Do you have a favorite annual movie-watching tradition?

I have a running joke with my wife. I took along a VHS copy of "Casablanca' on our honeymoon. (No, I didn't watch it!) Periodically, especially on days such as our honeymoon, I threathen to throw it in the VCR as a "surprise". She hates it, I love it! I own about five copies of the movie and enjoy a special viewing of it periodically. Other tradions I have are: Watching movies like "Jaws" and some B-favorites such as "Monster That Challenged The World" and "It Came From Beneath The Sea" that have to do with the ocean when we start up our swimming pool, and a weekly Saturday tradition, when possible, of watching some of my favorite B-Westerns.

This one was nearly impossible for me to decide (and I posted the darned poll!). So many holidays, so many movies, so many memories! In the end, I finally chose JAWS.

Here's why. First, after over 30 years, it's still the ultimate summer movie on the ultimate summer holiday. Second, for nearly ten years now, my family has had an annual family barbecue ever July 4th at my house in the Hamptons. After that long (and sometimes stressful) day of hosting, I like to end the day with a swim in the ocean as dusk settles and then when it's dark, watch Spielberg's classic thriller. So for me, it's a personal tradition.

Perhaps I should also explain my selection of KING KONG ('33) for Thanksgiving, because some of you may be scratching your heads on that one. Those of you who grew up in New York and New Jersey during the 1970's and early '80's may remember that on every Thanksgiving day, WOR-TV Channel 9 would feature "Ape Day" on TV, with MIGHTY JOE YOUNG, KING KONG and SON OF KONG. This annual tradition went on for years, and as child, I looked forward to it with great anticipation. Remember, there were no VCR's yet, so the only way you'd enjoy your favorite movie was to wait for a television broadcast. Again, this was my own personal memory.

And of course, not one Halloween goes by without my watching John Carpenter's legendary classic!

Fedoozle, when my wife and I first started dating, I made her sit down with me in my apartment and watch CASABLANCA with me, almost as a requirement because I love the movie so much. She enjoyed it.

To Love Movies: Thanks for the memories concerning WOR-TV. What great memories from those three little letters! Not only did Thanksgiving mean "King Kong', but going back in time a few years earlier, MILLION DOLLAR MOVIE would show KING KONG and other movies twice daily for an entire week! Their motto was, "If you've missed any part of this movie or wish to see it again, the next showing will be..." Was I surprised when I found out their theme song came from "GONE WITH THE WIND"!

Fedoozle - WOW! I remember that! Hey, how about this? Every weekday on ABC-TV Channel 7 - THE 4:30 MOVIE! They had a lot of "theme" weeks like "Monster Week", "Planet of the Apes Week" and "Burt Reynolds Week".

And of course, since my family did not buy our first VCR until 1984, every week I looked forward to the ABC FRIDAY or SUNDAY NIGHT MOVIE!

I you Google either of those TV movie titles I mentioned, you'll find that YouTube features some of the classic TV intro that we saw during the '70's! Check them out! Oh, the memories!

Love Movies & Fedoozle: I too fondly remember watching Kong and Joe Young on Thanksgiving. Now I re-create the custom every year with the DVDs. The prints are pristine and perfect, and there's no commercials, but it just isn't the same somehow.

WOR-TV trivia: the first two movies ever shown on the station were "King Kong" and "Citizen Kane". It was owned by RKO General and I guess they wanted to start things off with two of the old studio's big guns.

I, too, would count the annual Thanksgiving showings of "King Kong" (plus "Son of Kong" and "Mighty Joe Young") on WOR as my earliest viewing tradition. But I would also add WPIX-TV's showing of Laurel & Hardy's "March of the Wooden Soldiers" (which was actually originally titled "Babes in Toyland") that very same holiday (I just can't remember if it was shown on the Thursday or the Friday). WOR later added Godzilla films to the Thanksgiving mix - usually on Friday after having spent all day Thursday with Kong and his progenitors.

I can no longer bear the commercial interruptions and celebrity reflections that NBC foists upon its annual "It's a Wonderful Life" showings. I much preferred when the local stations would screen the film when it was in public domain. In any event, I think I enjoy watching "The Bishop's Wife" on TMC every X-mas more than I do "Life."

These days, my daughter and I have been enjoying a custom of watching "2001: A Space Oddyssey" every New Year's Eve (actually New Year's Day, since the showing starts at midnight) - although I can't say that has become a steadfast tradition since other NYE plans sometimes get in the way. But we've done so 3 of the last 4 years.

There's no NONE category but in years past, I looked forward to "Planes, Trains and Automobiles" around Thanksgiving. I missed that one in theaters but it used to play over and over again on HBO and it was a hilarious pairing of Steve Martin and the late John Candy.

