Categories
general freedom ideological culture

It’s a Heroic Life

“An icon with such well-​established status is an irresistible target,” The Bulwark’s Claire Coffey writes about the holiday season favorite, It’s a Wonderful Life, “and the competition to come up with the definitive contrarian takedown of the film is now a Christmas sub-​tradition in its own right.”

Last year, I had to correct Washington Post columnist Monica Hesse, who belittled protagonist George Bailey as “the tortured Boy Scout-​type,” arguing that Mary, his wife, was “the real hero.”

One of the nicest things about the movie is that mythical Bedford Falls has a lot of ordinary heroes … just like in real life. And Mary is right at the top of the list. But with her husband George, whom she dearly loves, not instead of or as his chief competition. 

“George Bailey Isn’t the Hero of ‘It’s a Wonderful Life,’” insists the headline to Mickey Randle’s recent column at Collider, where we learn that “many of [George’s] responses to hardship” are “less than admirable.” I don’t know about “many,” but George does throw something of a tantrum upon discovering that his business will go bankrupt and he likely end up in prison. 

Hate me if you must, but I might throw a momentary fit, too, at that set of circumstances.

“Mary bears almost identical burdens,” notes Randle, “and always responds productively.” Of course, even Mary gets angry in one scene and smashes one of her favorite records. Apparently, this wonderful woman is not perfect. Who knew?

Randle concludes by calling the movie “significant because of its observations on gender,” suggesting: “We just have to remember to see things from Mary’s perspective.” 

But can anyone who knows Mary claim that George is not a hero from her perspective?

One major point of attack on the film has been the idea that, if George “had never been born,” the sweet and beautiful Mary would certainly not be “an old maid,” as depicted. Granted, her being single would not be for lack of trying by every able-​bodied, cisgendered male person in Pennsylvania. But in her piece at The Bulwark, Coffey gets this right by noticing, “Mary could marry any man in town. She doesn’t want to. She wants George.”

Seems to me the criticism is intended to obscure the powerful moral of this movie: that good guys and good gals are winners, not losers. And that two people in love and committed to doing what they think is right are as unconquerable as anything this world has ever known. 

When push comes to shove, I put my faith in that tantrum-​throwing George Bailey and the record-​smashing Mary Bailey … working together. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with DALL-​E2

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture

Heroism & Love Abounding

“I cannot express how much I love this movie,” Monica Hesse writes in her Christmas eve Washington Post column about It’s a Wonderful Life (Frank Capra, dir.; 1946).* Yet she mocks protagonist George Bailey as “the tortured Boy Scout-​type” and contends that “Mary Bailey is the true hero.” Meaning that her husband George — beloved by many in fictional Bedford Falls — is not the “true hero.”

Puh-​lease. 

Even Mr. Potter, the movie’s villain, acknowledges that Bailey is “no ordinary yokel.” George is bright, ambitious, hardworking and, most importantly, a good man — someone who cares about people.

He makes sacrifices: taking over his deceased father’s business instead of going to college with money he has saved; loaning that money to his brother to go in his stead; and once turning down ten times the salary so that folks in the town have “someplace to go without crawling to Potter.”

Hesse ignores all this to mark George as a deadbeat regularly bailed out by his wife, Mary. When in one scene “a market crash threatens to sink the Bailey Building & Loan,” Hesse smugly asks, “whose idea is it to donate George and Mary’s honeymoon funds to keep things afloat?”

Indeed. But George earned that money and, having just shared it with his new bride, would never take it back. Still, many spouses would lack Mary’s quick thinking. 

Hesse belittles George’s existential panic at impending bankruptcy and scandal as “his foul work-​mood,” and highlights Mary as “the one who’s been home all day with a sick toddler.” 

As if a competition. 

Most perplexing for Hesse? “[T]he movie suggests that the saddest thing of all is that Mary Bailey became a librarian.” Well, not exactly. In the world the angel shows, in which George had never been born, it is that Mary “never married,” not the librarian gig, that rocks George.

But had Mary wed a wonderful fellow enjoying a relentlessly happy family, that would hardly demonstrate to George Bailey what the angel Clarence insists, that George’s life mattered.

“The entire movie celebrates the personal sacrifices of a nice man,” claims Hesse, “while ignoring the identical sacrifices of a nice woman.”

It’s a Wonderful Life is told from George’s perspective but doesn’t ignore Mary’s sacrifices at all. If it did, how on earth could Hesse recount them?

Moreover, George and Mary are more than merely “nice.” They have the courage and commitment to do for each other and the world around them … even under enormous stress. 

Both are heroes. Don’t let Monica Hesse or anyone tear them asunder. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


* If you are part of the less than 1 percent who have somehow dodged viewing the ubiquitous film, George’s uncle misplaces (into Potter’s evil hands) $8,000 of the company’s money, which would force the Bailey Building & Loan into bankruptcy likely followed by George’s criminal prosecution. Desperate and unable to come up with the money on Christmas eve, George considers suicide to save the business and his family with his life insurance money. But an angel intervenes and shows George what the world would be like without him. George decides he wants to live and get back to his wife and kids and, when the angel returns him to real life, Mary has rallied all his friends who contribute many times the amount of money needed. Lots of heroes found in this flick.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture media and media people

And So Goes the Academy

On February 28, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) will announce the winners of its annual movie awards. Many Americans watch this Academy Awards show as a rite, treating the “The Oscars” as if it were a big deal.

