Tonight, we watched Frank Capra's It's a Wonderful Life, which we do every year during the Christmas season.
David always talks so beautifully about why he loves this movie, and I asked him to write it out this evening for the Books of Madison and Ella. I thought these two passages were particularly worth sharing here:
It’s a film about real people with real values, values that matter, values that make life worth living; that is, values. The particular values, and the ways in which the characters in the movie pursue them, are not precisely ours. But the word precisely is important there, because we do share many of the film’s values, and we do live much as the Baileys do. The film is about a man who is dedicated to doing what’s right. George doesn’t just pursue his values with zeal, he pursues them because they’re right, because he refuses to let evil win. It’s true that George’s frustration with his life lends the film a melancholy air, the fact that he is stifled in the pursuit of his youthful desires is sad. But what the film is about is not that, it’s George’s success, his brilliant success, in an ultimately benevolent world that recognizes his integrity.
George holds his integrity, he lives by the principles he thinks are right, even as injustices, big and small, bombard him because of his integrity. The stress becomes intense, and George is ready to give up his life, but not his principles. On the bridge, George no longer needs to live—he thinks he needs to die—but he still does the right thing when Clarence seems to be drowning. By George’s principles, when a drowning man needs help, you dive in and save him. And he does, and—and this is what I love most about the film—this act of integrity saves George’s life. And we see, in the end, that the world—in the film, the people of the town—recognize the value of a man like George. George, in the end, is rewarded for his integrity, he is rewarded for being a good man. This sort of life, a life in which a person is rewarded for virtue, is indeed a wonderful life.
Doesn't he put things well? :-)
I have known Objectivists who have, well, objected strongly to this movie on the basis of altruism. So I think what David wrote here is well worth considering.
3 comments:
I have avoided this movie my entire life. Before I learned about Objectivism, I avoided it because it looked like a syrupy, tacky, self-sacrifice-glorifying mess, and I was repelled by it. Then after becoming an Objectivist, and discovering a love for old movies, I looked into it again and decided against watching it. I even held it as a point of pride that I have never seen it.
This is the first celebration of the movie that makes me wonder if I'm just being obstinate, and am irrationally avoiding something that would be of value. I'm not convinced, but I'm openly questioning now.
I have watched plenty of movies that had certain aspects I really enjoyed, mixed in with a lot of bad. But I can look past the failings and enjoy the positives. I'm guessing you'd say I should do that in this case?
I really think you can enjoy a profound positive in this case.
One could argue that our society is just as damaged by the pervasive idea that there is no such thing as doing what is right for the sake of doing what is right, as it is by altruism. Properly rejecting intrincism is a subtle thing; we Objectivists often reject out of hand anything that smacks of altruism. But the fact is, the passionate commitment to doing what is objectively right, even if there are costs, is sadly lacking in our society. Give me a religious person who is passionate about doing good and does his best to do so, over someone who intellectually grasps the proper thing to do but lacks the psychological commitment to doing it, any day.
Yes, George is wrong in not holding is own life as a value. But the movie actually repudiates this attitude, in a way...it shows him the objective good that he has done in the world, the reasons that his life is objectively valuable, to himself and to others, which gives him the understanding that he should live life to the fullest. You do have to look past the altruism. But my husband David, Mr.-Objectivist-stiff-upper-lip-ex-Presbyterian, is always moved to tears by this movie, moved enough to write about it to the girls so that they understand what he sees in it.
Give it a good solid look, even if just for cultural literacy.
Because we discussed this a couple of weeks ago, I thought I'd point you to a review of IAWL by Ed Cline (author of Sparrowhawk). In it, he describes in great detail all the things I was purposefully avoiding by not seeing the film.
I still haven't seen it -- it just wasn't on when I happened to be in front of the TV -- so I still have little context for it. But I'm curious if you read Ed's piece, and what you think of his evaluations of the movie.
Post a Comment