These days, I don't like to watch the listed films on commercial tv because there are too many commercials and most of the time they have scenes cut out. With everyone owning or having the ability to own their own copy of their favorite movie intact, or go to the store or rent on Netflix their favorite movie, you can watch any film anytime.

Ah, the days when TV was simple; 13 broadcast channels, low-quality Spanish channels on UHF and one channel of HBO!

When KING KONG ('33) was first released on DVD in 2004, it also came in a package set with MIGHTY JOE YOUNG and SON OF KONG. I guess someone in marketing also remembered the great days of Thanksgiving WOR-TV Channel 9!

I should clarify that when I posted this poll, I wasn't necessarily talking about watching these movies on network television. My intention was to discuss yearly movie-watching traditions by our own accord, which often means pulling our favorite holiday classic DVD off of the shelf.

Even though I voted for "Ben-Hur" during Eastertime, I also like to watch "The Ten Commandments" at this time too. I usually watch "King of Kings" and "The Sound of Music" at Christmastime.The "Longest Day"-probably my favorite film on WWII is one that I can watch anytime. I usually try to watch something scary around Halloween, but "Psycho" comes in ahead of "Halloween". I`m usually a guest at somebodys house for Thanksgiving, but on that day sports on ESPN or other cable channels is usually watched instead of "King Kong". I have all these movies on DVD or video, so I can watch them anytime I want. I also like to watch "Doctor Zhivago" in the hot humid days of high summer. All that snow seems to have a cooling effect on me-not to mention the magnificent quality of the film itself.

Theaterat, I like your psychological take on cooling off on a hot day with DOCTOR ZHIVAGO. Very creative! It's kind of like that for me, too, when I watch JAWS at July 4th. I spend every summer at the beach, so I like to keep that beach-water motif going in my head when I watch it. Sometimes I'll immediately follow it with JAWS 2 to keep the mood going. Clearly, seeing these movies did not deter me from going into the ocean, even when I was a kid.

Regarding MIRACLE ON 34TH STREET, I find that I enjoy it more on Thanksgiving Day (as well as KING KONG) rather than the traditional Christmas. Probably because much of the "action" of the story takes place on Thanksgiving day during the Macy's parade.

Every year since 1999, I've always watched "The Matrix" as my favorite movie of all time whenever nothing's good on TV. That changed with "LOTR", and now with "300", it will become my favorite movie to watch every year until a new movie comes out. As for the holiday-themed movies, I do watch those, but rarely on occasions when I have other things to do besides watch movies.

In L.A. it was RKO owned KHJ-TV which also had the Million Dollar Movie. Same movie every night and 3 times on weekends. "Godzilla" and "Panic in Year Zero" were personal faves.

As to the poll, I have to take "A Christmas Story" at Christmas, "The Haunting" at Halloween.

"Psycho" is a good choice on Mother's Day.

Actually, there's a horror film from 1979 called MOTHER'S DAY. Haven't seen it.

If I'm not mistaken, "Mother's Day" - which I recall seeing in 1980 - was released unrated, ala George A. Romero's "Dawn of the Dead," due to excessive and graphic violence.

We used to watch "The 10 Commandments" every Easter. And although not exactly on Memorial Day, I would watch "Guns of Navarone" once a year.

One time during Christmas, I was at my favorite Irish pub, discussing holiday movies with my friends. Everyone mentioned the usual favorites, then someone proposed "Lethal Weapon" as a "cheerful alternative".

Well, it does take place during Christmas...

JSA

"You cut the toikey without me?" Thanksgiving is a perfect time to view Barry Levinson's "Avalon."

And Christmas would no longer feel the same without Jean Shepherd's classic, "A Christmas Story."

LOVE ACTUALLY as Christmastime. It is the new Holiday Classic.

I don't know when it stopped, but in all the years I was growing up, and loooong before anyone had any such things as VCRs or DVD players, THE WIZARD OF OZ was the annual traditional favorite so far as network TV went. And it seems in looking back that not to watch it when they ran it each year would've been an act of blasphemy. For it was like, if you missed it, you'd have to wait a full year before they ran it again. And at that time it just seemed to be a bedrock of American views and values. To make a point, back in that late 1950s/early 1960s era you could make references to various scenes from that movie, and everyone knew exactly what you were talking about. And the symbolisms it contained were very useful. The Wicked Witch, most particularly when she was Dorothy's neighbor, represented bureaucracy. And the Wizard of Oz represented the promise of government rendered hollow by injustice. And the movie was made in such a way that it never left you guessing which factions were good and evil. In today's world filmmakers are deterred from doing that in the name of political correctness. Yet how fitting this movie would be in today's world in enabling everyday people to see who is really who. For that's what gave that movie such power. And each year that it returned to television it was a reinforcer of what it was imperative for every American to keep in focus. To not lose sight of. And which so many now have.

