Held back by his Sisyphean struggle against the Capitalist, George becomes a figure of ressentiment in the guise of a martyr. His despair is born of the essentially reactive nature of his charity, he does it because he thinks he has to which fills him with regret and hate. In other words, he does the right thing because he couldn’t live with himself otherwise, not necessarily because he wants to help people for the sake of helping people. In the end, Clarence helps him to overcome this by finding freedom in the Spinozist sense, embracing his role in the greater causal chain. He becomes free-er without becoming free. On a personal level, then, it makes sense that the film is beloved as an optimistic work, he just learns to love what he has, but on a larger scale it is one of the most cynical of all films. The common criticism is that It’s a Wonderful Life offers no alternatives to capitalism, and instead convinces the viewer that they can become happy in spite of their oppression. This would appear to be the optimist fatalism to Parasite’s pessimist fatalism, but I find the clarity of critique too strong to ignore. The film shows that we lack something vital, and we will never claim it in the world as it is.

Yes, I have no doubt Capra considers the power dynamics of capitalism to be a universal given, it’s no mistake Clarence is reading Tom Sawyer or that the ring of a cash register signals an angel receiving wings. We are told money is not needed in the Heavens, however evidently this is not the case (“Money comes in pretty handy down here bub.”). The material issues at play are very well defined; housing, education, and health care. Were people to have access to these things from the start George would have gone abroad when he was 22. This is why I feel bad for him even in the final scene, his happiness is still restricted because he could very well have a family outside the purgatory that is Bedford Falls but instead he must be exploited further for the sake of others. Viewers cry because he gave up something he wants for the good of others, and if capitalism remains after the credits roll then we must presume this struggle will define George for the rest of his life. There’s little joy in such a conclusion. I’m reminded of Flaubert’s Madame Bovary, in which the intended effect of the novel never fully registered for me because I agreed with Emma’s feelings too deeply. Flaubert believed Emma would have been happy if she had not relied on the fantasy of romance planted in her mind by novels, but I disagree. I thought it was entirely possible to find such happiness, she just got trapped. In the same way, George shouldn’t have to sacrifice happiness least of all when that sacrifice only impacts the world as long as he’s alive. If he outlives Potter another capitalist will come along to take his place and the commercial hellscape of a Bedford Falls without George will come to pass. The fantasy of a small town America untouched by the claws of modernity is just that, a fantasy.

It’s a Wonderful Life reveals that any wonder we experience is purely accidental, and the product of a great deal of effort on our parts to keep going. We’re all trapped in Bedford Falls.