For many people, watching Frank Capra’s film It’s a Wonderful Life (1946) with their family is almost a ritual of these holidays. The Italian director’s film reminds us of the essential values of life. “No one is a failure if they have friends” – that’s how the film ends – and family relationships are the first laboratory of concern and care for others, destined to permeate society. By the way, the gesture and message of this film have been very aptly picked up by another recent Spanish film, by Juan Manuel Cotelo, Let’s Have a Party in Peace (2021), starring Teresa Ferrer and Carlos Aguillo, in which the emphasis is creatively placed on overcoming marital conflicts through forgiveness, or on the subjectivity of other family members, such as the grandmother or the children, who take on great prominence in the plot, as they are the catalysts for the processes of need for reconciliation that the marriage experiences.
Both Capra’s classic and Juan Manuel Cotelo’s so-called classic coincide on a theme that bioethics cannot fail to point out: the impact of the economy on the decisions made concerning the family and life. And both contrast “ways of living freedom in economic activity” in which human and family ties are respected, or “ways of exploitation”, in which the figures of Mr. Potter (Lionel Barrymore) or the Boss (Juan Manuel Cotelo himself) put George Bayley (James Stewart) or the father of the family (Carlos Aguillo), respectively, outside of themselves. They make it clear that it is not the same to simply demand a “free economy” —which can be used for any purpose without giving more account than one’s desire— than a “moral economy” —which states that the purpose of freedom is to contribute to the common good that sustains the good of each family and each person—.
That Certain Thing was the first film that Capra made for Columbia
Capra’s film was supported by his way of conceiving cinema[1], present from the first moments of his filmography. We were able to justify this recently on this website with his work with the comedian Harry Langdon[2]. Now we can see it again in That Certain Thing (1928), the first film that the director of Sicilian origin made for the Columbia studios, run by a producer as unique as Harry Cohn (1891-1958), where he achieved the fame and prestige that he is recognized for today. He earned the right to be, as his biography indicates, “the name before the title” (Frank Capra’s…)[3].
We now have a very careful edition of the twenty films that Capra made for Columbia, edited on Blu-ray —nine also in 4K ultra HD— by Sony, although for That Certain Thing the edition is only 64 minutes long —although with a better image—, so we have also followed the 86-minute edition from Televista.
We highlight this aspect of the edition because in it historians Stan Taffel and Bryan Cooper, in the context of other Capra films from the same year —So This Is Love and The Way of Strong— make some observations that are very relevant to our research. These “quickies,” as they are called because of the speed with which they were made, were made at a time when talking films had already been released. The Jazz Singer, the first film with synchronized sound, was released in 1927. It can be seen that in That Certain Thing you can read what the actors say on many occasions. Why were these silent films still being made? The answer is simple: many movie theaters, especially in rural areas, had not adapted to showing films with sound. To put it more directly, they had not been able to afford the corresponding investment to make the change.
We encounter works of art that challenge us from a unique and genuine character, as Stanley Cavell likes to repeat, from his candor
The fact is significant, because, on the one hand, it highlights the two-faced character of cinema as art and industry, which makes it a particularly eloquent witness to the relationship between the economy and the person. But at the same time, it makes us aware that we are recovering these films to see them in a way that was completely unexpected for those who conceived and made them. Where those resigned themselves to making ephemeral art, which would soon fall into oblivion, today those of us who enjoy and study them encounter works of art that challenge us from a unique and genuine character, as Stanley Cavell likes to repeat, from his candor[4].
Consequently, dedicating oneself to watching these films highlights that, firstly, the current success of a film[5] may be something to take into account, but it does not in itself contain all the possibilities of value of the film, even if the directors, producers and actors of the moment themselves may have experienced it that way. And secondly, it confers on those of us who dedicate ourselves to watching it the comforting condition of “treasure hunters”, since we have the opportunity to see a work like this that may have gone unnoticed by the eyes of others.