So in any event, that's my pick.

TheaterBuff, that is one precious thing we've lost in this age of instant everything: the anticipation of an annual presentation of "Wizard Of Oz', and others such as "Peter Pan" with Mary Martin, "A Christmas Carol" with Alastair Sims (and other versions), "Yankee Doodle Dandy" around July 4th, and so on. Nowadays we get whatever we want whenever we want it, but somehow, something very special gets lost as we obtain it. Perhaps the magic of our more youthful days was a large part of it. It is something we can never return to again. TV and the media were much simpler in those days.

I think Fedoozle hit the nail on the head! I think that when you can obtain a movie on DVD so quick and easy, the film itself loses any special meaning (presuming it had any in the first place!).

I'm still young enough to remember the days even before the Sony Betamax became available. If you loved a movie and you wanted to see it again after it's initial theatrical run, you had two options; hope that the studio would re-release the film or wait for its broadcast on HBO or network television.

I remember for years, getting real excited every time STAR WARS was re-released in the theater. Didn't always mean I got to see it, but it gave me something familiar to argue about with my parents. SARURDAY NIGHT FEVER, GREASE and JAWS were some other re-releases that got me tanked up as a kid.

It seems the newest trend in movie classics is to re-release the film for a one week limited engagement before it's released on DVD. This was done with ALIEN, REDS, CRUISING and soon BLADE RUNNER.

I got in the habit of watching Independance day on the forth of July. Its a little cheesy but I love that line "Hello Boys, I'M BACK"!!

How's this for cheesy - one year on Groundhog Day, Showtime cable channel broadcasted GROUNDHOG DAY, two times in a row! Get it?

Oh, and get this - at precisely midnight on January 1, 2001, Turner Classic Movies showed 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. And of course, I was compelled to watch it. When it was released at the Astor Theater in New York City in December 2001, I paid to see it twice. How could I not? It's my favorite movie of all time.

The Egyptian in Hollywood showed 2001 on 12/31/2001. My wife & I went (and were bummed that they showed it at 7:30 PM instead of Midnight).

As far as yearly traditions, I watch "Shaft" (the 1971 original) - not on one particular day/date, but just to watch it. It was my dad's favorite movie - he's been gone almost 22 years. It's now my favorite movie too.

TheaterBuff... How could it have taken so long for this thread to bring up the annual "Wizard of Oz" showings on CBS? Completely slipped my mind! Of course, as nostalgic it is to remember those days when we had to wait in great anticipation for a network or local channel showing of a favorite flick... I'm quite happy that I now have the opportunity to schedule my own calendar of movie watching thanks to my DVD collection. The films are pristine and - best of all - uncut and presented in original aspect ratios. "Oz" was a standard 1.33:1 ratio, but the CBS airings were edited for time. Ditto for CBS network showings of "It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World" (which was massacred even more than when its general release prints were whittled down from road-show length) and "Ben Hur" (huge chunks went missing here).

I certainly bemoan the loss of theatrical re-releases in the age of home-theater, but I can tell you that I do not miss having to wait for the networks to air my favorite films. The three words I most detest seeing flash across my screen "Edited for Television" have successfully been eradicated from my life!

Love movies..... After watching "Jaws", I Absolutely could not go to the beach! My mother felt the same way after she saw "Psycho"-she could Not take a shower for weeks after! Incredible power these films had! Good thing you were not at Rockaway Beach on the Saturday of Labor Day weekend when that 6 foot long shark washed ashore! No Great White, but I still would not want to be anywhere near it.

Though I, too, have most of my favorite films on VHS, though I can't fully explain why, there is just something that feels very different between watching these movies in that way and when they re-air them on TV or re-exhibit them at mainstream theaters. I guess there's just something very special about attuning to a particular film while knowing others are watching it at the same time. When it's being widespreadly aired or making the rounds of theaters once more it suddenly becomes much more relevant. Otherwise, why would the networks be running it or theaters reshowing it? I have James Cameron's TITANIC on VHS, for instance. Yet the experience of watching it is so much more enhanced when I watch it on network TV -- even with all the commercials added -- then watching the pristine copy I have of it from my VCR. So as the pattern goes, while I may well have TITANIC on VHS and can watch it anytime I wish to, I'll be darned if I can't resist watching it when they run it on TV! And the same goes with THE TEN COMMANDMENTS every Passover/Easter when that airs.

But just to show the generation gap, I had the experience several years back of making a reference to a particular scene in James Cameron's TITANIC, which I felt illustrated my point perfectly....only to be told by the young person I was making this point to that she had never seen it.

