Some Films are Sacred: Why 'It's A Wonderful Life' Doesn't Need A Sequel

“Attaboy, Clarence”.  This is the last spoken line of one of the greatest films ever made.  Not one of the greatest holiday films, one of THE GREATEST FILMS EVER.  The film is ‘It’s A Wonderful Life’.  For those of you who may not know, ‘It’s A Wonderful Life’ was released in 1946.  The film was directed by a master of cinema named Frank Capra and tells the tale of George Bailey, a man who does everything for others, the most selfless man in town and the richest.  When I say the richest, it’s not in the literal term.  George Bailey grew up in a small town with big world dreams but never accomplished them, (so he thought).  He lived in the same town his whole life and during the great depression saved that town and saved many people’s homes.  He and his wife gave away their money to keep his father’s small “Bailey Business & Loan” open, so a corrupt swindler wouldn’t rob families of their homes.

Enough with the synopsis of the film; all you need to know is George Bailey (played by James Stewart) never thought he’d accomplished anything but, in the end, an angel named Clarence shows him how different the world would be had George not been in it.

‘It’s A Wonderful Life’ truly is a wonderful and remarkable film.  So, when I heard that Hollywood is looking to make a sequel, I think of Mister Potter, the rich corrupt swindler trying to take people’s homes in the film.  Let me make one thing clear, I’m not saying Hollywood is corrupt and I’m not saying Hollywood Executives are swindlers.  What I am saying is, THIS IS NOT NECESSARY.  There is absolutely no reason to make a sequel to ‘It’s A Wonderful Life’.  There are some films that should not be touched.  ‘Gone With The Wind’, ‘Casablanca’, ‘Rebel Without A Cause’, ‘In The Heat of the Night’ and ‘It’s A Wonderful Life’ all fall in that category.  These are films that are so close to perfect, so revolutionary (each in their own way), that they should be left alone.  Let them stand the test of time without having a sequel attached.  It all feels very wrong.  I have no doubt that the production company and everyone involved want to make a great film, but we already have one.  What is the reason for a sequel after 67 years?  Why is this a conversation?  Many generations have been and will be exposed to ‘It’s A Wonderful Life’ and in the end, George Bailey is the richest man in town.  What else do we need to know?

With All Due Respect,

  

-  George McCann