Tonight TCM airs the classic sci-fi social commentary, The Day the Earth Stood Still, in which an alien named Klaatu comes down to visit us earthlings with his robot Gort and lets us know we’re becoming a problem. That is, the earth and its development of nuclear weapons is a problem because, I don’t know, somehow having atomic bombs means we might soon destroy the galaxy, I guess. They didn’t really have a great understanding of how puny a nuclear weapon was in the face of a galaxy back then (heck, even when a massive nuclear fusion furnace like a star goes supernova, it still doesn’t wipe out a galaxy) but more to the point, who does this Klaatu think he is? I mean, we’re the villains? We’re building big bombs and if we don’t stop, Klaatu and his friends will destroy us, killing billions?! And we’re the bad guys here? I don’t think so. Sometimes, the movies make out someone to be the bad guy while ignoring the real villain right under our nose.
Many times, a movie villain is, in fact, not the bad guy but only made to be so by the rigged rules of the movie. One good example is that of Walter Peck, played by William Atherton, in Ghostbusters. I think it was my friend Neil who once said that in the real world we would want Peck to succeed. Peck works for the EPA and is attempting to shut the heroes of the movie down for operating an unlicensed, unregulated nuclear reactor in the middle of New York City. Hmm, call me crazy, but in the real world, that guy’s a hero. In the real world, a group of buffoons endangering the lives of millions of people by operating unregulated reactors would be hauled off to jail and the whole city would applaud. But in the closed off movie world of Ghostbusters, well, Walter Peck’s a jerk and we all hate him. Because we know that the Ghostbusters are actually catching ghosts and protecting the city but why in the real world would anyone in the city believe that, especially when the whole building does blow up just like Walter Peck feared might happen?
Another good example is a villain common to many movies: The grown up, the authority figure, the parent, the principal, the dean. Is there any adult over 40 alive who doesn’t view the kids in The Breakfast Club as a bunch of whiny teenagers and the assistant principal as a sympathetic figure? I really feel for that guy having to deal with those self-obsessed, oh-so-persecuted teens all day. Or how about Dean Wormer in Animal House? Oh, I know, they vaguely connect him to an organized crime figure in the movie and make him seem sordid and authoritarian but they have to because otherwise there’d be nothing to make us disagree with him about those crude, selfish losers at Delta House. Now, Neidermeyer, that’s a villain.
But I only bring up these minor examples so that I may put forth a larger one, one that has floated in and out of my thoughts for years. He has his villainous traits, no doubt, but I feel that maybe the hero of the movie is a little bit to blame. The hero could have done something for the good of the town but didn’t and maybe that wasn’t the best thing to do. I’m speaking of none other than Old Man Potter and George Bailey from It’s a Wonderful Life. Hear me out.
It’s a Wonderful Life goes to great extremes to paint Potter (Lionel Barrymore in a great, great performance!) as the villain. It goes to even greater lengths to paint George Bailey (Jimmy Stewart in a great, great performance!) as the hero. Potter is uncaring when George’s father dies or, more accurately, clear-headed about business and dissolving the Bailey Brothers Building and Loan, which George’s father ran, which, if dissolved, will allow Potter to run all the bank business in town. Okay, we all know the story so I’ll skip ahead to the moment when I think Potter isn’t being the villain in a real world situation, only in the world of the movie: It’s the moment he offers George a job with him. Now in the world of the movie, we all know why this cements his status as a villain: He’s trying to lure George away with so much money and benefits that George will let the Building and Loan get swallowed up and Potter runs the town. But wait a minute. There’s another side to this.
Potter offers Bailey $20,000 a year. Now he mentions George’s age of 28 and earlier in the movie George is shown at 12 in 1919 so we know this is 1935 when the offer gets made. Now, if you go here and put in $20,000 for the amount and 1935 for the year, you will find that adjusted for inflation that’s a gigantic sum of approximately $350,000 a year. Um, I’ll take that job. That’s a lot of money and that can help a lot of people and certainly make his life a little easier. But that’s not my point. Here’s what Potter says to him: “I want you to manage my affairs, run my properties.” We know George is a good person and will act as an eternal ethical counterweight to Potter from the inside. If he’s controlling Potter’s properties from the inside, surely some of his influence will come to bear on the business practices of Potter. And surely that will be good for the town. Potter mentions drawing up the papers meaning this isn’t some simple handshake deal. There will be a contract and if it’s Potter, wanting to keep George under his watch, probably at least a five year exclusive contract, meaning George has plenty of time to squirrel away the equivalent in today’s money of about $150,000 a year, which with good investments could get close to a million after five years at which point George could leave, or get fired, and start up an even more powerful Building and Loan if need be. But I doubt he would need to. Potter, as George himself alludes to early in the film, simply wants to have all the power. Once he’s got it, he’s probably okay with letting George run things as George sees fit, as long as there’s money coming in. We see one of Potter’s men tell him that if he’s not careful then one day Potter’s going to lose him to George Bailey so it’s obvious that if you work for Potter, you can speak your mind to him. Potter doesn’t mind that, he just wants to be the important guy running the town, even if everyone really knows it was George Bailey keeping things on the up and up. Bottom line: I personally think in the real world it would be better for George and the town for him to take the job with Potter. That makes George’s angry rejection seem a little less than heroic.
Of course, in the movie, the deck is stacked against Potter. They even show him stealing $8,000, which is pretty clearly grand larceny (and over $100,000 in today’s money – you have the link now, look it up). So yes, they make him out to be evil but in the real world, he’s just a businessman with an unfriendly personality who wants control. Getting someone on the inside who can make the system work for the townspeople, with a lot more capital than the Building and Loan, is a win-win for everyone. Too bad George didn’t take the offer. I guess not everyone can be a hero all of the time.