Mr. Potter's Fate in "It's a Wonderful Life"

[KayMichigan]

Ever watch "It's a Wonderful Life" and wonder why Mr. Potter was never punished for stealing the $8,000?

The other day I found out that in the original drafts of the script, they actually had Mr. Potter get his comeuppance in a couple of different ways.

From https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Trivia/ItsAWonderfulLife :

In the original script, Clarence confronts Potter about what he did to George. It was to take place right after Potter yelled, "And Happy New Year to you, in jail!" Since the scene involved a terrified Potter having a heart attack upon learning that he's going to Hell when he dies, it was deemed too grim and cut out.

An alternate deleted scene (unknown if shot or not) can be read in the script printed in a commemorative book about the film, published in the 80s. In the scripted scene, Potter is seen approaching the door of the Bailey house while the celebrations are going on inside, planning to return the missing $8000. Why he's there isn't explained, possibly it's that he's technically honest, however ruthless and only intended to torture George temporarily before "finding" the money. But whatever his motivation, he overhears what's happening inside, realizes at last how worthless his own life has been in comparison to George’s, and turns to slink away in despair.

Just thought this was interesting and I'd pass it along! Not sure why they didn't at least go with the second option since in the movie it seems like Potter gets away with taking the money...

 

[Buzz Rules]

Ever watch "It's a Wonderful Life" and wonder why Mr. Potter was never punished for stealing the $8,000?

The other day I found out that in the original drafts of the script, they actually had Mr. Potter get his comeuppance in a couple of different ways.

From https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Trivia/ItsAWonderfulLife :

In the original script, Clarence confronts Potter about what he did to George. It was to take place right after Potter yelled, "And Happy New Year to you, in jail!" Since the scene involved a terrified Potter having a heart attack upon learning that he's going to Hell when he dies, it was deemed too grim and cut out.

An alternate deleted scene (unknown if shot or not) can be read in the script printed in a commemorative book about the film, published in the 80s. In the scripted scene, Potter is seen approaching the door of the Bailey house while the celebrations are going on inside, planning to return the missing $8000. Why he's there isn't explained, possibly it's that he's technically honest, however ruthless and only intended to torture George temporarily before "finding" the money. But whatever his motivation, he overhears what's happening inside, realizes at last how worthless his own life has been in comparison to George’s, and turns to slink away in despair.

Just thought this was interesting and I'd pass it along! Not sure why they didn't at least go with the second option since in the movie it seems like Potter gets away with taking the money...

 

[RamblingMad]

Why would he say or do anything? He's rich with money at the end like he was at the beginning. George got lucky.

Here's the SNL take on it:

 

[KayMichigan]

That's such a great skit!!

I always thought it was an oversight that nothing happened to Potter but apparently they did script something out, it just never made it to the final cut. I guess they eventually decided it wasn't important to the overall story.

 

[amcnj]

I guess we really just don’t know what happens to Potter and the money. Only Potter and his valet (?) even knew he had the money, unless Uncle Billy eventually remembers.

 

[KayMichigan]

Why would he say or do anything? He's rich with money at the end like he was at the beginning. George got lucky.

Here's the SNL take on it:

Thanks, I haven't seen that one! I'll check it out!

 

[sam_gordon]

Would what Potter did be called "stealing"? I mean I get what he did was no where close to ethical, but does it cross the line to "illegal"?

To answer the OP question, no one knew he had the money (or did his flunky know?). So it's not surprising he's not punished.

 

[JLTraveling]

Would what Potter did be called "stealing"? I mean I get what he did was no where close to ethical, but does it cross the line to "illegal"?

To answer the OP question, no one knew he had the money (or did his flunky know?). So it's not surprising he's not punished.

Not a lawyer, but it looks like stealing to me. He knew that was Uncle Billy's newspaper that the money was wrapped in, so he had the legal obligation to return it.

Outside a gas station one night, my dad pulled his phone out of his pocket and dropped two $20 bills on the ground. A guy standing there watched them fall and grabbed them. When Dad confronted him, he gave back one of the two bills. The cops sure thought it was stealing, and our report actually helped them catch the guy, who was a serial thief. Wouldn't what Potter did be along the same lines?

 

[Buzz Rules]

I always thought him not being caught represented how some (not all) rich people will get away with crimes due to their connections and status.

 

[Cheburashka]

Potter's fate isn't shown because doing so would take away from the power of the story at that point. George has been preoccupied with Potter throughout his life, as he ruminates over what he doesn't have, how Potter has mistreated his father and him, and how Potter is indirectly forcing him to stay in Bedford Falls instead of living the life of his dreams.

When he finally realizes his life is the stuff of dreams, and that the community will support him financially when he needs it most, Potter no longer matters at all. That evil man has no more power over George's life. That is part of the joy of the ending.

The audience already knows that Potter will eventually be punished by God, because it's a movie with religious overtones. So we don't need to see him punished in the film. Even for those who don't believe, it's clear that he is miserable because he has never had and never will have the kind of love, family and community that George has. No one in their right mind would rather be Potter than George Bailey.

 

[RedAngie]

In reality, on December 26 Mr. Potter swore out another warrant for George’s arrest and went higher up and had the deputy who ripped up the first warrant fired and arrested for dereliction of duty.

The bank examiner also got into trouble. He can’t just decide to forget a shortage because George’s friends covered it.

 

[AvidDisReader]

Would what Potter did be called "stealing"? I mean I get what he did was no where close to ethical, but does it cross the line to "illegal"?

To answer the OP question, no one knew he had the money (or did his flunky know?). So it's not surprising he's not punished.

As the president of the bank he first and foremost must protect his depositors. By knowingly taking the money he violated several laws. If found out and prosecuted, he most likely would of spent the rest of his life behind bars, no better off than Bernie Madoff.

 

[Praying Colonel]

First, I don't know who's going to testify against Mr. Potter. Uncle Billy doesn't know where he lost the $, and Mr. Potter's employees aren't going to drop the dime on him.

Second, he probably has enough money to influence any decision to prosecute him.

Third, if he is prosecuted, he can hire the best lawyers money can buy to get him acquitted.

So I don't think anything happens to Mr. Potter. But he's in a prison of his own making. He's rich in material wealth but has little else.

 

[JLTraveling]

So I don't think anything happens to Mr. Potter. But he's in a prison of his own making. He's rich in material wealth but has little else.

Which I think is probably the entire point. George has an incredible, rich life. Potter's alone with his fortune. And it becomes clear to both of them that Potter can't really affect George at all.

 

[Babs Johnson]

Only Potter’s manservant/flunky knows how the money was obtained and he’s not about to tell anyone.