Where you are affects how you see a movie

Rating: Null/10 (31 January 2004)

Possible spoilers -- ending discussed in vague, general terms
This movie is a moralistic one with a lot of important messages, but, dominantly, that it is important to learn to take satisfaction in a life that may not seem as glamorous or as exciting as the lives that others lead.
In this movie, George Bailey (James Stewart)learns that lesson. He isn't as wealthy as some. He's never gotten to travel, BUT he has done a lot of good. He has a home. He has a family. He has lots of friends. And he has helped many, many people to live better lives. He comes to appreciate himself and appreciate what he has.
This was not a fun movie for me. My husband is in the process of suing me for divorce and breaking up our family, precisely because he has failed to learn the lesson that this movie shows George Bailey learning, the lesson that life is not perfect, but it is still a blessing, and you can learn to take joy in something that is not everything you dreamed of. I don't think this movie is going to shake him out of his dogged determination to break up our family, either. As a result, the movie seemed pretty empty to me. There is no angel coming down here to set things right. There aren't hundreds of eager friends rushing in and trying to help.
Moreover, it's a little hard to imagine a real person who has had as much positive effect on the world as George Bailey did. I mean his character is a real angel. How many people saved the lives of two others when they were just children? This just isn't very realistic.
On another topic, my son, who is 10, had a really hard time with the part of the movie where George Bailey is shown how horrible his hometown would be without him. My son found this part too upsetting and demanded that we fast forward through it to get to the happy ending. People had told me that this was a suitable movie for children, but I don't agree, based on my son's reactions. This movie lacks sex (the bedroom scenes are filmed in PJs) and has very little violence, but that doesn't mean that it is suitable for children. It's really an adult movie. It shows real, adult suffering. The period of suspense is too long for a child.
Moreover, the kinds of social interactions that are shown are much too sophisticated for a child to understand. My son just couldn't follow it without a lot of questions answered -- and that was a problem because the sound quality on the video we rented was really lousy, so we couldn't hear even with the volume turned up on max, especially when my son asked questions.
Now for some trivia
I can't help noticing in these old movies that people talk with an odd lilt. The only person who seems to talk normally is James Stewart. Does anyone know, do the other actors talk the way they do because American English has changed with time? Or do they speak the way some Hollywood acting coach taught them to speak to meet studio expectations?
Another thing that I notice about this film is that they have Jimmy Stewart playing George Bailey from high school up through middle age -- and also Donna Reed playing the same range of ages. They just don't do the very young ages convincingly.
Another thing I notice about these older films is that there are a lot more roles for older actors. More modern films don't seem to show very many people with grey hair.