Of course it's a wonderful life... (rant)

Rating: Null/10 (8 February 2007)

...if God himself (!) helps you in your tough moments.
SPOILERS EVERYWHERE, READ AFTER WATCHING THE MOVIE.
This is a movie with excellent premise and terrible execution. Instead of a profound story about soul-searching, we get a quite hokey, melodramatic Deus ex Machina tearjerker filled to the brim with cheap crowd-pleasing sentiments, soapiness and underlying religious dogma.
This movie is the best proof that simple sentiment can turn an egregious example of a manipulative old school Hollywood fluff into a "classic".
George has more or less the characteristics of an angel on Earth. He is good beyond good, although it's never made clear if this is because he actually has a good heart, or he's simply too week to say no to people. Also just like an angel, he (apparently) has no free will and accepts the roles others give him. It's only natural then that he ends up having a lot of dreams he never managed to fulfill, while those around him seem to live more fuller lives than him. George then basically has crisis of faith, so God sends Clarence to help George accept his life as is and realize that being an angel on Earth is George's sole purpose. Once George finally recognizes this at the end and accepts his old life back (the one that almost drove him to suicide), Clarence gets his wings for accomplishing his task. George being a "sleeper angel" would also explain why God would indirectly help him out of all people and not some random WWII orphan whose life actually sucks.
Even the way in which Clarence shows George the George-less world is dubious. George is basically given a crash course on the horrors of this world, which makes him feel like a crazed rat stuck in a George-less maze. Well who wouldn't feel like that and want to leave immediately, when you've just been brought to a world where all of a sudden you have no past, friends, family, job or even a valid I.D. Well of course he wants to leave immediately. He's like an unwilling guest in some strange alien world. He'd want to go home by default. If Clarence had given him a chance to absorb it all from "safe distance" or as one of the people who have a neutral status in this new world, he would have been able to paint for himself a more complete picture of the impact that his absence had left here.
Then George could explore the impact (or lack there of) that his absence had left on EVERYONE (not just those closest to him). Did it lead to ONLY bad things happening to EVERYONE?
Clarence could have also shown George what further impact his old life will have on those in his world and if George will ONLY bring good to EVERYONE in the future if he goes back.
But who needs complexity. George is a "sleeper angel" and a world without George/angel = hell (or at the very least limbo), while world with him = heaven (or at least a place where hope is alive).
George's town is close to Heaven on Earth. People are content, there are no wicked people and the morally weak are in the end offered help and compassion. The only truly bad man in town is a cartoonish, greedy villain who will (as is implied) get his comeuppance in the afterlife.
People in George-less world are wicked, angry, lustful, envious, cruel and hateful. It almost feels like Clarence gave George a glimpse into the actual real world in order to "scare him straight", teach him a lesson and get him to want to go back to his fairy tale town.
And maybe this whole George-less hell is just Clarence's agenda-driven illusion and not some actual alternate reality. I mean, this world's Donna Reed is a lonely, unmarried, old librarian... Now that's just ridicules. Donna Reed is NOT a lonely, unmarried, old librarian in ANY town, world, or universe...
That's why the "scared straight" approach from Dicken's Christmas Carol, an actual, far better developed, Christmas classic, feels much more honest.
Anyway, George in the end gives in, accepts his predestined fate of being the one who lives only to improve the lives of others, abandons his dreams and agrees to instead live his dad's dream of running the company.
Anyone who after all this thinks this movie is socialist should read their Bible again (especially the part with Christ). Religion, predestination and fate fuel this movie, while compassion and self-sacrifice are primarily shown from the perspective of Christian centrism not socialism (Stallone's F.I.S.T. (1978), the fictional biopic of Jimmy Hoffa, is more of a socialist movie than this) or even the Christian left.
Especially annoying is the subtle yet absolute and almost chauvinistic condemnation of George's dreams. The movie insinuates that he'll end up disappointed if he goes after them, since without "his people/flock" and him "at home" with them, everyone, including him, will only suffer. There is nothing out there for him. He was born here and belongs here and everything should remain as it was for ever. His town basically represents the good old days, and the George-less town stands for the bad new days with cabarets and strippers.
The movie is too serious for kids (direction-wise) and too cartoonish for adults (screenplay-wise), so it ends up being a fairy tale for adults and NOT an adult fairy tale like, for instance, Wim Wenders' Until the End of the World (1991). It's funny that the most fantastical part of the movie is the incredibly unrealistic depiction of George and his world and not the guardian angel himself.
In the end, analyzing this movie is much more fun than watching it.
Maybe some new generations of filmmakers will one day come up with a grownup version of this story(and not a simple trite remake).