Bailey v. Kane

Rating: 9/10 (27 December 2004)

An acquaintance of mine recently commented that she thought there was an interesting correlation between this film and Orson Welles' Citizen Kane.
George Bailey was the man that Charles Foster Kane would have liked to have been. Kane's tragedy was that like a hereditary king, he was thrust into the center of momentous events, and expected to live up to the duties. Unlike George Bailey, though, he had no real nemesis whose punches he had to block. Bailey was trying to better the lives of those around him, by foiling the actions of Potter.
Also, while Kane became a more complex Mr. Potter, he never gave up the longing for a more simple life. This, of course, was personified by Rosebud; it was his Persian Flaw, but one which he never revealed to anyone lest they discover a chink in his armor. By contrast, Mr. Potter had no real longing for simplicity. He saw money and power as the only real gains in his life, and didn't care what anyone thought of him. Witness his speech in his attempt to woo Bailey to his side, "...you know I own almost everything in this town and most people hate my guts...". Potter, although powerful, like Kane, didn't have the same goals. He is very much the spider that Bailey says he is.
Conversely, Bailey probably could do the job that Charles Foster Kane did. He was capable of handling a stressful job, and once warmed to it, did a good job. Unlike Kane, however, he would use the power of the Press for the common good, since that is his ultimate goal. That's a thought I find most amusing, actually: imagine Jimmy Stewart in the Welles production!