IGX

Cayenne wrote: ↑Wed Dec 25, 2019 2:36 pm I have not watched it in some time, but one detail I've thought about many times over the years is when Donna Reed takes Jimmy Stewart to the old, broken-down house that, against his, "travel the world" fantasies, will become their home, and as he ascends the stairs, the post cap of the stairway railing comes off in his hand.

Years later, after renovating the house and raising a family, in a moment of crisis, as he rushes up the steps, the post cap once again comes off in his hand, indicating that with all the demands of life he never got around to fixing it or, never fixed it adequately or perhaps, even though he fixed it, the problem came back.

I have heard 'the existential dilemma" described as being the result of the fact that we are "finite beings in an infinite universe." We can do or have perhaps, almost anything, but we can't do and have everything. We may "get the girl, fix the house, have the kids, have the career, etc." but it may come at the cost of "traveling the world" and even of getting the post cap of the stairway fixed just right.

That "small" moment in the movie is, for me, a potent reminder of that bittersweet reality.

Cayenne wrote: ↑Wed Dec 25, 2019 2:36 pm That "small" moment in the movie is, for me, a potent reminder of that bittersweet reality.

But The Dukes of Hazzard, which was not that good but not bad either, isn't on reruns because the PIC don't want "those people" portrayed as anything but the Klan, or at best deplorables.

motherjuggs&speed wrote: ↑Sun Dec 29, 2019 9:35 am https://www.chicagotribune.com/entertai ... olumn.html

newguy wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2019 3:06 am
There was a book on happiness. Chasing the Tiger Tail or something. And it made in its own way a very profound distinction between what fulfills us in the short term vs. that long term sense of happiness. And it made the point that people with kids on a moment to moment basis are less happy....but on a deeper long term level are more happy.

We are human. Not wolf. We cannot live for that moment to moment pleasure. I tried that for a two year period (or I've tried that.....) The pursuit of that instant vicarious pleasure is fine but empty.

I don't want to draw too deep of parallels but I've been very drawn to what happened with Anthony Bourdain. We all thought he had this ideal life, travelling place to place, eating wonderful food, drinking, all that.

The point that this chasing the tiger tail book tried to make was that we as humans are made for both a sense of short term fulfillment, but that we also need a long term goal/ideal and some suffering. We are happiest when we suffer in the short term for what we define as a higher purpose.

motherjuggs&speed wrote: ↑Sun Dec 29, 2019 9:35 am This movie sucked. It's only considered a classic since no one bothered to renew the copyright, thus making it super cheap for tv stations to air endlessly. Plus it's insidious leftist propaganda. George never got to do what he really wanted but that's okay, the town (collective, party, state) was more important. The capitalist is evil of course and the people who wanted their money out of the bank were bad people and those who left theirs in despite knowing the bank might fail utterly are the good people: "how much do you really need?" Mrs. Bailey asks people, as if it's any of her damned business.

But in a way I almost like it. I like where George is wrecked and he sees that his life has come to nothing. It feels real, and it plays real, since JS was a combat vet at that point and knew something of the darkness. But what changed after Clarence? Everything still sucks, his life was still wasted, but see, everyone wuvs him. It's just a matter of time before he gets hammered drunk again and goes off the bridge. This short read gives some perspective on how JS felt while filming -- https://www.chicagotribune.com/entertai ... olumn.html

I just read the plot to make sure I hadn't missed anything. The ending was even dumber and more contrived than I thought. This movie is an example of mass psychosis.

Turdacious wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 7:21 am

motherjuggs&speed wrote: ↑Sun Dec 29, 2019 9:35 am This movie sucked. It's only considered a classic since no one bothered to renew the copyright, thus making it super cheap for tv stations to air endlessly. Plus it's insidious leftist propaganda. George never got to do what he really wanted but that's okay, the town (collective, party, state) was more important. The capitalist is evil of course and the people who wanted their money out of the bank were bad people and those who left theirs in despite knowing the bank might fail utterly are the good people: "how much do you really need?" Mrs. Bailey asks people, as if it's any of her damned business.

But in a way I almost like it. I like where George is wrecked and he sees that his life has come to nothing. It feels real, and it plays real, since JS was a combat vet at that point and knew something of the darkness. But what changed after Clarence? Everything still sucks, his life was still wasted, but see, everyone wuvs him. It's just a matter of time before he gets hammered drunk again and goes off the bridge. This short read gives some perspective on how JS felt while filming -- https://www.chicagotribune.com/entertai ... olumn.html

I just read the plot to make sure I hadn't missed anything. The ending was even dumber and more contrived than I thought. This movie is an example of mass psychosis.

I remember the movie pretty well, I probably watched it once or twice every year while growing up.

1. Bailey wasn't just a banker, he was in the real estate business, as was Potter. Bailey was more in the development and new construction side, while Potter wanted to buy and own rental properties at a discount rate. Both were capitalists.
2. Banks in the pre-FDIC period were at high risk of failure, and financial types trying to corner the market in various commodities were often the cause, or exacerbated relatively minor problems. The Panics of 1901 and 1907 were examples that were still in the memory of older adult viewers when this film came out. In this case, Potter was trying to corner the residential and commercial retail market, and a big part of his strategy was eliminating competition (like the S&L that Bailey ran and the development of owner occupied homes that Bailey was building). Potter was trying to create a monopoly/oligopoly, while Bailey was creating capitalistic competition. And Bailey was pretty successful (but presumably not successful enough to survive a bank run)-- while he built decent suburban middle class homes, he lived in a nicer fully renovated home in the old money part of town.
3. Bank runs were also still common, and running out of cash could ruin a bank and, by extension, anyone who had a loan with the bank. The viewers of this film, who remembered the Great Depression, would know this. Mrs. Bailey's question was prudent. It was also in her family's financial self interest-- without access to capital, the citizens of Bedford Falls wouldn't be able to buy the homes her husband was developing.
4. The idea that George's life is wasted is ridiculous. He has a family he is responsible for, and obligations to his community-- the idea that it's inevitable that he would give in to selfishness and cowardice rather than responsibility is pretty nihilistic. Why's it unreasonable to think he hardened the fuck up and overcame his momentary weakness to fulfill his obligations (like millions of men who hate their jobs do everyday)? This ethos saves thousands of morons from getting deservedly punched every day.
5. Bailey's dad, who he took the S&L over from, was a capitalist too. He didn't give money away, he made loans based on pretty standard criteria of the time-- Potter had higher standards and demanded more collateral and charged higher rates. Bailey's dad, while not as ambitious and successful as his son, did alright as well. Bailey's dad probably would have done better if he was more frugal like his son (let's be honest-- he wasn't doing well enough to justify hiring a mammy).
6. Fuck Potter-- he stole money that he knew was Bailey's. That's not capitalism, it's outright theft.
5. Save your anger for the remake-- Back to the Future II

DikTracy6000 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:24 pm Damn Turd, you got ALL that from the movie? While I like the movie overall, the Commie undertone is obvious, and Donna Reed is the likely instigator for that. Newguy's comment was dead-on.