That argument could be made for ANY film, but its more appropriate for a film (like this) that examines someone's life. We, as an audience, take our life experiences into the theater with us, and we judge the movie (and it's characters) by those experiences. The fact that we've each had different things happen to us makes us see a film in different lights. Mick correctly suggested that that is the beauty of telling a story in film.

The DVD version of this movie has some good extras, including some documentaries with interviews of James Stewart and Frank Capra. They touch on how the character of George Bailey was a truly wonderful man, but note that he had his dark side, too. I think its this dark side that has tainted Mick's view of Bailey (Holy crud, Mick has been seduced by the dark side... we'll have to start calling him Mick Vader).

Stewart was picked, in part, to play this role because he was a talented enough actor capable of showing a goodie-two-shoes being not-so-good at times. When Uncle Billy loses the money and George starts yelling at him you're taken aback that George would act this badly. Part of George's universal appeal (to all of us) is that he's human, warts and all, and this is shown in his frustrating moments. Capra caught those moments magnificently.

Imagine having all kinds of dreams and getting so close to them that you can taste them. Then imagine those dreams being pulled away from right in front of you at the last minute. THAT'S frustration!! That's George Bailey!

Younger people mostly have not had that frustration, while older folk have had that disappointing taste cross their life path once or twice. With that in mind I agree with Cami's quote that started my post.

To Mick - no good film historian or critic always had his audience agree with his critiques. You're a great student of film, but I disagree with you on this one. As a wise young man once told me, thats the beauty of film, too.