The Christmas Classic That Almost Wasn't (It's A Wonderful Life)

Inside Catholic ^ | December 25, 2008

[NYer]

The other night, along with many other Americans, I watched the Frank Capra classic It's a Wonderful Life. Starring Jimmy Stewart and Donna Reed, the movie has become a Christmas staple -- but it was not always that way, and how it attained its holiday status has as much to do with the intricacies of intellectual property law as it does with the storyline and the production values.

 

When it was released in 1946, It's a Wonderful Life was only a moderate success. The story was unusual for Christmas -- built around an attempted suicide by banker George Bailey (Stewart) and the rescue by his guardian angel, Clarence (played by Harry Travers). The movie was nominated for five Oscars, but it didn't win any, nor did it meet its financial break-even point. By the 1970s, the film was so largely forgotten that its owner (apparently inadvertently) let the copyright protection lapse.

 

All forms of intellectual property -- including films, writings, photographs, and recordings -- are protected by law for a certain period of time after they are created. If a radio station wants to play a recording, or a network wants to broadcast a film, the holder of the copyright is entitled to receive a royalty. After an extended period of time -- which varies depending upon the medium, but which certainly spans several decades -- intellectual property can lose its protection. When a song or movie remains popular and profitable, the copyright holder can extend the copyright, but many movies and songs are permitted to fall into the public domain.

 

That's what happened to It's a Wonderful Life. The movie had not yet become a Christmas classic when, in 1974, its copyright protection was allowed to expire. That meant that television stations could air it over and over without paying full royalties. (There were still some smaller, derivative royalties due on the storyline, but it is not clear that they were always paid.) For a period of time from the mid-1970s into the 1990s, It's a Wonderful Life seemed to be on several stations, several times each week during the Christmas season. In fact, one episode of the old television series Cheers even dealt with the movie's frequent airings.

 

These repeated showings, made possible by the termination of copyright protection, turned It's a Wonderful Life into the Christmas tradition that it is today. That, in turn, sent people searching for ways to capitalize on the film.

 

Videotapes of It's a Wonderful Life were produced by several different manufacturers. Since they did not have to pay full royalties or even get permission to use the images, any VHS producer could bring the popular movie to market, and numerous ones did.

 

The lack of copyright protection also made It's A Wonderful Life one of the most notorious subjects of colorization. It was originally produced in black and white, but by the 1980s, computer graphics could add color. The new colorized film could then be copyrighted. It's a Wonderful Life was released in three different colorized versions. Of course, colorization was an abomination to true movie buffs. I still remember reading the short blurbs in the Chicago Tribune TV section, back when Gene Siskel was the paper's main critic: Blurbs for the black-and-white version called it a heart-warming Christmas classic; those for the colorized version talked about despondency and attempted suicide.

 

 

You may have noticed that, in recent years, It's a Wonderful Life comes on only once or twice per Christmas season, and only on a major network (NBC). The original copyright holders managed to reassert their rights, something that is virtually unheard of. But the rights associated with the background music, as well as the copyright protection stemming from the short story on which the movie was based, had not yet expired. That gave Republic Pictures the hook in needed to reassert its control of the film. (Apparently, there was some attempt by other groups to avoid paying royalties by running the film without music, but it was disallowed by the courts.)

 

As a result, one of the great Christmas films of all time is once again protected by the law -- ironic, considering that it became a classic in significant part because it was legally unprotected. But God works in mysterious ways -- and sometimes the law does, too.

 

From Mississippi, best wishes for a blessed and merry Christmas.

[AnAmericanMother]

The Alastair Sim Scrooge is the definitive version to me. Sim is the only actor who successfully internalized a rational, emotionally believable transformation of the wicked old man. And the supporting cast are perfect in every way -- Mervyn Johns does a star turn as Bob Cratchit, and Michael Hordern is the best Marley's Ghost ever. Even the little parlormaid who takes Scrooge's coat when he visits his nephew is proof of the sheer depth of talent and training of the British stage of the 40s and 50s.

Colorization is an abomination. Those of us who remember serious B&W photography know that the shadows and contrast of B&W contribute significantly to the mood. Especially with a film that begins with the somber squalor of this one.

We watch it every Christmas.

[apocalypto]

I totally agree with you. “The Untouchables” with Robert Stack was effective and I cannot imagine it in color.

[AnAmericanMother]

Oh, Dickens took some very good shots at lawyers in Bleak House. Especially the opening, where his description of the fog is crowned by the Lord Chancellor!

Ask almost any lawyer about Jarndyce v. Jarndyce, and they will know exactly what you're talking about.

Anthony Trollope also skewered the lawyers, especially in Orley Farm.

[AnAmericanMother]

Or “M” with Peter Lorre.

[an amused spectator]

Thank you for the excellent literary references, and a Merry Christmas to you and yours.

[Vaquero]

I am a big fan of Jimmy Stewart et al. but I have never liked this movie. Neither problems nor solutions are as simple as was portrayed in this movie.

