just one more thing. Matt writes:
I’m sorry, but this is just the stupidest thing I’ve read here in a long time. Matt, you seem to think that you’re clarifying something here but you are actually obfuscating and obscuring the truth. This is what’s so fucking wrong with this babble about “good and evil” they obscure the specifics of the situation and the problem. This kind of “analysis” short circuits rationality and thought. It’s strictly emotionalism that gives rise to the worst sort of blundering public policies.
“George Bailey, a man who pretty much did it on his own.”
I’m sorry I just read through more of Matt’s comments. Are you an idiot? The central message of the film is the power of community and the interconnectedness of all our lives. We see how much George’s life has impacted the lives of everyone around him and then we see how those people, ultimately, rush to George’s aid in a time of extreme crisis. The only real individualist in the film, that is the only person in the film who could be said to have “done it on his own,” is Potter, not exactly the film’s paragon of character. You have to be completely blind to suggest that George Bailey is an individualist. Hell, he didn’t even found the Building & Loan, his father did. He certainly never built it into anything more than it always was at the beginning of the film. He could barely make ends meet both at the office and at home. By the usual yardstick of capitalism, George Bailey was a failure, not a triumphant individualist. But that’s exactly the film’s point: The individualist, every-man-for-himself values of capitalism are corrupting and need to be brought in line with a more human, community-centered view of life.
Holy Crap! I remembered my freakin’ MT password!!!
But I digress.
Well said, fafaroo.
May I just add:
Isn’t it also significant that the other (unmentioned) representation of the state-the bank auditor- also adds a couple of bucks to the pile?
If I follow your line about Capra’s thinking, would this not indicate a, however small, helping hand from the state?
“George Bailey, a man who pretty much did it on his own.”
Try to imagine IAWL with Potter as the protagonist. Imagine further that he makes the same appeal wishing he’d never been born. Then imagine his utter shock when nothing really changes all that much without him.