MovieChat Forums > Miracle on 34th Street (1994) Discussion > John Hughes 'Christian angle' change to ...

John Hughes 'Christian angle' change to plot

posted 18 years ago by coolcollie
36 replies | jump to latest

I grew up thinking this was a terrible movie, simply because the final point in the courtroom scene doesn't make sense.

"In God We Trust?" Circled on a dollar bill? Equating trust in Santa Clause with the Christian faith?

As a kid, this bothered me, because it seemed this argument went more towards dismissing recognition of religious beliefs than affirming the existence of Santa Clause. Besides, even then I knew about the monkey trials. Religion doesn't work so well as proof of anything in a court of law. I'm not arguing actual religious beliefs here, just that this ending makes no sense. And it always bothered me (as an idealistic youngster) that a huge hollywood script could have such an obvious hole, and yet the movie was such a classic.

Than last night, I saw the original 1947 version. It was brilliant. And, of course, I was most shocked to see Kris Kringle's identity

**spoiler**

proven by the thousands of letters from the post office addressed simply to Santa Clause, that had been redirected to the courthouse, proving Santa was recognized by a branch of the U. S. government. For a courtroom scene, THAT was a brilliant plot twist. I'm one of the most cynical people I know, and it brought a huge grin to my face.

So...what's with the change, John Hughes? Was it supposed to be a Christian angle? Were you trying to surprise the audience? Because either way, I think the script change here falls terribly short.

[–] PillowRock 18 years ago

>And it always bothered me (as an idealistic youngster) that a huge hollywood
>script could have such an obvious hole, and yet the movie was such a classic.

Ummmm, ........

Who is it exactly that considers this remake to be "such a classic"?

The original 1947 version is a classic. This one is not.

[–] rabidtarheel 18 years ago

In the 1994 remake I always presumed the treasury department was needed because the Postal Service was no longer a government agency. Having been removed from government control, another (albeit cheesier) department was required, hence the Treasury Department "In God We Trust" plot adjustment.

[–] eliostar1 18 years ago

It's simple , the point was that you don't have to prove someone actually exists in order to believe in them.

[–] thomas196x2000 17 years ago

Why do I keep hearing this?

While I don't usually quote Wikipedia due to the obvious reasons, their entry on this is as good as anyone else's:

The USPS is often mistaken for a government-owned corporation (e.g., Amtrak), but as noted above is legally defined as an "independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States," (39 U.S.C. § 201) as it is wholly owned by the government and controlled by the Presidential appointees and the Postmaster General.

In the past few decades they DID make some changes to its operational processes and it does act somewhat independently, and the Postmaster general is no longer in line to the presidency.

It may have some independence--the government doesn't operate it--but it is STILL A FEDERAL AGENCY, as their own website states at the bottom:
-----------------
An independent federal agency, the U.S. Postal Service is the only delivery service that visits 146 million homes and businesses, six days a week. It has 37,000 retail locations and relies on the sale of postage, products, and services to cover its operating expenses. The Postal Service has annual revenues of $73 billion and delivers nearly half the world’s mail.

http://www.usps.com/communications/newsroom/2007/pr07_010.htm
------------------

[–] Snow4849 18 years ago

"In God We Trust?" Circled on a dollar bill? Equating trust in Santa Clause with the Christian faith?

He didn't add a "Christian angle." Bringing up belief in God doesn't necessarily equate the movie with Christianity. *Hundreds* of religions believe in God, not just Christianity. Hughes was trying to connect faith in God, which most people have, to faith in Santa Claus, which was being put on trial.

"Faith is believing in things when common sense tells you not to."

[–] aeternus_proeliator 13 years ago

This ridiculous Christian apologetics again.

No, it SPECIFICALLY refers to the Christian deity. It doesn't say "god", it doesn't say "gods", it doesn't say "deity" and it doesn't say "supreme being".

It is the CHRISTIAN 'G'od.

This is the typical Christian apologetic idiocy when it comes to having to defend their ridiculous stance in the US.

It SPECIFICALLY refers to the Christian deity. It's historically noted as referring specifically to the Christian deity. And the fact that even if we were to magically find your moronic logic not ridiculous, not everyone believes in a God, let alone a god, let alone just A god instead of multiple deities.

Try again?

[–] garnettget 16 years ago

Actually, the post office angle never worked really well for me. Just because hundreds of thousands of kids wrote letters addressed to Santa Claus and the USPS had a big collection of them bc they got so many really didn't seem to me to imply that a branch of the U.S. government recognized the person they were addressed to.

[–] CarolVickiFan84 16 years ago

WEll, What else could they have but to use the Post office angle, they couldn''t use the dollar bill because The saying wasn't issued on the dollar bill yet? I thought the Post Office angle was good.