Speaking of JAWS, for instance, I can remember a time when a mayor could say, "Don't mistake me for that mayor in JAWS," and everyone knew exactly what was meant by it. Specifically, it was back in the late 1980s when reports of hypodermic needles were washing up on various American shorelines, spooking away the tourists, and the mayors of these resort towns tried to ease fears by saying the beaches were safe, while adding, "Don't mistake me for the mayor in JAWS." And not long after TITANIC hit the theaters and the stockmarket was booming, I can remember somebody criticizing then-Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board Alan Greenspan for his not doing enough by saying, "That's like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic." Last spring, meantime, I agreed to help out a friend refurbish his apartment building in Center City Philadelphia in preparing it for the next tenants while telling my white collar friends, "It doesn't hurt to take off your coat and tie once in a while and get out there and do the Moses thing." But hopefully all of them saw THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. But these days making references to certain key films to illustrate a point isn't like it used to be. And my worry, both for cinema sake and for society's future, are we now coming up on a time when you can tell someone, "Hey, don't be such a Scrooge! (or a Mr. Potter)," and the blank reaction will be "Who? Who?" For you know how that is. When you tell them what movie you're referring to they'll shrug it off with, "Hmmm. Maybe I'll see it sometime." But alas, until they do, your whole point is lost. For it just seems there are certain films that everyone should see, that hold our whole civilization together as it were. That stand between us and total destruction.

TheaterBuff - I have a 19 month-old son. By the time he's older, original movie ideas will likely become extinct and CGI will be completely out of control. But you can be damn sure he will get a proper film-viewing education from his dad with films like CASABLANCA, CITIZEN KANE, GONE WITH THE WIND and others. After that, if he's still not laughing at me, I'll show him my record (that's VINYL!) collection. I can see it now...

"Look, son. An original first pressing of Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon, with the original pyramid record artwork!"
"Who's Pink Floyd, Daddy?"
"Auggggghhhhh!"

I like to watch MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS either at Christmas time or Halloween. It works well for both holidays.

Same can be said for NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS.

I also like to do a Titanic commemoration around mid-April by watching one of the movies made about that event. I actually prefer the 1950's version of TITANIC starring Barbara Stanwyck to James Cameron's 1990's version. NIGHT TO REMEMBER is also a regular contender as well as several documentaries I have on the subject.

Theaterbuff you bring up an excellent point. I swear that deep down inside all of us collectors of movies on DVD secretly crave to NOT be able to control the circumstances of the movies presentation. It's as if owning the film on some media we can pause, fast-forward, re-wind is only a fraction of the magic of the experience. So when we come across some film we love on television (and this happened not that long ago to me with THE BIRDS) we just HAVE TO SIT DOWN AND WATCH IT! And in the sense that we are not in control, it's like being in the theater with that film all over again.

As to my traditions, no Christmas tree goes up in my home without SCROOGE, the Albert Finney 1970 musical version of A Christmas Carol. If I don't see THE LONGEST DAY on Memorial Day you can be sure I'll catch it no later than the sixth of June. Halloween is all about Robert Wise's THE HAUNTING for me (and Louis Jordan's BBC version of COUNT DRACULA from 1977, but that was made for TV, so perhaps shouldn't be counted here). BEN-HUR is a must around Easter. But my favorite tradition is black and white classics on New Years day. This all started with a group of friends and CASABLANCA about a decade ago. It used to be a movie then we'd have dinner. Now it's two movies, we break for dinner, then one more movie! Last year was MILDRED PIERCE, OLDE AQUINTANCE, and after dinner NOW VOYAGER.

To Charlie Chicago -- You aren't the only one, come mid April, who reaches for the fifties Titanic films before James Cameron's!

"A Night To Remember"-1958-is the DEFINITIVE film on the Titanic disaster.Camerons film-while visually beautiful glosses over the facts surrounding the tragedy aned gives us a shipboard romancer instead.

I like to see "A Christmas Story" during the holdays. The main character reminded me of myself at this time (circa 1940) , and I lived in Cleveland at the time in a similar house. I also went to the department store (I'm sure Higbee's) depicted in the film.

