![]() ![]() The concerns Doris (Maureen O’Hara) expresses regarding the wisdom of maintaining ties with a man, Kris (Edmund Gwenn) who appears to be suffering from the delusion that he is Santa Claus seem well founded. On deeper consideration, however, the film is a disquisition on faith - not in God per se, but in humanity and in the personal integrity of those with whom we work and live. ![]() ![]() Miracle on 34th Street (1947) may strike one as a simple fantasy involving an encounter with a supernatural figure (Santa) who can grant a young girl her grandest wish and heal the wounds of her terminally disappointed and world-weary mother. This may be true of many Christmas films (I don’t consider myself an expert in the genre) but the best and most celebrated of these films all seem to me to have a darker side to them than that view allows. It assumes that Christmas movies are inherently facile, devoid of social critique, and to be passively received without deeper consideration. I think that’s a false move, not disingenuous so much as misguided. Some of the film’s admirers attempt to defuse this critical standoff by claiming that this is not really a Christmas movie. For others, the film (and the season) is a false veneer laid over a far more complex reality and by embracing its charm we ignore at best and erase at worst the suffering, turmoil, and dire contention that characterize our society. For some, the film (and the season) offers a respite from the vicissitudes of the every day and presents an idealized vision of what the world might be like if only we allowed ourselves to be kind. The medium made It’s a Wonderful Life a ubiquitous holiday presence and thus it seems to embody all of the sentimentality (syrupy or hard-won, depending on one’s point of view) we associate with the holiday season. The resurrection of the film came through television. The two poles of reception continue to find their advocates today. Bosley Crowther of the New York Times lambasted the “sentimentality of - its illusory concept of life.” John McCarten, writing for The New Yorker, lamented that only Stewart managed to occasionally “escape from the sticky confines of the script with a bit of honest acting.” The implication behind both critiques is that the film is fundamentally dishonest, offering a whimsical dream in the place of reality. Variety claimed that the movie proved that Capra “can fashion what ordinarily would be homilizing hokum into gleaming, engaging entertainment for all brows - high, low, or beetle.”įor other critics, the hokum wasn’t transmuted but simply remained insipid hokum. Time and Variety both found the film charming and indicative of Capra’s filmic craft. The film met with deeply divided critical assessment and the entrenched takes on the film’s value continue to reverberate in its current reception. The remainder of his creative life was marked by the growing disaffection of the public and critics, which led to his early retirement and ever-deepening embitterment. It’s easy to forget that despite five Academy Award nominations, It’s a Wonderful Life made a starkly unimpressive showing at the box office in 1947 (it lost $525,000 for RKO) and was the turning point in Capra’s career. Can the shining light of liberty not be darkened by an “American dream” that’s more and more reduced to the pursuit of filthy lucre (and moreover, lucre that inherently comes at the cost of the liberty of others)? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |