generations who have a woeful lack of historical knowledge and
therefore a tainted or uneducated perception on our cultural evolution. What is preposterous is learning that
apparently no one on the USA Today’s editorial staff is any more mature or
enlightened than the author.
Erin
Jensen begins by stating that she didn’t find the movie to be “merry or bright”
although she concludes by saying that she did find herself “getting choked up”
during the ending scenes of the movie.
It would appear we need a definition of merry and bright from this literary
scholar.
She
has trouble with endorsing seventy-year-old visual effects. Any person with an expectation of enjoying today’s
modern miracles in a motion picture from that era would have to be delusional. To allow the story line or overall message of
the movie to be lost or dampened by such nonsense only suggests she was looking
for any little disturbing nuance she could find to support a very weak
argument.
Ms.
Jensen is also very disturbed at George’s yelling and screaming at his wife and
children when it becomes apparent he is on his way to jail. Did she expect to see him dancing through the
door of their home singing “Jingle Bells” when he is facing the same fate as Bernie
Madoff?
She
is no less troubled by her contention that we needed more of a resolution as to
Potters behavior. This thought clearly
indicates how very badly she missed the message of the movie and/or how
unobservant she is as witness to human greed and dishonest comportment. Is she living in La-La Land by expecting to
see Potter make amends? Ms. Jensen is
obviously unaware that Wall Street never paid back a nickel of what they deceitfully
absconded with. Did she want to see his
theft uncovered and Potter punished? How
many Wall Street executives were punished?
She is unable to appreciate that all of Potter’s wealth and greed has done
nothing more than turn him into “a warped, frustrated old man.” But most importantly, none of this has anything
to do with creating the message of caring, love, compassion and giving through
a sense of strong community. As Potter
is void of any semblance of that kind of decency he will be left with a lonely existence
while George and Mary Baily end up the richest people in town.
Which
brings us to Ms. Jensen’s motivation. It’s
not until her contention that “It’s laughable…(that) Mary (Donna
Reed)
suffers the worst fate of all in a world without George.” She is absolutely outraged that Mary needed
the deep love of another human being (especially a man) to experience life’s
greatest joys and success. She seems to
be oblivious as to our culture and lifestyle in the 1940’s. Women didn’t have the opportunities they
enjoy today. Yet, they had the greatest
impact on our society and culture as mothers and wives as the movie accurately
depicts. For it was primarily their love
and devotion that was the backbone and very foundation of a society and culture
that served us so superbly for decades.
We
all know that there has never been a movie made that appealed to everyone. Value and beauty are always in the eye of the
beholder. Yet some sense of proper
perspective and intelligence needs to be the basis for any argument, pro or
con. Ms. Jensen’s article has nothing to
do with honestly or accurately evaluating a classic motion picture. She rather attempts to further discredit a
lifestyle that has long since evaded us.
Her major objective was to further her own point of view on a social
issue. In the final analysis she did
nothing to diminish just how wonderful “A Wonderful Life” is or the fact
that audiences will continue to love, value and find it merry and bright for at least
another seventy years.
