George Bailey is more Christmas than Santa Claus. And yes, they are in competition with each other. Whenever one TV station is playing It’s a Wonderful Life, you can bet that our country’s other black-and-white holiday classic, Miracle on 34th Street, is just a channel away.
George endures as our festive avatar, in part because he embodies many of the shared worries we associate with the season. I adore Christmas intimately—stringing lights, speaking honestly with dear friends, savoring cookies, reconnecting with kin, spinning holiday tunes, taking a break from work to lounge on the couch and watch sports at my parents’ house, and exchanging gifts. Yet the sheer scale of consumerism and the weight of those traditions have a way of unnerving people. There’s immense pressure for everything to look pristine, and yet so much can go awry, or feel heavy even when nothing is truly wrong. Is the house presentable? Am I overindulging? Will my flight be delayed? Do the people I love actually appreciate the gifts I chose? How will I pay these bills? Is my family judging how I live? Can we survive a few days together without a major blow-up? And how will I cope after losing someone dear?
Through George, It’s a Wonderful Life is the tale of an American dream held, lost, and then reincarnated. And Jimmy Stewart was the perfect guy to embody it.
All of our Christmas anxieties might be captured with two sharply simple questions: Is my life the one I want? And if not, could I fix it? In the film’s most well‑remembered stretch, George is a man beaten by his answers to these questions. No, my ambitions were forever deferred, and No, I can only imagine it deteriorating further. He longed for freedom, adventure, and self‑determination—things that embody the American ideal. Yet he finds himself confronted with the inverse: long, solitary days behind bars after a bank-fraud conviction. Through George, It’s a Wonderful Lifeis the story of an American dream held, lost, and then revived. And Jimmy Stewart proved to be the ideal performer to carry it.
*
Jimmy Stewart typically appeared as James on posters, though I can’t bring myself to call him that. It feels wrong to add a layer of formality to an actor who, especially in his early years, always seemed ready to step out of the frame, sit beside you, and gently rib his own performance as you finish the movie together. As a romantic lead, he was invariably appealing and consistently engaging, constantly trying to follow the honest instinct of his compassionate heart even when the world pushed back against him. He never played a flawless hero—his characters could be anxious or awkward, or lash out at women who cared for them—but because of that, he became everyone’s buddy, balancing a Goldilocks‑like amount of traditional masculinity between Gary Cooper’s shy innocence and Cary Grant’s worldly swagger. It’s common to compare Stewart to Tom Hanks—so much so that Hanks himself invited the comparison when he remade You’ve Got Mail after The Shop Around the Corner—but the connection is too obvious not to discuss here. As Roger Ebert wrote in Awake in the Dark, praising Hanks and Stewart together: “Tom Hanks’s central achievement as a film actor is that, most of the time, we feel like he thinks a lot like us. That’s the James Stewart quality.”
Nobody could sell their own fundamental goodness to audiences more effectively. Born into a hardware‑store milieu in Indiana, Pennsylvania—a town crafted to sound irresistibly folksy to many Americans—Stewart started in theater and then moved West as a young man in the 1930s. His rise wasn’t instantaneous, but he arrived after a few lean years. In Capra’s You Can’t Take It with You and in the era’s slapstick Vivacious Lady, he pursued a girl who seemed perfectly suited for him, even if his parents disapproved. In Capra’s Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, he appears as a ingenuous but steadfast figure who triumphs through sheer stubbornness. In The Philadelphia Story, his role is somewhat rough around the edges, yet he remains the epitome of courtesy amid the chaos of Grant and Katharine Hepburn’s romance.
But after serving as a military instructor with the Army Air Corps and volunteering for twenty bombing missions over Germany in a B‑24 during World War II, Stewart came back to cinema for a second act that wasn’t built on laughs, notably in his collaborations with Alfred Hitchcock. Those performances push against the wholesome image, presenting men who often feel frustrated and at times dangerous. Few are as acclaimed as Hitchcock’s Vertigo, which certainly touches a nerve as he stubbornly attempts to shape Kim Novak into the woman he first believed she could be.
