This and "The Wizard of Oz"

Rating: 10/10 (24 December 2007)

One thinks of only two films, out of the 100-year history of cinema from its earliest days, that so joyfully embrace audiences' hearts from cradle to grave, as "The Wizard of Oz" and "It's a Wonderful Life." Ironically, it took television, that trust-busting nemesis of the studio system, to permanently embed these two films in the national -- even global -- psyche.
Neither film was a financial success upon its initial release. "Oz," because it cost so much to produce, and sold so many tickets to children (at 25 cents a ticket!) . . . and "Wonderful Life" because it was so dark and complex.
"Oz" got largely terrific reviews at its release. "Wonderful Life" received more mixed reviews.
Only with the advent of annual repeated showings on television did "Oz" begin showing a real profit, and "Wonderful Life" become recognized for the multi-faceted perfect rarity that it is.
The primal emotional appeal of both these films is so fundamental to the human condition -- and so brilliantly realized in both -- that it's clear why these two works are nearly as much a part of human lives -- not just in America -- as are some of the world's major religious stories.
"Oz" and "Wonderful Life" are as much a part of our lives as Santa Claus. And our relationship to that jolly old elf changes as we grow year to year, reflecting as much about our own life adventures as those of Dorothy or George.
In both films, the archetype is the same: "I want to get home again, but look what's happening to me!" Same theme worked for the ancient Greek dramatists. The theme ALWAYS works, because it's everybody's theme.
But look at the difference in treatment, from "Oz" to "Wonderful Life" (which was made five years later, near the conclusion of WWII).
"Oz," though dark and frightening enough (thanks to Margaret Hamilton's witch) that the UK required adults to accompany their children to screenings, bounces along on the songs and music and spectacle -- and primarily 16 year old Judy Garland's uncanny performance.
"Wonderful Life" is something altogether different, more complex and unsettling. Audiences of 1944 weren't prepared for nor did they expect any of this from Frank Capra, Jimmy Stewart (nor newcomer Donna Reed).
Exploring the notion of the enormous impact of one's "little" life on so many others' -- through the device of revisiting that life as if one had committed suicide -- is audacious and brilliant! A magnitude beyond the origins of the children's story that was Frank L. Baum's original intent in "Oz."
Just as Judy Garland's performance is the heart of "Oz," so is James Stewart's achievement in "Wonderful Life." Then again, one can't remember a false moment from Jimmy, in any film.
But Bedford Falls is not over the rainbow. "Wonderful Life" rather rapidly builds from young love to marriage and children to financial problems to ruin in the community to suicide.
Huh? Wasn't this supposed to be a feel-good Capra film? Henry Travers miraculously shows up as everybody's favorite personification of an Angel. A Good Guy, obviously, but he has to earn his wings by diverting George from suicide and helping him realize his own tremendous value as an ordinary human being.
So we enter the nightmare world of Bedford Falls as it would have been had George not gone on living.
And it really IS a nightmare. None of this extended sequence is made "nice" nor glossed over. It touches on the exploitation of the poor, the corruption of power, the triumph of greed and avarice over the Golden Rule and Love, hate, fear, mistrust, alcoholism, prostitution . . .
What? In a Frank Capra movie from 1944? All so economically scripted and impeccably designed, lit, photographed, acted, edited and DIRECTED . . . that the film itself becomes the REAL miracle behind the one it depicts on screen.
As of this writing, you can still watch the last ten minutes on YouTube.
Film-making doesn't get any better.