Back in the late 1980s I visited the Philadelphia Maritime Museum to see a special Titanic exhibit, and of course it was some time before the wreck of the Titanic was rediscovered and the James Cameron version of the Titanic story came out. So at that time, A NIGHT TO REMEMBER was the standard setter of what the sinking of the Titanic had been like. And fortunately for both me and the guide giving the tour we had both seen the movie, and thus he could make references to various scenes from it and I knew exactly what he was talking about. And at that time I was totally convinced that as well-produced movies go it couldn't be topped. And I still regard A NIGHT TO REMEMBER as a well-produced film. And the same goes for TITANIC (1953). And I've always felt, why remake a movie that came out well the first time around? For I've seen many remakes that couldn't hold a candle to the original, and I always asked, why did they bother doing the remake therefore? As in, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

But James Cameron's TITANIC totally flew in the face of that philosophy I had built up prior to that movie's release. For Cameron, I feel, enabled us to see what it was really like to have been aboard that ship during that fateful three day voyage. Of course Cameron had the advantages with the wreck of the Titanic's rediscovery in the mid-1990s to be much more accurate than Roy Ward Baker -- the director of A NIGHT TO REMEMBER -- could've been, and also Jean Negulesco -- who directed TITANIC (1953) -- particularly in his showing what it was like aboard the ship in the last moments. But I loved how Cameron got into the psychology aspects of it, a dimension that was not really captured in the 1950s versions. And while as a general rule the best way to shatter a film's historic accuracy is to turn it into a love story, I feel that Cameron masterfully used romance to make that history come to life all the more. As I listen to Gloria Stuart tell what it really was like to have been on that fateful voyage, I'll be darned fool if I don't believe every word she says! And rather than Cameron drawing from old photographs of the Titanic to present his story image-wise, which obvious the directors of the previous Titanic movies did, he drew his inspiration from the artists of that early 19th century era instead. And I think that was a brilliant stroke on his part! For I feel that paintings capture and immortalize moments in time far better than photos can. They show what the moment looked like to the human eye; what it FELT like to be there, not merely what it looked like from a detached, indifferent and safe distance.

And though I liked the two other Titanic versions, I don't come away from either feeling an important lesson to be learned had just been put across. Such as, "This is how the whole world could wind up if we're not careful." The earlier versions I feel are films about something that happened in the past, nothing more. But Cameron's version differs in that sense. It makes us think about things being done today, and that it's well to our advantage not to lose sight of. And that's what I look for in films that get the special honor of being rerun at a particular time each year.

There are some personal attachments with films that are unique to the viewer in accordance with the times and seasons of their viewing. For instance, I couldn't explain why rationally, but I remember first viewing "Bonnie And Clyde" at college (during the Dark Ages!) on a Friday night and that movie always seems better to me on a Friday night! Or I recall the time I was driving through New Haven and saw the YORK SQUARE was featuring a double bill of ZELIG and BROADWAY DANNY ROSE and I pulled over and had a wonderful afternoon there. When in downtown New Haven, I always have the urge to view one of those movies.

Well I'm actually surprised that no one as of yet -- including me -- has mentioned WHITE CHRISTMAS! For I was just thinking back to the Christmas holidays of my youth and how much they contained the atmosphere of that movie -- which, of course, was run at that time on TV each year, and still does get run around Christmastime on occasion. If you can imagine, it was actually an era when people looked forward to snow! Which many of us laugh at when we think about that today. But back then it was actually very nice. What a totally different world it was. It seemed every other house had a fireplace plus one of those old time floor model black & white TV sets with a walnut cabinet and a round olive-green screen, and, of course the customary rabbit ears antenna setting on top. And I can so remember that, the fireplace going, everyone stuffed with a Christmas meal, and all of us afterwards watching that movie on the small TV screen, the best TV of its kind in its day. And peering outside during the commercials (for Edsels, Pepsodent or whatever) in hopes to see that it was indeed snowing. And actually looking forward to driving back home in it if that was the case. Contrast that to the world of today!

Between our own lives and movies like that there were no barriers. It was one straight continuum. Very often it was like watching ourselves and liking what we saw, each world reinforcing the other as it were. Movies such as that defined us, and we manifested them in the real world in turn.

Today each year when the winter rolls around when it snows it's like a disaster. But that movie stands to remind us that we didn't always view winter that way. I guess in terms of holiday favorites that movie can't work in today's world. But when I watch it it makes me realize how many back then were onto something special that so many of us today have lost sight of, or have been forced to.

In Chicago, every Christmas time on TV It's a Wonderful Life would play and on New Years Eve, at midnight, the Marx's Brothers Duck Soup was featured. I believe this was a regular schedule in the 1970's through the 1990's. It was a family event, with the little kids allowed to stay up on New Years Eve, usually falling asleep and being carried off to bed during the movie. Great memories ...

Memorial Day would be In Harms Way and The Longest Day. The latter is especially special as I was a twelve year old when it came out and the word went out through the neighborhood that a reenactment of the movie was going to be filmed (8mm) at the Columbia Beach (Chicago - Rogers Park). All of the guys and some girls showed up with WWII helmets, web belts, toy rifles, pistol and hand grenades. Some of the older guys who were in charge of filming had us charge out of the water and filmed us as we all "acted" like in the film. For explosives M80s and Cherry Bombs with waterproof wicks were set off in the water and on the beach. After many takes we went home soaked and full of anticipation of seeing the film. Unfortunately, I never saw the film, but heard we all lived and died honorably.

