New posts

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Willie Oleson" data-source="post: 403157" data-attributes="member: 8">IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE (1946)[ATTACH=full]53617[/ATTACH]After listening to George Bailey loudly yapping away for 45 minutes I almost lost the will to live, so I decided to stop and continue the next day.The story sort of begins when George decides to give up his dream to "conquer the world" in order to keep his deceased father's business in operation.I enjoyed the rivalry with town's villain Mr. Potter, and all things considered it looked as if George was being quite successful.I mean, how many people own a whole neighbourhood? Even Guzzler and Bobby Ewing couldn't pull if off.But it is also the ordinary money problem that changes the course of the story, and not a turmoil within George himself.Enter almost-angel Clarence with his HannaBarbera-esque story arc about getting wings.Suicical George enters the Twilight Zone of Bedford Falls, now Pottersville, but that profound insight and gratitude actually never really happens.Clarence simply blackmails him into reappreciating his life by showing the consequences of a George-less Bedford Falls.Of course he doesn't want his brother to die, of course he doesn't want another boy to die because of a medication mix-up and of course  he doesn't want the poor, grieving Mr. Gower to go to jail and become the town's outcast.It says nothing about how wonderful life is, it only shows that no  life is even worse.And so George goes back to his stalker-wife and her strange musical impulses, and continues to embrace his life of passive-aggressive happiness.Unlike the other George from that other sitcom world, Pleasantville, George Bailey has learnt absolutely nothing.That also makes the last scenes in which the schmaltz reaches its boiling point so difficult to watch - the story hasn't deserved it.But regardless how I feel about all that - or George's character in general - I think James Stewart gives a very talented performance, especially when he's quietly breaking down at Martini's bar.I understand that they wanted to get the most out of him, but a different actor in the role of young adult George would have been preferred.Donna Reed's Mary is the woman who loves more than she receives, and this kind of compromise and imbalance is usually more prone to failure.Narrative-wise that makes it a little harder to root for her and yet somehow it makes her look more sympathetic. After all, true love is about giving, not the receiving.I also like to mention Gloria Grahame in a small but great role as town's vamp Violet, although the kids versions are even better.Actually, there is a scene that looks oddly risqué for this type of film.After witnessing Violet's sex appeal causing a bit of traffic chaos, police officer Bert says that "it's time to go home and see what's the wife doing".He demonstratively checks his watch, but taxi driver Eddie's semi-sarcastic "family man!" comment kinda reveals Bert's charade.In other but thinly veiled words: Bert is going home to have dirty sexy intercourse with his unsuspecting wife, while fantasizing about Violet's pretty legs.I think this film is way too problematic to call it a wholesome and profound experience (of course I don't mean the Bert/Violet situation) and at the same time it lacks the bite of an interesting dramatic conflict, the few moments of domestic violence notwithstanding.And sometimes it feels as if it's never going to end.But it looks very well-made and the actors are very entertaining. And the "hee-haw!" always made me laugh.6/10</blockquote>

Verification: What month follows July?