I thought the film was saying something about how Christianity has
taken the example of Jesus, and turned it into big business, and a way
of controlling people.
The character of John Doe was a metaphor for Jesus Christ, about the real
meaning of his life and the power of the myth.
The film implied that the Everyman, or Everyperson, is a Christ figure.
No it was saying that people will always be rejected by what they believe. NOt that everyman or everybody is a Christ figure.
The story is really just saying that Christ many years ago died for what we believe so if we believe in him that we are saved form our sins. There is no reason for us to play God, because there is nothing that we could do that is anywhere near what God would do. The film simply states: love thy neighbor.
>>>>NOt that everyman or everybody is a Christ figure.
---In the skyscraper scene, Barbara Stanwyck says explicitly to Cooper that "the original John Doe" lived two thousand years ago. This could simply reflect the fact that her father, who wrote John Doe's speeches, had been inspired by the social gospel. Or it could reflect that John Doe is (by the previous connection, or symbolically, or through his suffering) a kind of Christ figure. But if it's the former alone, the grounds for a religious reading of the film really disappear as far as I'm concerned.
Also, what goes for John Doe has to go for everyone else who's been downtrodden. He suffers because of what "the mass" or "mob" does (although the film does imply that they aren't fully responsible because they are being manipulated). In spite of this, we also have to consider why this character appeals to these people. The characteristics he shares with them are the premise of the story. He's one man, but he's (like) every man. They follow him because he brings something out in them. (And if there's anything left of the theological interpretation, have you ever heard of Imitatio Christi?). I wonder if your argument doesn't ultimately rest on a discomfort with the notion that a film might draw on the (often instanced) belief that Jesus's real importance is being manipulated by people who are only intent on using him to advance their own power. But the fact that Christians in real life have spent most of history killing each other over fine points of interpretation should alleviate your discomfort; someone had to be using Christianity the 'wrong' way, surely.
But the fact that the film draws on this line of criticism does not necessarily mean that it uses the critique or the symbolism to advance a specifically Christian, theological message. One can be moved by Jesus's teachings without holding any significant theological beliefs, and one can admire his example without thinking he was anything more than a misunderstood albeit wise man. Maybe you think that's wrong, but those are common feelings. Other details in the picture also suggest a much more secular outlook to the film.
>>>>Christ many years ago died for what we believe so if we believe in him that we are saved form our sins.
---You are probably referring to the fact that many people show up at the convention, but only a few go to the roof of the skyscraper. Maybe it's limited atonement, maybe it's free will at work, but this detail does look like it identifies an elect. But I'm not sure we can assume that they are saved from their sins; certainly if John Doe isn't Christ (as you seemed to argue above), their presence on the skyscraper has mainly a therapeutic and not religious importance. They show up to save him, as much as he initially appeared to give voice to (or "save???" nah.) them.
Besides, do we even know that these people have sinned? The movie doesn't show it. The soda-jerk looks like someone who thinks he's having an impure thought but is really just thinking about squeezing an orange. An obvious exception, Barbara Stanwyck's character, seems to have made an about-face, but it's perfectly explicable by her love for a basically honest man, her desire to keep a man she loves from getting splattered, and her quite reasonable fear of the fascist plot that's being hatched.
And the skyscraper is rather deflated by the ending; its symbolic height is largely irrelevant both visually and by the fact that Coop [spoiler alert] doesn't jump.
Which raises an interesting question. Since John Doe has decided not to jump, a) what does that say about his faith and b) what does it say about the faith of the people who trust him? I don't know that the answers look very favorable to Christianity if one tries to push the allegorical signficance of the film too far.
>>>>There is no reason for us to play God, because there is nothing that we could do that is anywhere near what God would do.
---This interpretation seems to be consistent with the fact that the most powerful men in the story are evil, and yet unwittingly serve to bring out John Doe whose power for good they underestimate. It's also consistent with the fact that John Doe doesn't jump. So he fails the "what would Jesus do?" test in a crucial way (sorry about the pun). But I'm still not convinced there is a strong theological position being advanced. For one thing, the character who makes sure to remind him he's not going to be a martyr (i.e. don't try to be Christ) is in fact the evil, crypto-fascist media baron who's been pulling the strings. Although you're free to disagree, I can't imagine that a film having Christian apologetics on the brain would be so careless as to lead us to believe that God is evil.
Finally, even though John Doe doesn't jump, people remain to follow him and there is hope that they will prevail, somehow. Couldn't this fact also support the view that the film really points away from Christian dogma, and toward what human beings are capable of?
>>>>The film simply states: love thy neighbor.
---Obviously, it does. But it doesn't demand that we suppose humans aren't perfectly well-equipped to do just that on their own. And I don't think it promises anything like a heavenly reward for those who do.
Couldn't this fact also support the view that the film really points away from Christian dogma, and toward what human beings are capable of?