I never saw IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE until just before Christmas of 1987 when it aired on network TV. And only since then has it become an annual regular, at least in this part of the U.S. In all the years I was growing up I never saw it, never even so much as knew about it. But clearly it was a film way ahead of its time in terms of relevance. And, of course, it has continued to be since 1987. (Though admittedly I've seen it so many times now that I know every detail of it by heart, so much so that I don't even have to watch it each year anymore to feel as though I'm watching it!) But as much as it's a great film, the one thing I find disturbing about it 20 years after my having first seen it is how it presents money as being the answer. As if there is no other. And questioning that aspect of it is very relevant right now, I feel, with the looming mortgage crisis currently oversweeping the U.S., among other things.

Which is why in so many ways I find James Cameron's TITANIC to be much more relevant to what's happening today. In Cameron's TITANIC there's a very critical scene where the chief villian of the film (Billy Zane) hands a ship's officer a wad of money to secure a lifeboat for he and his fiancée. And in a very conditioned sort of way the officer consents to the bribe. But then the officer comes to, realizing that this money is totally worthless to him in that particular instance, given how he himself will be going down when the ship does. And in today's world in many instances money plays out the same way. Yet people fall for it. Here in Northeast Philadelphia, Pennsylvania at the present moment, for instance, a runaway cancer treatment facility (the Fox Chase Cancer Center) is seeking to ill-advisedly expand at its current location and is winning over the support of many, either by paying them generous sums of money, or promising them all sorts of lucrative financial opportunities if they consent. And in a very frightful way it's working. At least on the cancer center's behalf. But on the part of those consenting, the consequences will clearly be very tragic. The money they're being bribed with won't even begin to be able to lift them out of the massive disaster they're being walked straight into. And you're not hearing about this right now (other than here) for apparently the media has been bought off as well. And it's a case where IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE doesn't have the right answers, but James Cameron's TITANIC does.

Theaterbuff, I have a slightly different take on James Stewart's issue in IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE. The answer to his problem is not money, it's love in the form of friendship. His friends love him and know he would never steal from the Savings & Loan, so they come forward and give their own money, to save him from unjustly going to jail. But it's their affection for him that motivates their giving of the money, and it is that affection that is the point of the story.

Well said, Steve. It's about the value of a single human life and the positive impact it can have on others, not really about the money.

Certainly I agree with you both on that. But the reason why I think nefarious forces have posed no objections to IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE being shown regularly on network TV around Christmas from 1987 onward is because the nafarious forces contained in the film get off scotfree. In that sense I very much like the alternative ending SNL came up with to it, the one where, after they wrap up celebrating, they all go kick the crap out of Mr. Potter. for I do hold that in many instances money is not the right answer; justice is. George Bailey's friends came through for him. But I would like to have seen them come through for him all the way. For that's what REAL friendship is.

Putting myself in George Bailey's place, after his friends came through for him, it would be imperative upon me to reimburse those friends every penny once I'm on my feet once more. But ultimately reimburse them how? By shrugging off Mr. Potter and reimbursing them out of pocket? That's one way. But that ultimately doesn't solve anything. For it's not as if money they wrongfully goes into the coffers of the nefarious is money that's disappeared into thin air. Quite the contrary it's money that will cause considerable damage unless it's retrieved. And we're seeing that going on right now here in Philadelphia. The old Northeast Philadelphia neighborhood where all my childhood Christmases were spent -- a type of setting straight out of WHITE CHRISTMAS -- is about to be totally wiped out by an out of control cancer center that no one thought to be concerned with till now. For years that cancer center has taken in money in a whole variety of underhanded ways, but always in shrugged off ways the same as Mr. Potter was in IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE. Call it real life imitating art. Only in this case we'll get to see that movie's sequel: What comes when the Mr. Potters are allowed to go scotfree.

I think the friends and citizenry of Bedford Falls came through with the money needed for George Bailey as a repayment to George for all the good he had done for them throughout the years. As many proclaim, they wouldn't have had a roof over their heads or a business to run had it not been for George. I don't think they expected any repayment back from George. You might recall that the collection taken up by the townsfolk was "just a start" and that the bulk of the shortfall was covered by George's rich friend in New York. I still hold that the money wasn't the point at all - nor was the justice against Potter that was perpetrated by the hilarious SNL spoof!

"Hee haw and Merry Christmas!"

