Frances Goodrich, Albert Hackett, Jo Swerling, and Frank Capra, 1945ish
For this screenplay, I don't want to do my usual armature-and-7-steps format. Rather, there's something else I want to talk about.
Someone about this story bothers me. I don't think the lesson quite fixes the main character's problem. Let me explain. (if you don't want the plot of the movie to be spoiled, don't read this post.)
George Bailey spends the entire film wanting to get out of his small town. As a kid he wants to travel. As a young adult, he wants to go to college. After he gets married, he wants to Honeymoon in Europe. But things keep getting in the way, and George stays in his small town because he puts other people in need before himself. He is never able to leave. Eventually, this takes a toll on him. Just before the climax, George Bailey is frustrated with the world for keeping him from the life he wants, while many other people he knows get to follow their dreams. He is angry at everyone because life has been unfair to him. He is stuck.
This is resolved when the angel Clarence shows him a world where he never existed. Everything is drastically different. People he knows ended up in different places, his family business got shut down, the town has a different name. This frightens George, and he realizes that he really wants his life back. He wants the things he thought he didn't want. And when Clarence gives it back to him, he is grateful for all the people he knows and they all show their appreciation by helping him out of a big fix.
The lesson here seems to be "be grateful for your life and the connections you make, because it's better than you think." George doesn't want his life for, essentially, his whole life. But then it's taken from him, and he understands that he does want his life. So he learns the lesson.
This bothers me because it doesn't seem to quite add up. I sympathize greatly with George's inability to go find his dreams. His problem the whole film isn't that he doesn't want his life, or wishes he didn't exist. His problem is that he wants to do something greater. He wants to serve mankind by building cities and bridges, not live in a run-down old house and run a loan business. He's driven to suicide because he can't get this, and hasn't been able to get this for his whole life. So I feel like Clarence isn't fixing that problem, Clarence is fixing the suicidal problem. Clarence makes him want to stay alive, but Clarence doesn't give him the ability to leave town and see the world. George Bailey still does not get to leave.
To be fair, George is kept in town the whole film by his own morality. He doesn't leave because he feels a great sense of duty to the people who need his help, but he technically had a few opportunities to leave if he ignored those people. It could be argued that this means George really did want to stay in town the whole time, and Clarence just made him see that. But I disagree; I think George is simply a selfless, good person who genuinely wants to help people, more than he wants to help himself. But if that was the case, then wouldn't the ultimate reward be the granting of his selfish dreams? Because he is a good person, he finally gets to leave and travel, like he always wanted?
The reward ends up being "this place you're stuck in isn't too bad, look at all these people who love you! You should be satisfied with that!" And that's not a bad reward. It isn't a bad thing that George sees the value in his life. But it bothers me that he is stuck with his life and has no choice but to see value in it, instead of pursuing the life he really wants.
So I feel like the message here isn't as much "be grateful for your life" as it is "good ethics will not let you follow your dreams."
If anyone has any thoughts on this, please comment. Maybe I just don't value the things they used to value in the 40s, and back then something like staying at home and being happy was more important than following your dreams.
No comments:
Post a Comment