I think that it is possible to draw that conclusion if you think a bit more outside the box, but that doesn't seem to be what Capra intended. When Jesus is referenced in the final scene the lady (forgot her name) seems to be suggesting that Since Jesus allready died for the John Doe cause then John doesn't have too. There isn't really anything that clearly points to the film being a critique of organized religion although as I said before that conclusion could be (mistakenly) drawn. But there isn't any real proof of that and it doesn't line up with Capra's own beliefs.
shareI can think of few things more "outside the box" than ignoring the evidence of the motion picture itself to impose a biographical interpretation. Capra was an observant Roman Catholic. Perhaps -- though this is not certain as he didn't write the screenplay -- he intended to make a film that reflected Christian theology. Given these two (actually, either one or two) facts, you deduce a third, which is that the film actually embodies Christian theology successfully, or presents it in an unproblematic light.
I don't find that reasoning persuasive. The relevant evidence for any claim about how successfully or coherently the film conveys the message it (is said to) convey is the film itself.
I really don't get the John Doe = Jesus Christ. John Doe was a representantion of the 'Average Joe', your everyman. The movie does express Christianic/Buddhist messages, i.e. 'Love thy Neighbor'. Being Capra was a Catholic then it was from the Christain viewpoint and of course presented that way. But he never stated it was about religion just the message of helping out your everyman. Any good-hearted moral person can receive and understand that message. Of course, if you want to make it about Christianity in some way, then let'slook at it in the sense, no sane, moreal person would have tried to present himself as Jesus, that would be a sacrilige. True Christians do not believe in suicide, either. Jesus did not kill Himself, he was crucified. The truest Martyrs don't commit suicide, they are killed either for their beliefs or deeds. If John Doe would have killed himself, in this movie, it would have killeed the movement. At least if the everyman where Christians. They would have doubted his sincerity in helping others. Suicide is a selfish, not selfless, act. This is why he was so 'easily' talked out of offing himself, because he was transformed from a guy with only a sense of self to that of one with a sense of his surroundings. You might even say he did find God, but he was in no way meant to be Christ. Stanwyck's character's speech wasn't stating John was the new Christ, she was saying Christ had already been here and he had already died for the people. Noone else needed to do so. In other words none of us should believe ourselves as being such a person that we can save the world by killing ourselves. You can die for a cause, but not from your own hand. Then it loses its value, so to speak.
This is a movie that just represents how easily a good thing can be manipulated for evil if it falls into the wrong hands, but that good always has a way of pulling itself out from under and surviving. That is not only a Christian belief, that is a belief of humanity. That's why we always want to see good in others, even if they may not be so good.
I was a Christian, but believe that most of the religions have the same idea and came from the same origin at some time. That is why they are so similar in the basic moral beliefs. That is why I don't believe this movie is just about Christianity, I believe he wanted to reach everyone with his message.
FYI- Jews (The Bible aka The Old Testament) believe that god commands us to be kind and generous to our neighbors too (as well as the Christians and Buddhists you mentioned in your post, although you did say you think most religions have similar morality, I wanted to let you know that within Judaism it's a top priority)
Jews are commanded to give (all forms of)charity to people who have less than you do, to invite someone who needs a meal to dine with you etc. It's a running theme and Jews are responsible for many charitable organizations and donations all over the world.
Just came back to here and saw the above post. I can see that it did seem I was just pinpointing two religions. It's a bad habit of mine to think that others may realize when I am speaking of Jesus' teachings, that I am including Judaeism into the topic. It's because Jesus was not a Christian, but a Jew, and I have a tendency to think that people are aware of that and it doesn't need pointed out in writing. You are correct, though, because people whom are unaware of religion or of the other religious teachings outside their own, may not realize it. I should learn to state that when I am posting comments.
shareOf course. However, Jesus and the apostles were also Jews, and the teachings of Jesus have their basis in the Hebrew Scriptures. In fact, Jesus and the writers of the New testament probably have a higher view of those Scriptures than most modern synagogues and most modern rabbis.
The movie brilliantly and dramatically makes the Christian point that Jesus already died for our sins, so, at the end, John, doesn't have to die. Jesus already made the ultimate sacrifice. The movie also brilliantly, and dramatically, makes the point that Jesus made abut love thy neighbor being the second greatest demand, or command, God makes on us -- Love thy neighbor.
The movie's not meant to be a complete theological treatise on Christian theology, or Roman Catholic theology for that matter, but just a populist appeal to put into practice the biblical teaching of Love Thy Neighbor. By the way, atheists and socialists/leftists murdered more people in the 20th Century alone than all the other ideologies or religions put together in all of recorded history, whether or not you include Hitler and his National SOCIALIST Party.
Also, please notice that the movie's socio-political message is a Pro-American, populist one. The evil cabal trying to control society (and "the people") led by D.B. Norton apparently includes members of Big Business, Big Banking, Big Labor, and Big Media. The first words of the Constitution also may be instructive here, "We the people."