As much as I hate to beg to differ, in that critical scene where George and Clarence the Guardian Angel are drying out at that bridgekeeper's shack, George makes clear to Clarence that the problems he's having center around money, something which Clarence is totally alien to. And the final resolve of the movie -- the solution to all George's problems -- is when he gets the money he needs. But if a sequel were created, where would the story go from there? For that's where I feel this movie can be very dangerously misleading and harmful to society over all. Although Uncle Billy can be criticized for his carelessness, what Mr. Potter did was outright illegal. Yet that critical detail was left completely unresolved. (In today's world we call that "deregulation.") Though I continue to highly regard IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE as a great movie, I feel the way that Dickens concluded DAVID COPPERFIELD is far more enlightened, and it would've been far better, I feel, if George's dilemma could've been resolved in that way. And likewise Clarence could've more fittingly earned his wings.

Theaterbuff, I've always felt that Mr. Potter's punishment came in two ways. First, his scheme to get George sent to jail didn't work, so he still has that Bailey boy with whom he has to contend. Worse for Potter, it didn't work because of the love and affection felt for George by his friends, something Potter can't understand or purchase for himself. Secondly, Potter has to live with himself and his conscience. George has simply transcended the experience, while Potter for the rest of his miserable life must remain living in the hell that is his own mind. It's a punishment similar in tone to what the Bette Davis character in "The Letter" would have suffered if the Hayes Office hadn't decreed a more literal sentence for someone so guilty.

Those are excellent points you make, SteveJKo, very excellent, and to a large extent I agree with you.

But not fully.

For even though Potter still has that Bailey boy to contend with, because of how Potter is, willing to stoop to any low to make the buck, unlike George, who restricts himself only to making money by principled means, Potter's earning power is much greater. That is, short of his being brought to justice. And any love and affection George has from his friends is effective only up to a point so long as Potter's allowed to go scotfree. And it is precisely there that Potter has the edge. And so far as Potter's not having such love and affection, let the truth on that be said that Potter couldn't care less. You're right in saying Potter can't understand it. But that's like saying somebody can't understand opera so they don't bother with it. Do you think people who can't understand opera fret over it? For it's the same dynamic here. And on one point where I sharply disagree with you, Potter's without conscience. And it's precisely that -- a totally consciousless state -- which Potter is more than happy to live with, so long as existing laws and the Bedford Falls' citizens let him. What might be hell for us is not hell for Potter. For Potter is void of all guilt and remorse. He doesn't feel what we feel. You doubt the existence of such human beings? Might I suggest you turn on your TV of late and be reminded of O.J. Simpson. If anything hurts Potter's ability to make money, then we can expect Potter to be emotionally and spititually hurting. But IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE ends with Potter owning the big and only bank in town, his retaining the money he wrongfully acquired scotfree, and his being the ultimate financial beneficiary of all profits made in that town -- whether anyone likes him or not. In deregulatory economic climates we're not supposed to know about that dimension. It's supposed to be outside our radar.

Again you go back to Potter's monetary rewards. OK, fine. Let Potter have his money. George has his freinds and family and loves and is loved and has fulfillment beyond riches. Potter may not care about any of that, but he is a crippled old man - physically, emotionally and psychologically - who has far less time left on this earth than George. While George may never have the financial riches that Potter has (I stop short of saying "that Potter enjoys" since "enjoy" is a word without meaning for Potter), all indication is that he will be able to support himself and his family and lead a long, happy and productive life - and one that has and will continue to have a lasting and positive impact on many others. Men like Potter have existed and will exist with impunity - but leave no legacy behind them except for a vast fortune to be fought over by attorneys and shareholders. It would be besides the point of the film to see him brought to some sort of justice (whether legal or moral). George is - as his brother says - "the richest man in town" because his heart and life are filled with good things. Potter will die a lonely old man in a wheelchair having never known such happiness and fulfillment.

We know from real life how a sequel to that movie would play out. For seriously, how many George Baileys do you know of in this world today? What provisions do you know of at this point in time that allow for the existence of any George Baileys today? Anyone who would even so much as try to be a George Bailey in today's economy wouldn't last two minutes. With his passionate conscienciousness he'd instantly be weeded out as a "whistleblower type" before he could even so much as blink. Since 1946, when that movie came out, the economic tables have turned considerably. For take a special note: How was it that George Bailey empowered his friends and loved ones to have a decent quality of life? He did so through his knowledge of how to apply credit wisely, enabling them to have the necessities of life they could only dream of having otherwise. Remember George's classic "Wait for what?!" speech as he rants against Mr. Potter? Potter thinks the people of Bedford Falls should all live within their means and forego buying anything they cannot afford out of pocket until they can afford it. Yet Potter's austere control over the town, over the local economy, is such that that will forever amount to very little, and Potter full well knows it. So George foils Potter's scheme by enabling these people to have easy access to credit.