“Having children on demand is the clear expression of capitalist culture in the procreative sphere”
That Certain Thing is a magnificent opportunity to clarify a fundamental difference in bioethics, such as that between “market economy” and “capitalism”. Something that can be appreciated in the importance it has when, recently, Vicente Bellver, professor of Philosophy of Law and professor of the Master in Bioethics, has denounced in a bioethical debate. We capture the tone of the question and the answer.
Interviewer: Imagine that things were much worse, that genetic editing were allowed for human selection purposes or to satisfy the whim of parents who want their child to have blue eyes. There are many voices that approve of this approach.
Vicente Bellver: “Considering genetic editing as an opportunity for parents to have children to order, defining the characteristics they consider best for their children and their offspring, is a simple exercise in arrogance and the clear expression of capitalist culture in the reproductive field. A culture in which one looks for quality products, safe products, products that satisfy them. The problem is that the parent-child relationship does not fit these patterns at all.”[6]
Behind these approaches are the theses wonderfully justified by the common teacher of Professor Bellver and the person writing, the emeritus professor of Philosophy of Law, Jesús Ballesteros, who has set forth the reasons that differentiate the market economy from capitalism[7]. In short, it is about recognizing that the market economy makes egalitarian freedom possible when creative initiative and obligations with respect to the common good are recognized. Both notes disappear when the accumulation of work that is capital seeks to develop an autonomous and self-sufficient logic, exclusively financial, giving rise to capitalism that, as Bellver has pointed out in tune with Pope Francis, seeks to colonize all aspects of life.
Phenomena of an economic order are conceivable only as the activity of man, a moral being capable of subjecting all his actions to the motives of pure good.
The Russian philosopher Vladimir Soloviov had already pointed out forcefully in that direction.
Since the subordination of material interests and relations in human society to certain special, self-acting economic laws is only the fiction of bad metaphysics, with no basis in reality, the general demand of reason and moral conscience remains that this sphere be subordinated to the higher moral principle, so that society, also in its economic life, may be the organized realization of good.
There are not and cannot be any autonomous economic laws, nor any economic necessity, because economic phenomena are conceivable only as the activity of man, a moral being capable of subjecting all his actions to the motives of pure good. For man as such there is only one autonomous and absolute law: the moral law, just as the only necessity for him is moral necessity.[8] (Soloviov 2012: 395-396)
The plot summary for Harry Cohn
In his autobiography, Capra reflects how he summarized the plot of what he had in mind for the film, so that it convinced Harry Cohn. This is what he brought to the screen with some minor variations. Jaime Iglesias Gamboa[9] points out that the owner of Columbia was enthusiastic about this because he saw himself projected in his own beginnings as an entrepreneur.
A wealthy socialite owns a large chain of restaurants. He has only one son and wants to groom him to take over the restaurants. The son is not interested. He is more interested in a girl across the street. The old man fumes. The young man insists. The father leaves him penniless and throws him out of the house. The boy and the girl have no money to get married. But they have an idea… boxes of ready-made meals! They make some. At noon they drive them around in her beat-up car to sell to the workers. The ready-made meals are a success. They grow and grow until they become a big business… which overtakes the father’s restaurants. The old man gives in. He asks the owners of the ready-made meals business to start talks for a merger. He is shocked when he discovers that the owners are his son and the girl. The two businesses merge, the boy and the girl get married, the boy becomes president of the new company…[10]
Molly’s dream of marrying a millionaire
The changes that Capra introduced to this initial scheme are related above all to the inner world of the characters. His is a love story well contextualized socially, but with unique and unrepeatable people as protagonists. We can list them this way. We will begin with Molly’s dream of marrying a millionaire.
