But that, of course, is what makes the redemption "work," at least for the moment, and what makes the film far richer than you might think if all you ever saw of it was the "angel gets his wings" snippet.

For a dissenting opinion, see David Mamet in Sight and Sound. Picking up on an old thesis -- that Frank Capra didn't know (or more cynically, didn't want you to know) the first thing about banking or how the financial system really works -- Mamet writes, "This, it seems, is as close as Hollywood can get to the notion of an equitable distribution of wealth -- the reliance on a person of character in a position usually occupied by the heartless."

So far, so good. But much of what else Mamet has to say is bunk. Capra's characters are no more notthe "other" than De Sica's (is Mamet, of all people, mistaking neorealism for reality?); I've seen plenty of middle Americans (smart ones, too) deeply, viscerally relate to George Bailey (and of course, a lot of the credit here has to go to Jimmy Stewart; it's a phenomenal performance); and what's more, ifCapra is saying "that all one needs is a kindly banker," then thatis Capra's critique.

In 1947, happy endings were as part and parcel to Hollywood product as cherries were to ice cream sodas. Everyone understood that actually eating them was optional.