MovieChat Forums > It's a Wonderful Life (1947) Discussion > Uncle Billy

Uncle Billy

posted 8 years ago by cookiesonaspatula
10 replies | jump to latest

For the most part I loved this film, but my biggest gripe with it was the catalyst for George's breakdown. Uncle Billy is really THAT stupid to GIVE $8000 to Mr Potter, their archnemesis, and has absolutely no idea about it? Up until that point I thought the plot was remarkably believable and realistic, which I was pleasantly surprised by.

I guess that if they had tried to pin the missing money as an evil scheme by Mr Potter right from the start, it would've been a corny plot line and a lil one dimensional. BUT to have Uncle Billy just give the money to Potter? Come on, that's just weak.

[–] Navaros 8 years ago

I think the idea is supposed to be that Uncle Billy was senile. He didn't "give" Mr. Potter the money. He was just oblivious to the fact that the money was still in the paper because he had dementia.

However, the film did a very poor job of making that point clear.

I thought the plot was remarkably believable and realistic

No it's not. It's full of contrivances and absurdities in addition to the one you mentioned.

I.e.

- Mark Twain is said to be in Heaven even though he hated God and Jesus Christ.

- Angels disparage each other.

- God is said to give His blessing to warmongering.

- Mary spends a long time tramping around with another man in a pointless side plot that goes absolutely nowhere, and then in the next scene she is shown randomly marrying George right out of the blue.

- Mary becomes a spinster old maid who no man wants after George ceases to exist (completely ludicrous).

- Potter is a one-dimensional cartoon caricature.

[–] athomed 8 years ago

Uncle Billy was incredibly absent-minded. He inattentively set the money in the newspaper and then happened to leave the paper with Mr. Potter after being distracted by relaying the good news about Harry. I don't understand what's not understandable about that?

___
I used to think I knew everything about the world. Now I just know that it's round.

[–] bluejaunter 8 years ago

It was equal to $140,000 dollars in today's money.

Who takes that much money with no guard or second person to the bank?

[–] tmaj48 8 years ago

I find the catalyst for George's breakdown hard to swallow, but for another reason. Uncle Billy wasn't stupid, but he'd had serious issues with dementia
for many years and George was well aware of them. Uncle Billy lived alone in a cluttered house with a squirrel running around inside it, among other animals,
so he had some problems with hoarding. Worse, he forgot to attend George and Mary's wedding--he tells George he wanted to be there, and George tells him he
can remove the reminder string from around his finger now that he'd missed it.
It should have been obvious that George could not have entrusted the deposits of
large amounts of cash solely to Uncle Billy. In fact, even a person not suffering from absent-mindedness should not be allowed to walk around with such a large amount
of money by themselves; bank employees who have to service ATMs, for instance, often request a security guard to escort them for safety reasons. It would have made perfect sense to have someone accompany
Uncle Billy to the bank, maybe one of those cousins that George had working at the Building and Loan (the switchboard operator seemed to have too much time on her hands anyway, listening into everyone's phone calls). Losing the money that way
was bound to happen sooner or later, and George making Uncle Billy make the deposits alone was asking for trouble.

If Mark Twain really was against the concept of God and Heaven so much, his having a defiant Huckleberry Finn proclaim that he'll gladly go to hell at the end of Huckleberry Finn loses much of its meaning.

Angels can disparage each other if they want; they (were) only human.

Mary wasn't "tramping around"; it was her mother's wish that she marry for money, and she was willing to go along with it until George showed up again.

The myopic old-maid librarian thing didn't work for me, either. Mary was smart and conniving enough to marry someone else and tie them down.

I'm not crying, you fool, I'm laughing!

Hewwo.

[–] skohl632001 8 years ago

Uncle Billy wasn't senile. Just (very) forgetful. There's a line at one point about how he "lost Laura". I always assumed that it was his wife who made sure he took care of things, kept to a schedule, etc. Once she was gone, he had a tough time existing on his own.

For me, the hardest part to swallow is that George was actually willing to let Uncle Billy take over the company (before the board rejected it). Billy would've been eaten alive by Potter almost immediately.

[–] patsw 8 years ago

There HAS to be a plot point or incident to trigger the collapse of George Bailey. How do you write it? (1) George Bailey isn't going to squander the money, he's too good. (2) George Bailey can't simply lose the money. He's too smart. (3) Resolution: create a character close to George who is going to squander or lose the money. (4) Squandering it would create another subplot so (4) a have a minor character lose it in a non-recoverable way - so we don't have a subplot of the search for the money.

Uncle Billy is a moral coward for allowing George to take the fall for his own actions.

[–] JP2005 8 years ago

What bothers me is at the end of the film he's tallying money again. No way should he be in charge of such a tremendous responsibility after losing so much.

-In my mind, Christopher Reeve will always be Superman.-

[–] muchmeow 8 years ago

Uncle Billy isn't the one tallying the money at the end. That was Cousin Eustace.

[–] bheadher 8 years ago

Uncle Billy is, frankly, one of the most believable characters in the entire movie actually...an eccentric, somewhat limited character, that is loved by not only his family but the town as well...you need to view this movie as a biopic of another time, not today...

[–] lubin-freddy 8 years ago

Angel comes down from the stars, but something else wasn't "realistic". Really?

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.