- Molly Kelly (Viola Dana) appears as a young woman from a humble class. She is the daughter of a widowed mother and takes care of her two younger brothers. The income in her humble home comes from her work as an employee in a hotel tobacco shop. Her whole dream is to marry a millionaire to escape poverty
- Andy B. Charles (Ralph Graves) is a lively and party-loving son. “He loves his father so much —- a sign tells us — that he always toasts to his health.” His father, A-B. Charles Sr. (Burr McIntosh), a businessman with a dominant position in his business —“he thought that eating too much was dangerous: that was how he made a fortune running restaurants,” we are told, meaning that he sold very little food at a high price—, wants Andy to start working in one of his establishments.
- The meeting between Molly and Andy is fortuitous. They bump into each other at the door of the hotel where she works. They fall to the ground. And from there he falls in love with her, also in a context of humility. Guardini explained in an almost unsurpassable way:
Beauty is the way that the being has of taking on a face before the heart and with it becoming eloquent. In beauty, the being becomes powerful through love and by moving the heart and blood, it also moves the spirit.[11]
- Molly shows no interest in him, until she discovers that he is the son of the millionaire businessman. Then she puts all her interest in winning him over. The young man invites her to dinner and dancing, and Molly asks the neighbors for help so she can dress as the occasion demands. When Andy goes to pick her up in a luxurious car, she shows off in front of the neighbors.
- The dinner shows that they are made for each other, or vice versa. Capra shows it through some delicate kisses… for which they modestly ask a waiter (Russ Powell) to act as a screen. Andy proposes to her that same night and she happily accepts. They marry and she tells her mother, to the delight of her and her neighbors on the community phone.
Molly will have to find out if she wants Andy for himself, or for his money
But that dream will be put to the test. Molly will have to find out if she wants Andy for himself, or for his money.
- The morning after their wedding night, Andy surrounds Molly with luxurious gifts. But she will soon have to return them because her father does not pay the bills. He believes that he has married a gold-digger.
- When she learns that Andy has also been disinherited, she decides to leave him so as not to harm him. The neighbors learn from the press that Molly’s dream has been shattered, and they receive her with cruel sarcasm. She also appears in a heavy rain – a sign of purification and life for Capra – and they reproach her for having ruined the borrowed clothes. Where before there was a display of superiority, now Molly receives a bitter retribution. Only her mother, Maggie Kelly (Aggie Herring) defends her unconditionally.
- For Andy, too, a purification takes place. He goes to her and shows her that he also loves her. And he seeks to be able to support her through his work.
Andy’s economic initiative, carried out by Molly
The final phase of love’s triumph will come from the work part, or rather, from Andy’s economic initiative, carried out by Molly. Here the story is faithful to what Capra anticipated. Only small details need to be noted.
- Andy sees that the workers he has been working with have gone to his father’s restaurant, and have come back hungry. On the other hand, he has eaten sumptuously with what Molly has served him in a box. From there arises the idea of a business distributing prepared meals, which soon becomes a success, although they may have problems paying the salaries because they have invested a lot in equipment.
- The father feels threatened and decides to buy the prepared meals business. Molly, advised by Andy, negotiates with him firmly, and gets a sale for one hundred thousand dollars. The father makes it a condition that his son be the general manager of the company. And he praises Molly, telling Andy that if he had married her instead of the gold digger, he would have given her the same amount. At that moment Molly shows her ring and the father, happy, is forced to keep his promise, and signs another check.
- Finally, A.B. Charles asks Molly what the success of her product is and she confidently answers that it is cutting the thickest ham that they did in A.B. Charles’ restaurants.
Conclusion
Michel Cieutat criticizes the ending. He states that “Andy and Molly, like Capra, believe in equal opportunities for all, but they are unable to admit that capitalism engendered by puritanism leads inexorably to social Darwinism” [12].
We believe that he misreads the end of the film. It is the logic of care and family reconciliation that is placed above economic logic, guiding it. Molly’s company had a more human profile as a community of workers and as a quality service. A. B. Charles begins to see that this is the future. The same thing that Capra saw and did not stop advocating for at any time: recovering the human and moral sense of the market economy.
In a previous writing we summarized in this way the contribution of That Certain Thing, in what seems to us a better reading in tune with other experts such as Raymond Carney or Charles Maland[13].
