The Legacy of Jimmy Stewart

With Christmas tidings in full swing, I've been surrounded by references of "It's a Wonderful Life". I've already caught bits and pieces of it on several channels at different times. This year I started to wonder about Jimmy Stewart's place in Hollywood history. He's always been considered one of the very best, if not the best, actors the motion picture industry has ever produced. However, it occurred to me the other night that Stewart is starting to become a bit lost in history. I'm wondering if people not so long from now will think of him only as "that guy in 'It's a Wonderful Life'" and that's it. Will that movie create the same sort of singular presence as "The Wizard of Oz" has for Judy Garland?

While Garland was clearly talented, she obviously doesn't have the resume Jimmy Stewart has. However, when I went over to IMDB to have a look at Stewart's complete career, I was a bit surprised to find it more sparse on major impact movies than I recall previously.

His first real hit is, in my view, his best movie, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" in 1939. It's one of my favorite films of all-time and possibly even my favorite film.

"Destry Rides Again" is considered a good movie but I don't like western's a lot and it takes one like "Unforgiven" to really win me over. Destry isn't that so I don't see this as being good enough for consideration.

In 1940 he's in "The Shop Around the Corner". This is another film that many people talk about but I found it a bit slow. I never fail to turn to another channel when I trip over it.

In 1940 again he's in another absolute classic in "The Philadelphia Story". Stewart, Katherine Hepburn and Cary Grant.... Wow, what's not to like there?

"It's a Wonderful Life" shows up in 1946. It's a classic but it is starting to fall into "Oz" territory in that a lot of people are worn out by it, but again, it's a classic, period.

I happen to think 1948's "Rope" is an excellent movie but I find a lot of people today are bored silly by it. It's mainly forgotten. Most people you mention it to have never even heard of it and given that it's an Alfred Hitchcock movie, that's even more surprising, so it doesn't make the list.

"Winchester '73" is in 1950 but it does nothing for me and, in fact, his role in it has always bugged me. It's 1950's "Harvey" that clearly deserves to be on the list. That said, today I find nearly as many people have never heard of it as "Rope".

In 1953 we get "The Glenn Miller Story" but that's mainly a yawn today.

Then in 1954 comes the undisputed classic, "Rear Window". Grace Kelly still lights up the screen every time it's on.

I'd like to argue that 1957's "The Spirit of St. Louis", the story about Charles Lindbergh, his famous flight and plane, belongs on the list but it's another movie that today many people just pass over. It comes off very dated and overly glossy with respect to historical quality as well.

"Vertigo" is from 1958 but it's a movie I've never enjoyed, not even once. I watch it and find much of it to be flat and I can't stand Kim Novak in it for some reason.

1959 brings us "Anatomy of a Murder". It's a very good movie but go find people who know it. Best of luck. It's also quite dated today.

1962's "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" is considered a solid movie and co-stars John Wayne. However, this movie bugs me even more than "Winchester '73". I just don't like it.

In 1965 Stewart stars in "Flight of the Phoenix" which I can never turn off when I find it. I think it's a wonderful movie but I'm often the only one in the room who finds it that interesting. The recent remake ruined what little chance there was of large groups of people thinking good things about this one.

Going through this process, I feel better about Stewart's chances of being able to stake a permanent claim as being one of Hollywood's very best but I was also a bit surprised to find that only five of his films (Smith, Philadelphia, Life, Harvey, Window) could be so easily defended as solid classics. On the plus side, I'm not sure what other stars you could point to that have as many top classics on their resumes. Cary Grant is up there. Henry Fonda and Humphrey Bogart seem like shoe-in's but it's not an easy list to put together.

My wife said she thought Stewart is actually underrated today and that she thinks most people simply wouldn't know his other films. When I asked for people above him she mentioned Harrison Ford and Tom Hanks. I like Harrison Ford but he's no Jimmy Stewart. "Star Wars" and "Indiana Jones" were effects movies. They're not going to be remembered for their stellar acting. That isn't to say Ford isn't a good actor. He is, but he's not in the same league as Jimmy Stewart. A couple other friends, when asked, said exactly what I was concerned about. They mentioned, "It's a Wonderful Life" and then started to draw blanks.

Holiday Thoughts

As Christmas draws near a couple of things come to mind.

First, I continue to be amazed at the level of utter intransigence shown by our President. At every turn he just ignores everyone and does whatever the hell he wants. Remember, we're the ones he works for, not the other way around. He's now floating the idea that it's time to bump up the troop levels in Iraq in an attempt to stabilize the situation there. Is he out of his mind? How in the hell does this guy sleep at night? The people have spoken. The public voted just about every Republican brown-noser out of office this past election and this guy still acts as if he's working from some sort of mandate. For the first time in my life I'm starting to wonder about allowing for a vote of no confidence to get this guy out of there. How many more lives must we lose to an agenda very few here care about or want to be involved in?

Remember that we lost 2,752 people on 9/11. That was in an attack from Osama bin Laden who has not been apprehended as President Bush promised. We've now lost 2,954 Americans in Iraq since the war started and 2,817 since Bush told us all that the mission was accomplished (to say nothing of the exponentially larger number of Iraqi deaths). Exactly how many more people do we need to lose before this folly is given up? Under Bush's agenda, in order to keep from having terrorist attacks here, we need to lose more people everywhere else. Exactly how is that a good plan especially when it's absolutely clear that these actions have done nothing to quell the hatred for our country and our political actions?

Now he wants us to send even more troops to Iraq? To what end? We could send 500,000 more kids over there (assuming we could even find them) and the situation would change very little. Didn't we learn anything from Vietnam? It's like sending meat to a grinder. The more you send, the more the grinder processes. More troops will not impact the psyche of the people there. Democracy must come from within. Democracy cannot be given as a Christmas gift to people who don't fully understand the concept.

Think about our own examples in this. If you're a devout Christian, how hard has it been to convince an atheist that there's a god? How difficult is it for non-devout Christian's to try to tell a devout Christian that he or she is incorrect? Now imagine trying to have that discussion with someone in a neighborhood where you've burned down all the surrounding houses and where you're blamed for the lack of basic services. Sending more of our kids over there isn't going to change the perspective there. It's only going to make it worse just as sending more troops to Vietnam did nothing to help us win there. Two more years of this guy is two years too many. The lives of too many people will be snuffed-out for no reason. This battle cannot be won by attrition. It cannot be won by force. It certainly cannot be won by stupidity and that's what this guy brings to the table.

.................

On another front, I've been laughing about Bill O'Reilly's ongoing joke regarding his so-called war on Christmas. What the hell is wrong with some people? What sort of person gets bent out of shape when someone wishes you a happy holiday? What exactly is the big deal here? Companies are in business to sell product to everyone, not just Christians. How centrist and selfish do you have to be to be put off by the use of inclusive phrasing instead of phrases that clearly and obviously are exclusive? The phrase "happy holiday" wishes us all a good time regardless of our personal beliefs. Frankly I find the whole thing a bit silly. Exactly how much time do you think the marketing people behind these phrases think of us during the holidays? The entire effort is nothing more than a show to appeal to our wallets anyway. No one at Wal-Mart's main office is losing sleep over whether or not you or I have a merry Christmas or a happy holiday. To spend time fighting corporate America over the phrase is just ridiculous. If you support this rant of O'Reilly's, wake up and grow up. We share this country and this world with people of all faiths. It's time we started acting like we understand that. I suspect if we could truly embrace that thinking, much of the rest of the problems we face would begin to head in the right direction as well.

Happy Holidays!