Maureen O'Hara, Ireland Best Actress.

[–] rocky100 16 years ago

What actually happens to letters addressed to Santa? I assume they just get thrown away.

[–] drew-campbell 16 years ago

The respective rationale for validating Kris Kringle's identity in the respective courtroom scenes of both the 1947 and the 1994 version would not stand in real life. Both films chose to grapple with this problem in different ways because, well... Santa Claus is NOT real.

I prefer the original version and its legal sleigh(t) of hand, partly because I agree John Hughes was attempting to say something about - and specifically Christian faith at that - which did not sit easily with the premise of the film. The idea is not to believe, but to suspend disbelief - not the same thing at all.

[–] Tirkka 16 years ago

At least here in Finland we have a Santa Claus post office, which receives every year over 700 000 letters from children from all around the world. I don't know if there are more of those in different countries, but I have heard there's some kind of similar thing in Greenland too.

"Losers always whine about their best. Winners go home and *beep* the prom queen."
-John Mason

[–] FredGailey 16 years ago

Don't know if this was nationwide, but xmas 2008 our local post office had a drop box for Santa mail which of course had a deadline and the clerk told me each letter would be responded to by "Santa" complete with a North Pole postmark for free.
Faith is believing in things when common sense tells you not to.

[–] llbfgt 15 years ago

"Letters to Santa" are usually collected at each post office and volunteers from many charitable organizations weed through them to find letters from truly needy families and "adopt" them as recipients of their generosity.

[–] joshyb86 12 years ago

Really? Why would they get thrown away? Why wouldn't they just be delivered to Santa?

[–] GMCKINST-1 15 years ago

Well, he couldn't make a shot for shot remake, something had to be different. And besides, what is so wrong with a christian theme. It is after all a christmas movie, and fairly appropriate. As for the original, it is the original. And we are talking Natalie Wood after all. Hard to top that. I have seen all the different versions, and this is in my humble opinion 2nd only to 1947. Richard Attenborough and Mara Wilson were wonderful.

Just because its new and just because its christian themed doesn't make it bad. Sit back and just enjoy it.

Merry Christmas my friends.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sion_revan 14 years ago

Just couldn't miss the opportunity to spam your idiocy, could you?

[–] aeternus_proeliator 13 years ago

You sad little person. OP had no problem with the original movie, he had a problem with the pathetic attempt to push Christian idiocy in a film that had no reason for it.

Oh and probably should remember that the secular Christmas holiday that non-Christians around the world celebrate has nothing to do with Christianity.

Nor the pagan religions that Christians originally stole their version from.

Try again?

[–] thevagrantwriter 14 years ago

He wasn't saying anything about Christianity. He was saying that if a government agency put the idea of something you can't prove, in such an important place (currency), then who are they to condemn a man, or people, who similarly believe in something unprovable? It's hypocrital.

[–] kennyalancramer 14 years ago

I posted this in another thread, but it bears repeating...

I fail to see where this film ever, EVER turns overly "preachy" in regards to any particular religious faith... even the films conclusion with the "in God we trust" judicial solution... many people on here on the progressive side of the isle (and I personally am as liberal as the come) seem to be reading things into that speech that simply are NOT there...

a) The judge never talks about "the founding fathers" in reference to the word "in God we trust" as has been suggested

b) He never says "that there IS a God" rather he says "there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of God" and by extension there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of Santa Claus

c.) No one ever, EVER comes on to the camera and says something like, "Believe in Jesus or go to Hell" (I would have been offended if that were the case)... in fact nothing is ever mentioned about Jesus... (and I am not complaining don't get me wrong)

I am a very, VERY strong supporter of the principle of Separation of Church and State and of the first amendment rights of the constitution... and while I have wondered about the wisdom of printing "in God we trust" on our currency, at the moment (and more importantly at the time this film was produced), those words are in fact printed on our one dollar bills... Therefore, while the judicial decision reached in this film is fairly unlikely to occur in real life, the arguments presented in the fictional world are based on real things...

[–] dannibear 14 years ago

Do they mention Jesus? If they didn't, than you can't really say this movie has a Christian angle.

I'm just a musical prostitute, my dear. -Freddie Mercury

[–] aeternus_proeliator 13 years ago

The most moronic apologist thing anyone has yet said in this thread.

Christianity isn't solely about Jesus.

[–] aeternus_proeliator 13 years ago

He does pretty much state God to be real. He states a small quip akin to "despite Him being here" after he rants about "no way to disprove the existence of God".

[–] Ricochet84 14 years ago

THAT was a brilliant plot twist. I'm one of the most cynical people I know, and it brought a huge grin to my face.

Exactly. To do the same thing in the remake would not have worked; the effect was used up.

---
You couldn't sell hacksaws in a jail!