It certainly isn’t immune to controversy.

This year, a cry went up under the banner “#OscarsSoWhite.” Unlike in the recent past, no black actors or directors were nominated in the big categories. Charges of racism flew fast and wild.

AMPAS is a large but private membership organization, and its membership is overwhelmingly white. So one could “explain” the nomination list entirely on racial grounds.

But it’s not as if the organization doesn’t try to be fair: the voting process, for the final awards, is nothing as crude as America’s bizarre system, which combines first-​past-​the-​post vote counting and selection by the Electoral College. AMPAS uses a form of ranked choice voting, instead.

“Since 2009, the Academy has used instant runoff voting to determine the winner of the coveted Best Picture award,” explains Molly Rockett at Oscar Votes 1 – 2‑3.

The Academy has an interest in ensuring that winners at least enjoy majority support, so the selection process measures overall support, not picking the winner merely by a small plurality of first place votes in a crowded field.

Ms. Rockett tells us that the Academy is trying to racially diversify its membership. Maybe that will change something. Or maybe nothing needs to be changed — it’s not as if the Oscar nominees should be selected by racial quota.

But it is worth remembering that the Oscars sport a more rational democracy than the United States.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


Printable PDF

oscars, movies, racism, voting, elections, Common Sense

 

Categories
too much government

Dubbing vs. Communism

How do you topple a regime?

John Adams said that the American Revolution was effected in “the hearts and minds of the people” before a single shot was fired. But there are many ways to influence hearts and minds in the run-​up to a revolution.

In the Romania of the 1980s, one means was the dubbing of bootlegged foreign movies. It was a one-​woman job: Margareta Nistor’s. She dubbed thousands of films, making hers the best-​known voice in the country.

In a New York Times article and video, “VHS vs. Communism,” Romanian documentary maker Ilinca Calugareanu recalls her childhood under a Communist regime “that, among countless repressions, reduced television to two hours a day of dull propaganda” and other bland, censored fare. But one day, her parents borrowed a VCR and played Hollywood movies all night long. It was “like walking into a secret, magical and free world.”

The female voice translating the dialogue was always the same.

After the 1989 revolution that led to the demise of dictator Nicolae Ceaușescu, Calugareanu learned about Margareta Nistor. Once a translator for state television — which carefully repressed any hints that life was better in the West — Nistor had then teamed up with a “mysterious entrepreneur” who was smuggling in foreign movies.

For many Romanians, the movies provided a lifeline. Their forbidden, exotic glimpses into another way of life helped them both to escape the all-​controlling regime and to resist it.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture

Is Atlas Shrugging?

Atlas Shrugged: Part I, an adaptation of the first third of Ayn Rand’s 1957 bestseller Atlas Shrugged, is hitting theaters.

The movie has been awaited for decades, but some say it’s more than timely. Political commentator Robert Tracinski suggests that its portrayals of the themes of the state stomping the productive individual and the productive individual “going on strike against the creed of self-​sacrifice” are being multifariously echoed in the real world.

Tracinski relates how one moviegoer saw the film at a giant mall built with millions in government subsidies that now stands nearly empty — much like the many empty buildings in the socialism-​ravaged cityscapes of Atlas Shrugged. Other parallels Tracinski sees:

  • The federal government demanding that companies not locate operations in states relatively free of onerous regulation.
  • Environmentalists and regulators seeking to thwart innovative ways of extracting resources from the earth, like hydraulic fracturing to extract natural gas from shale.
  • Government punishing successful companies in order to provide bailouts for failing companies (General Motors, Chrysler).

And entrepreneur Jerry Della Femina just sold his famous eponymous restaurant and abandoned other business ventures. “I’m just not ready to have my wealth redistributed,” Femina explains. “I’m not ready to pay more tax money than the next guy because I provide jobs and because I work a 60-​hour week and I earn more than $250,000 a year.… Read a brilliant book by Ayn Rand called Atlas Shrugged, and you’ll know.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets tax policy

How Not To Be in Pictures

Everybody wants to be in pictures, it’s said. Michiganders, who’ve been funding moviemaking with their taxes for years, should try digital cameras and YouTube. The state’s governor, Rick Snyder, has proposed a new budget slicing and dicing the state’s generous (read: foolhardy) film subsidy and tax credit system.

This is called a “blow to Hollywood.” One nifty headline dramatizes the new situation: “Michigan to Hollywood — Get Off My Lawn,” with photo of Clint Eastwood on the porch of his Gran Torino house, wielding a shotgun. 

Over the top. 

Tax credits and tax subsidies given only to moviemakers are wrong on several grounds, as I’ve argued before (see “Knot Cannibalism” and “Cinema Without Subsidy”). Of course, the red tape and high taxes associated with setting up any business are wrong, too. You may say that the state’s gotta raise funds, but it most definitely shouldn’t kill the geese that lay the eggs, golden or Technicolor. 

Taxes should apply equally, all around. Low taxes evenly spread will entice businesses — including moviemakers — into an area, if other locales remain over-​taxed and confusing.

Some will cry “jobs!” but the word isn’t magic. Real jobs can be measured. Michigan’s subsidies created mainly temporary part-​time jobs for Michiganders. According to a commissioned study, “Michigan spent $378,240.74 per job in 2008; $586,779.18 per job in 2009.” 

No film incentive, it turns out, “has generated as much revenues as it has taken from the treasury.”

Cut. Print.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.