Is this a sign that a genuine person was emerging behind the comic persona? Perhaps. The intensity with which Stewart advocated for the Vietnam War, even after his adopted son from a long marriage to his wife Gloria was killed in action, offers a tangible marker of the loss of innocence and the growing paranoia that colors his on‑screen evolution. Yet even through these darker arcs he never stopped being Jimmy Stewart, with the menacing edges of his characters smoothed over. Audiences remember the friendly drawl and the unassailable decency he projected. I can watch Vertigo and feel unsettled, then switch to The Philadelphia Story and feel the same affection for Stewart as ever. That is the power he wielded.
*
It’s a Wonderful Life marked Stewart’s first film after his wartime hiatus, and it sits squarely near the midpoint between the two Jimmys—the All‑American boy and the unsettled, questioning man. The first half of the film radiates with Boy Scout‑like zeal: a loyal brother, a dutiful son, an upright boss, a neighbor you’d trust, and a beloved object of affection. Yet within him—like any ordinary person—lurks something formidable and unsettling that can flare up when circumstances turn sour.
Still, the George we follow for most of It’s a Wonderful Life is a man who seems to have it all: a stunning wife, a warm home, happy children, and a vocation that allows him to sleep soundly at night. He’s clever, sincere, respected, and sweet. If you’ve ever seen the Muppet take on It’s a Wonderful Life, you’ll recognize how easily George’s virtues map onto Kermit the Frog—clever, sincere, respected, and kind. In a pivotal speech to Mr. Potter, George argues:
What did you say a moment ago? People should have saved up before they could even dream of a decent home. Saved up for what, exactly? Until their kids grow up and move away? Until they’re too old and worn to do anything? Do you know how long it takes a working man to save five thousand dollars?
George continues to point out that those whom Potter calls “the rabble” actually do most of the work, pay most of the taxes, and keep the community alive, and that his own father—who treated them as fellow human beings rather than “cattle”—believed in helping them live decently. Then George drives the pointed retort that haunts Potter’s side of the story: “In my book he died a richer man than you’ll ever be.”
To George, it is our obligation to lend assistance whenever someone else might benefit, and that is how a town like Bedford Falls should operate. By extension, it is how a nation should function as well.
George’s acts of generosity, and the emotional weight of their reciprocation at the film’s end, offer a path to empathy—that seeing hardship in a neighbor’s life is akin to recognizing hardship in all of us.
That sentiment inspires, and at least one FBI agent at the time argued it sounded almost socialist. As John A. Noakes notes in “Bankers and Common Men in Bedford Falls: How the FBI Determined That ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ Was a Subversive Movie,” a Los Angeles agent wrote to J. Edgar Hoover criticizing the film’s class clash between the ordinary man and the “Scrooge-like” Mr. Potter—a caricature of a financier. It didn’t help that two of the scriptwriters, Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett, were closely connected to known Communists, and that earlier drafts included work by Dalton Trumbo (blacklisted after refusing HUAC testimony) and Clifford Odets (whose career tainted after cooperation with HUAC, to a contested degree).
But Noakes disagrees with labeling the film as leftist propaganda, and many millions of annual viewers would likely share that stance. George Bailey occupies a comparatively privileged, uncommon position in society, Noakes argues, and the movie primarily laments mid‑twentieth‑century America’s creeping capitalism, which grew more faceless and corporate, leaving the individual entrepreneur with less influence as mega‑conglomerates extended their reach. George is the star here, he contends, not the community.
That interpretation clicked with me when I read it, because it challenged how I think about the film’s core goodness. Yet the arm of that argument still resonates when I hear that speech: “Working men deserve safety, dignity, and a measure of comfort.” And although I would broaden that to include all people, it remains a strong starting point. George argues that benevolent choices are an obligation for those whose work impacts others. I can’t help but equate George Bailey’s sense of real wealth with Barack Obama’s 2004 DNC moment, when he reframed American greatness as something measured by modest, human milestones rather than colossal feats of power, military might, or stock-market numbers:
That is the true genius of America, a faith in the simple dreams of its people, the insistence on small miracles. That we can tuck in our children at night and know
