by Chris Marshall:
Frank Capra did it again with this one. He also directed
1934’s winner, It Happened One Night,
which was a masterpiece. You Can’t Take
It with You doesn’t quite reach the same level of quality, but it is once
again a fun, endearing watch.
With Capra, you always know what you’re going to get:
sentimental, heartwarming fare for the entire family. But he shouldn’t be
remembered exclusively for schmaltz; he was a master of economical
storytelling.
Here’s the set-up. Rich banker (Jimmy Stewart) is canoodling
with middle-class secretary (Jean Arthur). The banker’s snooty mother walks in
and turns her nose up in disapproval. Secretary goes home to her eccentric, fun-loving,
carefree household. Rich banker proposes, but she won’t accept until she knows
his parents approve. Boom! In three easy steps, your plot is laid out for you.
This isn’t to say there weren’t more complicated developments.
Even though it was so easy to see it coming, I LOLed at the plotline in which
the secretary’s father, a fireworks maker, decides to send out samples of his
work along with a red promotional card reading “The revolution is coming!” The
confusion (and arrest) that follows sets up the third act, and while you see it
playing out so far advance, it’s still very satisfying when everything comes to
a head.
If, like me, you associate Lionel Barrymore exclusively with
the villainous Mr. Potter from It’s a
Wonderful Life (also by Capra), it will be a little jarring when you see
his character here. It’s a complete role reversal; here, Barrymore is the
secretary’s grandfather, a man universally beloved in the community. He
believes that one should not dedicate his life to money or material goods but
should instead focus on what brings joy and fun. It’s the Bizarro version of
Bedford Falls.
All Capra films need a moral. Jimmy Stewart wants to be a
scientist, but he is forced to give up his dream because of his father, who
believes the only proper course of action is for Stewart to become a banker
himself. Barrymore tells the father that, in the end, his riches are
meaningless; when all is said and done, you can’t take it with you. When
Barrymore dies, he will be beloved by everyone. Will the banker’s father be
able to say the same?
Ultimately, there’s nothing new about this idea, and it
should come as no surprise to those familiar with Capra’s work that the father
has a change of heart. But to use Roger Ebert’s line, “A movie’s not about what
it’s about. It’s about how it’s about it.” It’s impossible to dislike Jimmy
Stewart, and the entirety of the secretary’s family is lovable as well. I like
gritty and depressing as much as anybody, but movies like this are nice to
have.
 |
| Arthur, Stewart, and Barrymore. |
My only qualm is that the film does not do a good job of
portraying the secretary’s family as middle class, let alone lower class. Based
on the Best Picture winners so far, it’s easy to forget that this was made
during the Great Depression. The rich bankers may have looked at them in
disgust, but they still lived in a multi-story house and had servants. It was a
little bit hard to believe they were second-class citizens in any way, shape,
or form.
And really, that’s been a shortcoming of the entire decade.
Perhaps it’s because moviegoers didn’t want to be reminded of the conditions
they were living in and looked to the films for escapism, but it paints a
strange picture of the decade when you realize that there were no poor people
anywhere to be found in the BP winners. Even 1941’s winner, How Green Was My Valley, which is about
Welsh coal miners, showed the protagonists living in relative comfort.
Nevertheless, while social context is important, I would be
lying if I said You Can’t Take It with
You is in any way a bad film. It’s well made in terms of both plotting and
acting, and you’ll feel good about yourself when it’s over. What more could you
want?
No comments:
Post a Comment