How George Bailey destroyed Bedford Falls

"... Deneen is WAY overthinking this..."
yes...
here's what I see...
I live in the midst of a wide area of Bailey Park-ish type neighborhoods...
my "community" is perhaps 1 out of every hundred families...
where George had a "community" that included perhaps most of the families in Bedford Falls...
he had a relationship with a higher percentage of people but within a smaller area...
my relationships are of a lower percentage of people but over a much larger area...
but the bottom line is that it seems in the "Bailey Park"s of modern America there can be about as much community as there was in the American past with its Bedford Falls...
and, as a pointer to this...
while I've not been "saved" in any way near how George was...
I've certainly been helped at times by the relationships that I have in my "Bailey Park"...
so...
I can use my own experience and imagine the continuing story of George Bailey...
where he and all the others who live in Bailey Park no longer have the high percentage of relationships which existed in the earlier history of Bedford Falls...
but where they all have good relationships of their own choosing which help them in times of need...
progress may have changed the patterns of community...
but progress hasn't eliminated community...
the lack of community seems to be only in the mind of Deneen...

ps: George becomes Mayor...
then Governor...
then President...
all the while serving a wider community...

faith hope love joy peace to all...

A few random thoughts in disagreement with Deneen:

1. It's easy to say, from the perspective of 2007, that George Bailey destroyed Bedford Falls. From the perspective of 1946, who knew the ultimate effect of those subdivisions and modern architecture? If the choice is between the typical postwar subdivision and the typical small town grid layout, the latter is more desirable. If the choice is between owner-occupied postwar-style subdivisions and a renting populace dominated by a lone slumlord, I'll take the subdivisions. Deneen, with the benefit of hindsight, expects George Bailey to have a vision of the future that basically no one at the time shared.

2. At least those pre-1945 houses had hardwood floors, casement windows, etc., and were much better built than what followed in the 1960s. I'm sure the houses in pre-WWII sections of Bailey Park would be coveted by crunchy types today. It's easy to build a front porch.

3. When I was in middle school 20 years ago, I lived in a 1960s/1970s-built subdivision on the edge of a small Indiana town (population 5,000, about 20 miles from Fort Wayne, the nearest "city"). I still could ride my bike to school, to the grocery store, to the video store, and to the houses of my friends who lived in the older parts of town, and given the nature of a small town, where everyone goes to the same schools, grocery store, hardware store, and small handful of churches. It was a community, moreso than other places we lived in more suburban settings. A subdivision like Bailey Park, which per the map is fairly well-integrated into Bedford Falls, would have much less negative impact than in a urban or suburban setting.

4. As for the trees, I sometimes grapple with this. I like to say that our house was built just in time (summer of 1941). Unquestionably, the layout (front porches line the entire street, garages off the alleys or side streets only) and the construction (hardwood floors and trim, casement windows, beautiful arched doorways throughout) are much of what I like about the house. Of course, I also like the lived-in, established feel of the neighborhood and the mature trees. Unlike some other parts of the country, most Indiana neighborhoods were built on former farmland, not wilderness. So, had I lived there in 1941, it would have been a treeless expanse for the most part. All houses were once new and all trees were once saplings.

5. The cemetery thing sometimes creeps me out. Perhaps George was disoriented, or perhaps the cemetery was newer.

Good point, John M:

Now that the trees have grown for 65-70 years in Bailey Park (and presuming it was better built than the Levittowns post-war, which I think it is a safe assumption), that would be one pricey neighborhood now.

That may not be truly "progressive" per DavidTC (though of course any movie directed by Frank Capra has progressive values, possibly none more than IAWL), but it certainly puts the lie to Prof. Deneen.

PS -- I don't think Prof. Deneen gives George credit for a lesson one would think a Crunchy Con would agree with, that Clarence seemed to teach him that fateful Christmas Eve -- "Think globally, act locally."

I have to join the voice of the dissenters, here.

"It's a Wonderful Life," like most films, is fiction; because it's well-done fiction, I'd suggest that it approaches literature. And when we read or watch literature, we should analyze it according to the standards of literature, not superimpose a historical/economic reading based on the criteria of these disciplines.

Interestingly, someone once did this sort of historical/economic analysis of Dickens' "A Christmas Carol," and argued that the unreformed Scrooge was the true hero of the piece. His capitalism, said the writer, provided employment during a very slow economic period, the charitable efforts of those who opposed him were dreamy and unrealistic, and provided little relief to the poor, and as for the wretched people Scrooge was ignoring, well, they were little better than "welfare kings and queens" anyway, and deserved their suffering as the price of their own laziness and lack of initiative. Needless to say, such a reading completely ignores Dickens' own intentions and the literary meaning of the story.

So, in "Wonderful Life," George Bailey's dreams of travel and engineering marvels are meant to be symbolic clues to his magnanimity, a characteristic he doesn't even recognize in himself until showed the "alternate reality" of a George-less town by the angel. Similarly, George's construction of "Bailey Park" (with its individually unique, not cookie-cutter suburban, homes) isn't a chilling clue to the suburban destruction of small towns (which won't be accomplished without the interstate highway system and the shopping mall, anyway) but are meant to hint to the film's audience, most of whom would have been biblically literate, that here is the kind of man who feeds the hungry, clothes the naked, and shelters the homeless (picture the scene where George and Mary are giving a symbolic gift of bread, salt, and wine, for instance, to the Martini family as they move to their new home).