And that same exact thing is being done today. Only now it's the Potters doing it while the well-meaning George Bailey types are being pushed aside. And the results ain't pretty. Add to this that since 1946 the Potter types have undergone massive makeovers. No longer is it the mean old man sitting in a wheelchair leading everyone straight into Potter's Field, but the all the "wonderful" spokespeople you see in those late night infomercials. "Buy real estate with no money down! Now you, too, can OWN the home you always dreamed of!" Referring back to that movie, sound familiar?

And rather than this system of credit giving rise to Bedford Falls type communities, it's destroying them left and right, and has been for the last 20 years now.

In that movie you get to see what Bedford Falls would've looked like had George Bailey never lived and Mr. Potter had his full way. And today such type communities -- Pottersville -- is very standard. In fact, I'm living in one right now which used to be EXACTLY like the Bedford Falls you see in that movie with its wonderful old movie house and so on. Today the "wonderful old movie house" of this community where I'm now living -- a theater which had been designed by William Harold Lee no less -- is a sleezy mini mall where manufactured goods imported from China and produced by slave and child labor are being sold with no questions asked and avidly bought up by people with easy credit. And the several scenic waterfalls in the parkland near my house -- which that theater once was named after and with falls very suggestive of the one George describes to Violet Bick -- have recently been knocked down completely in the name of "environmental progress." And this all came as a result of allowing the Potter types to go scotfree. This is the sequel to IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE. And believe me, unless you buy into the intentionally misleading media cover-ups about it, it ain't pretty.

TheaterBuff, we've moved far away from discussing the meaning of the movie at this point! Ha ha. What you're saying about society today has much truth, but we're no longer talking about "It's a Wonderful Life." If the movie had been made last year, you'd have some valid criticisms, but the film was made in 1946 and should be analyzed in that context. I still think the basic ideals of the movie are universal and apply today - but some important plot elements would have to be updated.

For the most part you've pretty much rephrased what I said in my last post, Ed Solero, so let me congratulate you for getting it!

In 1946 IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE offered up some really great solutions. But as Dylan was to sing when the 1960s rolled around, "Watch your parking meters." And with me, even though I ofttime lament the loss of the past, I'm ultimately a futurist. The only difference between me and a lot of other futurists, my concept of what the future needs to be is not one where what was best about the past gets fully trashed. And since there ultimately isn't anything new under the sun anyway, the past is chock full of great references of what the future should hold. And also the naivetes (lack of foresight) that IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE and other films past unintentionally showcased. And IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE, along with many other annual traditional movie favorites we've named at this CT page, contains both.

In building the future from the past, no doubt many futurists in the wake of that film closely studied Mr. Potter and asked themselves how they can makeover that dark sinister image so that people of the future would mistake him as being the "good guy"? Hence how in many ways yuppie was born, and Rush Limbough and all that. And I'm sure they delighted in how the bar patrons all appeared to love Nick the Bartender when we got to see how he would be had George never lived. For please note how later this type persona was to show up in abundance in the form of supply side economics and trickle down, and with little in the way of makeover needed there.

Since the age of about 8 years old, I have watched "A Christmas Carol" aka "Scrooge" with Alastair Sim every year around Christmas. I'm sure I've seen it more often than any other movie. Talk about your definitive performance! The George C. Scott version, which I saw once, seemed to be based on this one (directed by Brian Desmond-Hurst - and I've never seen another movie associated with his name), with duplicate scenes and even shots, but it doesn't hold a candle to this one - in the original black-and-white (there was a colorized version, but it's pretty pallid stuff).

I fully agree that the Alastair Sim version is the most definitive telling of the Dickens classic. However, there is one other version that they stopped running annually decades ago but that was pretty good as well. The animated version starring Mr. McGoo as Scrooge. That was back in the real days of Christmas in America, when the toys we bought our children were made here in the good ol' U.S.A. rather than produced in slave factories over in China, and the cartoons were drawn by American animators rather than all that work being outsourced, again to what amounts to overseas slave sweat shops. That is, talk about spreading the message of what Christmas is supposed to be about in the worst possible way to the other side of the globe.

But of more recent annual holiday showings, and assuming it's now become a favorite for some, I'm surprised no one as of yet has mentioned the Jim Carrey live version of the animated classic, THE GRINCH WHO STOLE CHRISTMAS, which I feel is actually very good.

Correction: I meant to say, HOW THE GRINCH STOLE CHRISTMAS, which is its official name.

I watch Ben Hur at Easter. The Ten Commandments at Easter. Picnic on Labor Day. All 3 Godfather movies at Christmas. Once a year I watch all the original series Star Trek movies. Once a year I watch Crossing Delancey.

"Mr. Magoo's Christmas Carol" because it's short and sweet.