In a subtle way, Capra is already projecting his convictions: a) An early perception of the reversibility of the male/female roles in the workplace, based on the recognition that women’s talent is not restricted to the solution of domestic problems; b) that the market, in some cases, can allow social equality through economic success, which constitutes its greatest virtue compared to other more rigid economic models that perpetuate social discrimination; c) equality as persons and the spousal complementarity of man and woman through the deepest mutual unveiling of their face, especially the feminine: the crises experienced have not been in vain, because they have allowed personal development, an inner and outer maturation, which allow them to better discover each other.[14]
Only an economy based on a supportive and responsible use of freedom will favor bioethics being effective in preventing and remedying new exploitations of the lives of the most defenseless.
Jose Alfredo Peris-Cancio – Professor and researcher in Philosophy and Cinema – Member of the Bioethics Observatory – Catholic University of Valencia
***
[1] Something that is also appreciated in the career of Juan Manuel Cotelo (Madrid, 1966).
[2] Innocence, resilience and transformation in “The Strong Man” (1926), https://www.observatoriobioetica.org/2024/10/inocencia-resiliencia-y-transformacion-en-the-strong-man-el-hombre-canon-1926/10002
[3] Capra, F. (1997). The Name above the Title: an Autobiography. New York: Da Capro Press. [There is a Spanish translation, Capra, F. (2007). Frank Capra. The name above the title. Madrid: T&B Editores.] It is a highly recommended reading, in which the adventures between Capra and Cohn are widely collected.
[4] Cfr. Cavell, S. (1979b). The World Viewed. Reflections on the Ontology of Film. Enlarged edition. Cambridge, Massachusetts / London, England: Harvard University Press. [Cavell, S. (2017). The world seen. Reflections on the ontology of cinema. (A. Fernández Díez, Trans.). Córdoba: University of Córdoba].
[5] Not even the “likes” of today.
[6] https://www.ucv.es/actualidad/todas-las-noticias/vicente-bellver-tener-hijos-a-la-carta-es-la-clara-expresion-de-la-cultura-capitalista-en-el-ambito-procreativo
[7] It is essential to refer to his work, which we can only leave noted. Cfr. Ballesteros, J. (2013). Against the financialization of the economy and the commodification of society. Yearbook of the Faculty of Law of the University of Coruña, 55-68; Ballesteros, J. (2018). “Social rights and debt. Between capitalism and market economy”. Electronic notebooks of philosophy of law (37), 1-21. Both have been collected in his compilation work, Ballesteros, J. (2021). Taming finance, caring for nature. Valencia: Tirant Humanidades.
[8] Soloviov, V. (2012). The justification of good. Essay on moral philosophy. (C. H. Martín, Trans.) Salamanca: Sígueme, pp. 395-396.
[9] Iglesias Gamboa, J. (2022). How to cut ham. In VV. AA., The universe of Frank Capra (pp. 18-21). Madrid: Notorious, p. 21.
[10] Capra, F. (2007). Frank Capra. The name in front…, cit., p. 111.
[11] Guardini, R. (1954). The religious universe of Dostoyevski. (A. L. Bixio, Trad.) Buenos Aires: Emecé, p. 272.
[12] Cieutat, M. (1990). Frank Capra. Barcelona: Cinema Club Collection, pp. 118-119.
[13] Cfr. Carney, R. (1986). American Vision. The Films of Frank Capra. Cambridge, London, New York, New Rochelle, Melbourne, Sydney.: Cambridge University Press, pp. 61-81; Maland, C.J. (1980).Frank Capra.Boston: Twayne Publishers, p. 41.
[14] Sanmartín Esplugues, J., & Peris-Cancio, J.-A. (2017b).Notebooks of Philosophy and Cinema 02. The personalist principles in the filmography of Frank Capra. Valencia: Catholic University of Valencia, San Vicente Mártir, pp. 37-38.
