Think about it: In one scene George helps bring manufacturing to Bedford Falls. But since the era of ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ manufacturing in upstate New York has suffered terribly…

What a grim thought: Had George Bailey never been born, the people in his town might very well be better off today.”

Right, because it is better to live in squalor and poverty than to ever have any chance at any opportunities. So says the NY Times, and who can doubt their wisdom. How dare he bring manufacturing anywhere? He should live in a tree communing with nature until a bear eats him, or he freezes/starves as nature intended. That would be wonderful.

Sadly this writer is stuck in a huge metropolis built on the backs of unimaginable manufacturing and industry… I guess the guilt got to him for this to be his submission.

It’s the only way to be sure.

I checked my theory with Frank J. Clark, the district attorney for Erie County upstate, where, as far as I can tell, the fictional Bedford Falls is set. He thought it over, and then agreed: George would still face prosecution and possible prison time.

The NY Times actually pays this guy to check the accuracy of fiction? I must wonder how much longer that will go on. What is next for this guy, pondering how much jail time Santa should get for breaking into homes and trespassing?

I wonder that Shaidle makes comment on the commentary here while not even allowing commentary at her own blog.

Reminds me of another blogger in the centre of the known universe. Used to work for a guy named Chretien.

Jim708 on December 21, 2008 at 8:01 PM

I wondered the same thing. The sad part is that her site has very reasoned Conservative commentary. I would enjoy it if (as I would also appreciate Blakes postings) if they just weren’t so insulting and such bomb throwers. And I’ll throw out an apology to them both right here for what it’s worth to either one of them for posting in kind. I honestly think it solves nothing and hate it when any of us get that way. Me in particular.

Should I be amazed? I guess not really. Its how atheists are.

TheMightyQuinn on December 21, 2008 at 2:17 AM

So you know how all atheists are…. cool. Guess that means I can make blanket statements about everyone who believes in some all powerful diety, correct?

In the words of one of your fellow believers and in the grand Christian tradition of hypocrisy, GFY.

The only disagreement I have with the article is the writer’s description of the scene where George and Mary first kiss. That scene, with Mary and George sharing the receiver as they are talking to Sam on the phone is one of the most erotic scenes in all of movie history. The chemistry between Donna Reed and Jimmy Stewart is electrifying. George wants Mary, but he knows it means never leaving Bedford Falls. Mary has loved George since she was a little girl and she doesn’t understand his conflict. George wasn’t being cruel to Mary. Cruel would have been if he had listened to his head (and not his heart and his dick) and walked out. He didn’t. He did the right thing.

Jaynie59 on December 21, 2008 at 6:03 PM

I think the movie is about sacrifice: yeah, living in the big city is cool, and if one has an opportunity to go there and has to pass it up to live in a one-horse town… anyway, I can see why that message would fly over any number of learned, oh-so-cool heads.

In New York, Mr. Moss added, Gov. David A. Paterson “is under enormous pressure to allow gambling upstate because of the economic problems.”

“We ease up on our lot of cultural behaviors in a depression,” he said

Wrong, Mr. Moss, you worthless ignorant amoral piece of crap.

Check the divorce and illegitimacy stats–and others–during the Depression of the 1930s. The opposite of what this garbage-article says

There have been ugly threads on this blog before, but in a way this is possibly the worst. It’s not even worth taking on, but I just wanted to express my disgust

GFY, AllahP. Really, dude, GFY

BUT: would I trade my anonymous, leave-me-alone big city for a place where — egads! — “everybody knows your name”, and business?

No way.

fivefeetoffury on December 21, 2008 at 9:25 AM

I also left my small town for the big city. I appreciate the city for certain qualities, but if I moved back to my small town, I’d appreciate it for other qualities. I often think whether I’d be happier in the small town. My interpretation is that all situations have pros and cons. If you focus on the cons, like earlier in the movie, things are miserable. Focus on the pros, like at the end, things are better. The actual situation is immaterial.

Reminds me of another blogger in the centre of the known universe. Used to work for a guy named Chretien.

“I was doing my best to conjure a dyed-haired, wry, angry-young-man teenage persona”

Why is it that every time I read a story like this the author seems to always reveal themselves to have been an angry teenager? In this case he refers to himself as an “angry young man”. I think he still sees life with the mentality of an angry teenager. Who else would watch “It’s a Wonderful Life” and then write:

“George is further emasculated when his bad hearing keeps him out of World War II, and then it’s Christmas Eve 1945. These scenes — rather than the subsequent Bizarro-world alternate reality — have always been the film’s defining moments for me. All the decades of anger boil to the surface.”