[Vaquero]

I remember seeing a (fake) “Director's Cut” alternate ending

that was an older SNL.

[End Times Sentinel]

Colorization is an abomination. Those of us who remember serious B&W photography know that the shadows and contrast of B&W contribute significantly to the mood. Especially with a film that begins with the somber squalor of this one.

Much agreed, which is why I was so surprised at the excellence of the '97 Carol version. I didn't think it would be easy, if at all possible to capture the feel of that era in color, but to my eye they did so. A general taste for somber colors and a somewhat less than well scrubbed appearance of sets and characters really helped.

My two favorite films are "It's a Wonderful Life" and "Citizen Kane" either of which I'd never consider watching if they were colorized (who could ever forget Jimmy Stewart's piercing green eyes, LOL!).

I'll have to check out the Sim version. That era really produced some classic movies. I only hope it doesn't ruin my love for the '97 version.

[AnAmericanMother]

Thank you and a Merry Christmas to you too!

I'm a Brit Lit fiend AND a lawyer, so it's kinda up my alley . . . . :-D

[netmilsmom]

They never seemed to get the colorization on their teeth and they remained grey. Creeped me out.

Topper is okay in color.

[xp38]

I recently viewed in HD on a movie channel The Nativity Story. It is only 2 years old at this point and did not do well at the box office when it did its theatrical run. It is now out on regular dvd. I found it quite moving and think it has the potential to become a Christmas classic. When it becomes available in bluray I will get it.

[an amused spectator]

**grin** You DO understand that slurs on the lawyer class here @ Free Republic don't include Freeper lawyers?

Freeper lawyers are an odd bunch - most of them seem to believe in a Constitutional republic. What's up with that? ;-)

[AC86UT89]

It’s a Wonderful Life was not a big studio release but in fact an independent film produced by Capra’s Liberty Films. It was an expensive production. Consider the large set that had to be built to represent the town, as well as the large cast. The film lost money in its original release. Capra only made one more film under the Liberty Films banner before folding the company.

I saw the film last week in New York City at the IFC Theater. Donna Reed’s daughter said a few words before the screening explaining that the film was released for a limited run before Christmas 1946 in order to be considered for the Oscars. It had its broader release early the next year which of course was after the holidays and not a great time for a Christmas movie.

The WW2 film The Best Years of Their Lives won many of the Oscars that year and was a major box office success. It was released the week before Wonderful Life.
Of course today not many people remember Best Years of Their Lives but everyone knows the George Bailey story. The themes presented in Wonderful Life are timeless.

[Caramelgal]

The 1951 film “A Christmas Carol” with Alistair Sim as Scrooge is my favorite Christmas movie. I simply can’t imagine watching it in color..

Mine too! And I hate “colorized” movies. When they did this to the 1951 film, I found and bought a copy on VHS in black and white and then some years later, a copy on DVD also in black and white. I also have a copy of It’s a Wonderful Life, also in its original black and white. I love that movie too.

I’ve always made a tradition of watching this version of a Christmas Carol late on Christmas Eve right before I go to bed an no different this year.

The thing I’ve always loved about the 1951 Christmas Carol version is they way it, I think stayed truer, not necessarily strictly to the original story line in every detail, but to the spirit of Dickens’ work – “A Christmas Carol in Prose, Being a Ghost Story of Christmas”, the brooding almost scary musical score interspersed with traditional Christmas carols and the bleak manner in which so many people lived during this time, the abject poverty that was depicted, the ghostly apparitions, the black and white photography so greatly added to the mood, even though in 1951 color was available. Black and white can be a great medium for film if done correctly

But most of all what I really like about this version, unlike some others that portray Scrooge as just a grouchy, cheapskate and almost comical and pitiful character, this version showed a man who not only had contempt for his fellow man but who also despised himself – a soulless and sinister man with a heart so hardened that he could not even find any joy for himself from his own money. This is particularly evident in the scene early in the move when Scrooge is having dinner on Christmas Eve and asks for some more bread. When the waiter tells him that the bread will cost extra, Scrooge abruptly tells him “no more bread”. He can’t even part with any of his precious money for himself for a simple thing like a bit more bread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1l1_82x2BO4&feature=related

I think that Sim’s portrayal was brilliant. In the first part of the movie Scrooge is a man so “evil”, contemptible, wretched, with a physical grey pallor and bleak and sneering demeanor, it is hard to find any redeeming qualities in him worth redemption or worth routing for – which of course makes his redemption in the end all the more meaningful and joyous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8gOU8XJc7Y&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7NfDuDh0Uc&feature=related

The George C. Scott and Patrick Stewart versions were good but for me, this version is still the version that all others have still yet to match.

[AnAmericanMother]

Exactly the reason I love Sims's Scrooge. He clearly thought long and hard about the character -- he's a prisoner of his own miserly hardness and a victim of his early life (his father who hates him because his birth killed his mother, the death of his beloved sister - aspects that are there in Dickens's book but absent from most movie versions). And he is terrified by the spirits but accurately states the trap he's in: "I am too old to change!" he exclaims to the Third Spirit.