Similarly, in the angel sequence, we don't know that George has razed an old cemetery to build his homes (it's doubtful that the townspeople would thinks so highly of him if he had!). What we have, again, is symbolism: without George, a portion of Bedford Falls is quite literally dead. Moreover, a town controlled by the ugliness of the man named "Potter" needs a "potter's field"--again, a biblical reference the audience will understand.

While I respect Patrick Deneen, I do think that he is attempting to distort the symbolism of the film to fit a political theory; as someone who very much enjoys literature I can't help but find that somewhat frustrating.

Kyle Smith, who has Mr. Dreher's old job with thr Post, wrote something similar last month-

http://www.nypost.com/seven/11252007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/jump__george__jump__478233.htm

I like what you're saying, Alicia! Consider that the for George, the moment of supremest joy in the film involves something tiny and utterly worthless (Zuzu's petals)--perhaps the 'redemptive' moment when he can finally see value in the small town life he has failed up till then to appreciate.

I'd love to see what Deneen would do with "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" :-) Maybe something like this:

In demonstrating the triumph of the individual over the institution, Mr. Smith unleashes the destructive force of individualism onto our political system and in doing so ushers in a nihilistic, anarchic political philosophy that wreaks havoc, leaving the citizens of this country divided and unable to find the political will required to overcome the coming menaces of communism and Islamofacism...

Deneen's critique of It's A Wonderful Life is, in turn, an indictment of the postmodernist movement. Anyone without such an orientation upon seeing the movie recognizes that it is a tribute to goodness. The theme of Wonderful Life is we do more good and contribute more to other people's lives than we often realize. And, if we can realize those things its helps to balance out the recognition of our failures.

George's dreams of going to other places and desiring to do great things are part of egoism that all of us can identify with. There's a little narcissist inside many of us. In fact, that's the part of George that would cause him to take his life, when his narcissism is utterly thwarted.

Deneen lights into George's housing project, but the fact is people need housing. Even in a postmodern world, people needs houses. A traditionalist doesn't question such things, knowing that housing is a basic necessity to life. But, the postmodernists, with their utopianism running amok, slam such projects regardless of the inherent value.

The postmodernists express incredulity toward traditionalist meta-narratives such as that expressed in Wonderful Life. But, they only have the dismal alternative of communism to offer as an alternative worldview. Many people have been down that road, and its a known bummer.

So, go ahead and enjoy Its a Wonderful Life. This critique may work as a dark form of humor, but it demonstrates, at the same time, the petty and pathetic pastimes of the postmodernists. Get a life!

BTW, New Jersey's single most conservative legislator (by universal agreement among both Dems and the GOP) is mad as h*ll at anyone criticizing George Bailey and not gonna take it anymore (HTTP://)

www.politickernj.com/sam-wainrights-revenge-14902

Larry Parker: M_David: You bring up the "George was a good person but it doesn't matter" argument -- and then let it hang there...you seem to be talking about something more ... please elaborate.

I don't really know how to answer your question: I guess I just agree with Deneen.

But to try, for me George is your typical go-getter American, a nice guy driven forward by ambition and desire with little thought as to creating and nuturing the next generation. He reminds me a lot of the typical boomer.

I agree with Deneen that while George is reaping the benefits of the tight community he lives in, he has destroyed his community in the name of doing good, just as effectively as Potter could have by doing bad (only over a longer period).

Point: it takes more than just trying hard and being nice to make it last for more than one generation. It takes serious thinking ahead, concern for moral lifestyles, and a focus on "abstract" morality in order to prevent bad things we just can't discern on our own. The solution is to order our lives in the proper way: God, Family, Community, Self. George's model is very modern, and it goes Self, Community, Family, God. It works out sometimes, but always fails in the end.

Jim, you might be right on the conversion aspect of George. Often, you can read these things different ways.

I just didn't like how the movie sort of made the claim "everything will work out in the end" if all you do is mindlessly try to get ahead. I think the real world is a little different; we all think we can spot who the nasty Mr. Potter is (he's always the guy against us, natch), but when we look in the mirror, it's really us.

We just saw part I of the movie. In part II, the dream goes all haywire. The town is hallowed out, the EPA sues George Jr. for expanding to wetlands, drug use soars, and every one of his kids are now divorced. When the EPA comes for George Jr., there will be no community to back him up; heck, his neighbors don't even know who he is. But hey, it's cool. George Sr. got his. And of course, he had nothing to do with all those problems that followed him like night follows day.

George's model is very modern, and it goes Self, Community, Family, God.

That's not George's model. Self is certainly not first, or he wouldn't have been constantly putting off his plans, or accepted Potter's offer to buy him out.

What you're trying to say is that George's changes will result in the community reordering priorities, but, frankly, that's insane. There's absolutely no reason that those people would stop going to church.

You've confused something that looks like a modern subdivision with the tendency of modern people to move around and never settle down, which causes a lack of community...but there's absolutely no evidence of anything like that. Moving from one side of a small town to another is nothing like a thirty minute drive to work, shopping at Walmart, and moving 50 miles every decade or whenever you get a new job, and having no roots.

Now, you want to argue that the film is glorifying subdivisions, go ahead. But in reality the film is glorifying home ownership, and subdivisions, at the time the movie was written (1946), were a convenient shorthand for that, so the houses he builds end up looking like them.

Deneen has a good summary up now on what is wrong with George:

...all of the redeeming qualities that I find in George Bailey (of which there are many indeed) are...a consequence a decent democratic soul that was the result of his upbringing in Bedford Falls. It is his less admirable inclination to radical individualism [that is a problem].

And we see the results of this mentality in today's world. Bedford Falls doesn't exist, and the decent democratic soul has been lost.