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.

[–] sacflyzone 14 years ago

http://mommylife.net/archives/2009/12/21/santa%20kneeling.jpg

It is CHRISTmas!

[–] aeternus_proeliator 13 years ago

But a sh!tload of Latin, Greek and religiously historical words that are used today with absolutely no religious meaning would like to talk to you, dumbass.

The origin of the word doesn't change what it currently is. Especially since what you think you celebrate isn't a Christian tradition, it's a pagan one.

Try again?

[–] whitespirit26 11 years ago

Seriously Aeturnus, your prickish attitude and superiority complex get old remarkably fast.

[–] jazzmantrey 14 years ago

Another thing that bothered me about the change was that it didn't prove Kris was Santa. The point of the letters in the original was not to prove Santa existed, but that more specifically Kris was Santa because the Post Office recognizes him as the person to whom the letters are addressed. Even if the 'In God We Trust' argument made sense to prove there was a Santa, it does not prove that Kris is Santa, which is the most important part of the hearing, proving that Kris is who he says he is.

[–] double_c 14 years ago

Actually, the entire committal process as as depicted in BOTH films is flawed. The fact that Kris believes he is Santa Claus is in no way, shape or form a reason to commit him. It would have to be proven that because of this belief he poses a threat to himself or others, which they don't even try to do. If they couldn't do that, whether or not he actually is or isn't Santa becomes totally irrelevant.

Elvis is DEAD

[–] Prismark10 10 years ago

It would had been even better if above the judge they had the words 'In God we trust.'

Its that man again!!

[–] johnc-4 10 years ago

Actually it is Santa Claus, not Santa Clause, that was a whole other movie.

And I feel like some others, the US putting IN GOD WE TRUST is not specifically Christian. It could be most any "God" that one believes in. Especially Christians and Jews, who basically believe in the same God. Just Christians also believe Jesus was the prophesied Messiah and the Son of God, whilst Jews just think Jesus was another prophet/teacher and NOT the Son of God.

[–] slemmet 8 years ago

On the contrary, the final courtroom scene makes perfect sense. The original 1947 solution was more of exploiting a loop hole, while this movie actually put forth a real solid argument in a society where belief in a god is accepted and normal. And even if you don't have to see it as questioning religious beliefs, if you dismiss the argument then yes, you are opening that door. Because if one would label someone claiming to be Santa Claus to be insane on the grounds there is not proof Santa Claus exists, and that the person claims to be able to do impossible, magical stuff, then religious people believing in a god or Jesus would be labeled insane on the very same grounds.

I think you are just put off because this movie actually has the balls to voice the fact that Santa and God's existence comes down to belief, not proof, which means one of them might be as imaginary as the other.

[–] IceboxMovies 8 years ago

On the contrary, the final courtroom scene makes perfect sense.

No, it doesn't. Part of the reason why the judge's decision is so flawed is because he doesn't even bother to prove that Kringle is Santa Claus. The courtroom scene avoids the real issue at hand ("Is this guy Santa?") by focusing on the less relevant, less important question of "Is Santa real?" -- which has nothing to do with why Kringle was arrested in the first place.

[–] slemmet 8 years ago

The judge doesn't prove, he weighs the evidence presented and makes a judgement. Why Kringle was arrested is not why they are at court, they are there to determine if he is to be committed on grounds of insanity, reason being that he claims to be Santa. Since the defence managed to show the judge that we can accept a god's existence without physical evidence, the judge can accept Santas existence without such evidence, meaning the basis for the prosecution's argument - that Santa doesn't exist - vanishes. About Kringle being Santa Claus, that part was maybe not as strong judicially speaking but at the same time he was not on trial for murder, he was a nice old man spreading joy, and the prosecution's major point was already discarded plus it was christmas and declaring him Santa would be for a good cause that the people would like, so it still makes sense that the judge is lenient. Because the defence argument is similar, that we can accept him being Santa without proof and accept it as a fact to the many people that believes it. And if we open that can of worms we can drag people to court who believes Jesus was God's son and try them for insanity.

Lastly, maybe you people forget this is a movie, and a feel good movie at that. It's not supposed to be a real world court drama. Take a chill pill.

[–] IceboxMovies 8 years ago

The judge doesn't prove, he weighs the evidence presented and makes a judgement. Why Kringle was arrested is not why they are at court, they are there to determine if he is to be committed on grounds of insanity, reason being that he claims to be Santa. Since the defence managed to show the judge that we can accept a god's existence without physical evidence, the judge can accept Santas existence without such evidence, meaning the basis for the prosecution's argument - that Santa doesn't exist - vanishes. About Kringle being Santa Claus, that part was maybe not as strong judicially speaking but at the same time he was not on trial for murder, he was a nice old man spreading joy, and the prosecution's major point was already discarded plus it was christmas and declaring him Santa would be for a good cause that the people would like, so it still makes sense that the judge is lenient. Because the defence argument is similar, that we can accept him being Santa without proof and accept it as a fact to the many people that believes it. And if we open that can of worms we can drag people to court who believes Jesus was God's son and try them for insanity.

You're completely missing my point. What I'm saying is that the movie dodges the real issue at hand by focusing on a less-important issue. There is nothing particularly suspenseful about equating the existence of Santa to the existence of God.

And if a man calling himself Santa can't be deemed insanity, then what CAN be? That's why the judge's sentence is so full of holes. To quote Ghostbusters:

"Is there any history of mental illness in your family?"
"My uncle thought he was St. Jerome."
"...I'd call that a big yes."

Lastly, maybe you people forget this is a movie, and a feel good movie at that. It's not supposed to be a real world court drama. Take a chill pill.

The original was a feel-good movie as well. At least its courtroom climax had some intelligence to it and didn't treat the audience as if it were stupid.

[–] slemmet 8 years ago

I've already answered this in my earlier posts. Agree to disagree.