When the conversion does come, it's also believable (that's where in my opinion the George C. Scott version doesn't ring true) -- I love the encounter between Scrooge and Mrs. Dilber the housekeeper on the stairs of his wretched tenement, and his dialogue with himself in his shaving mirror . . . Sim had perfect pitch.

[AnAmericanMother]

Hey, I know full well that 99 percent of the lawyers give the rest of us a bad name . . . .

(I've got a million of 'em. I'll be here all week -- try the veal.) < g >

[AnAmericanMother]

One thing I forgot to mention is that the 1951 version is VERY true to the original story -- in fact it uses great scads of the original text. You can almost follow along if you have a copy of the book. Some vignettes are inserted into the story line, but in a lot of cases they illustrate the descriptive asides that Dickens was so fond of.

The music is good as you note (even though the audio is HORRIBLE!) and the cinematography is great -- the claustrophobia of Scrooge's horrible old house, the crazy camera angles as Marley's Ghost draws nearer and nearer, the black shadows in the corners and the stark underlighting of Scrooge's face -- pure genius.

[Caramelgal]

Some vignettes are inserted into the story line, but in a lot of cases they illustrate the descriptive asides that Dickens was so fond of.

I agree, some the slight variations from the original text do nothing to detract from the original story or the author’s intent or spirit.

Some interesting notes on the film that I found in Wikipedia:

The film also featured Kathleen Harrison in an acclaimed turn as Mrs. Dilber, Scrooge's charwoman; a role found in the book, but built up for this film. (In the book, Mrs. Dilber is the name of the laundress. In the film it is transferred to the charwoman, unnamed in the book.) Fans of British cinema will recognise George Cole as the younger version of Scrooge, Hermione Baddeley as Mrs. Cratchit, Mervyn Johns as Bob Cratchit, Clifford Mollison as Samuel Wilkins, a debtor, Jack Warner as Mr. Jorkin, a role created for the film, Ernest Thesiger as Marley's undertaker, and Patrick Macnee as a young Jacob Marley. Michael Hordern plays Marley's ghost, as well as old Marley. Peter Bull serves as narrator, by reading portions of Dickens' words at the beginning and end of the film, and also appears on-screen as one of the businessmen cynically discussing Scrooge's funeral.

In addition, the film expands on the story by detailing Scrooge's rise as a prominent businessman who was corrupted by a greedy new mentor that had lured him away from the benevolent Mr. Fezziwig. When that new mentor, who does not appear at all in Dickens's original story, is discovered to be an embezzler, the opportunistic Scrooge and Marley offer to compensate the company's losses on the condition that they receive control of the company that they work for - and so, Scrooge and Marley is born. During the Ghost of Christmas Present sequence, the film also reveals that Scrooge's girlfriend from his younger days, Alice, works with the homeless and sick. In this telling of the story, unlike the book or most other film versions, Scrooge's beloved sister Fan is assumed to be slightly older than Ebenezer. In this adaptation it is revealed that his mother died while giving birth to him (necessitating the change of birth order between Ebenezer and Fan), causing his father to always resent Ebenezer for it. He is reminded of this by the Ghost of Christmas Past when Scrooge bitterly mentions that Fan died from complications after delivering his nephew, Fred.

The music is good as you note (even though the audio is HORRIBLE!)

The thing I love about my copy on DVD is that the audio sound track is a bit scratchy and not so good.

For me it sort of adds something to the mood of the whole piece, making me feel like I’m, just like Ebenezer, stepping back through time as does the black and white photography.

[AnAmericanMother]

Are you talking about the one with Tim Curry (TIM CURRY - Doctor Frankenfurter!) and Whoopi Goldberg? I have been afraid to watch it.

We couldn't explain to the kids when they were younger why we parents were in hysterics over the "Muppet Treasure Island" . . . now that the youngest is 18 it has been explained to them, much to their bemusement.

Do check out the Sim version - I have 4 or 5 versions of the story and I really think it is the best. You'll be disappointed in the audio, although after the introductory credits they do eventually get the sound level right, but the acting and the camera work couldn't be better. Sim is one of the most versatile and talented actors the British film industry ever produced.

[AnAmericanMother]

Inevitably things have to be changed when books are translated to film. Descriptions have to go, lengthy exposition has to go, and the visual has to be substituted for the mental picture unrolling in the reader's head. Dialogue can largely be lifted unaltered (and much of it is in Scrooge) but you can't bore on with a narrator, especially one with Dickens's voice. The days when a Victorian family sat around the parlor table while one of their number read the latest installment of The Old Curiosity Shop or Barchester Towers are long, long gone. (Trollope knew Dickens but didn't like him - he was a Thackeray fan).

I think this film makes the necessary compromises in an honorable way . . . what in the debate world is called "fair extrapolation" - hence the fleshing out of Scrooge's back story and the subsequent career of his lost love, because the visuals explain the character's motivations (instead of Dickens's rather wordy explanations).