I guess some people never change.

It’s hard to imagine the following article helping to raise the stock price, especially at this time of year. ……

The only disagreement I have with the article is the writer’s description of the scene where George and Mary first kiss. That scene, with Mary and George sharing the receiver as they are talking to Sam on the phone is one of the most erotic scenes in all of movie history. The chemistry between Donna Reed and Jimmy Stewart is electrifying. George wants Mary, but he knows it means never leaving Bedford Falls. Mary has loved George since she was a little girl and she doesn’t understand his conflict. George wasn’t being cruel to Mary. Cruel would have been if he had listened to his head (and not his heart and his dick) and walked out. He didn’t. He did the right thing.

Like the previous comment says, It’s a Wonderful Life is about making a difference and being an honorable man. That’s why when Harry says “To my big brother George, the richest man in town” it’s true.

My ears were fed a steady stream of the Clash and the Jam

Yeah, so were mine. Then I grew the hell up, unlike this writer.

…store this review away for later…it’ll come in handy….

…it’s as good an example as you’re gonna get of those folks who’ve grown so cool that they’re completely useless….

…if movies are the literature of our lazy, degraded spot on the timeline, then this review is a sign of the reason why the timeline has sunk so far….

…movies relay our emotions, aspirations, jealosies and hatreds…we only write today is only used for snarky remarks about achievers…to prove how small we’ve become….

Commenters at HotAir are outraged by a NYT piece by a guy who doesn’t like It’s A Wonderful Life. (Actually, that’s too simplistic a description; you have to read the whole thing, and I suspect a lot of those furious commenters didn’t, which makes their alleged moral superiority highly suspect.)

I didn’t read anything “furious” here. I was quite insulted when I read the above quoted comment on your site though. Is HA just a place where you come to collect material for your site from where we brainless commoners wallow in our mistruths?

“I can only assume this is why the HotAir commenters are so defensive — honesty strikes a painful nerve in some people.”

fivefeetoffury on December 21, 2008 at 12:14 PM

Oh, I be so p’wned.

Let’s see, used the classic work on your reading skills insult. Then injected things that were never said. Chastised me for misspelling your name in the same post where you abbreviate mine.

Oh yeah, I be p’wned!

On the other hand, I love superhero movies. Going in I recognize it is a fantasy and certain amount of grace is required to overlook obvious reality flaws.

It’s a Wonderful Life is a fantasy about the grace George receives that rescues him from his despair. Too bad this reviewer missed this point completely. He is judging it in present day context as a “real world” story and failing to extended any grace of his own to the film.

The article is what passes in the NYT as “edgy” and “bold.” Take down a cultural icon by ignoring the message of the movie and focusing on other details of the story.

eff him if he cant appreciate art.

I mean, with all the fine examples of movies without a plot and my favorite, a historic account being told to you by none other than tom cruise.

l o l

It’s a Wonderful Life was never intended to be either quaint or harmless. You are imposing your own superficial reading and misremembered viewing sensations upon a film that is NOT sentimental or sappy — which is the point of the NYT article.

Also: work on your reading comprehension. Lots of men on this thread ARE making fun of the writer for being (they presume) a stuck up, latte sipping _city boy_.

Maybe you should leave the film studies and other heavy analytical lifting to others.

I didn’t detect any “making fun of you” in anything I read, btw hawk.

Again: YOUR defensiveness and hostility, as well as your poor powers of perception, are making you look very foolish. I guess when you post anonymously it’s easier to get away with being a blustering goof.

PS: spell my name right next time.

Er, there’s sex in the WSJ? (kidding)

hawkdriver on December 21, 2008 at 11:51 AM

Yeah, some of their ink dot drawings have been known to get pretty racy. :-)

fivefeetoffury on December 21, 2008 at 11:30 AM

Geez Katie, you thought this was worth an entire thread making fun of us over on your site huh? Snickies, quoting yourself both places? Lots of indignant chest thumping too. lol, Lots of mirrors in your place huh?

fivefeetoffury on December 21, 2008 at 11:30 AM

Did “you” read the entire article? The point is not that we’re making fun of his preferred habitational environment, he’s making fun of ours. I don’t give a rat rear-end where he (or you) choose to live. Does that choice somehow make it necessary to deride an otherwise harmless and quaint old movie that’s become somewhat of a holiday tradition to many of us?