This classic film from the postwar period may be a bit hard to understand in the modern sense. The basic concept, about how money circulates through a small community, is easy enough to comprehend. But the commentary that people should be encouraged to take hoarded money out of bank vaults and spend it to help the economy, as relates to the Great Depression, would probably be lost on some of today's viewers.
The story begins in 1948 with Charles Winninger's character going into a bank vault to store some government bonds. He tells another person in the vault that he invests in the government instead of letting his money sit in a metal box out of circulation. It's a bit preachy to be sure, but people watching the film at the time of its release would have remembered very well when there were fears about spending money and the need to keep valuables locked up during an uncertain economic time.
One thing that struck me was how when the story flashes back to 1933, there is mention of a new president. And that FDR would have remained in office until the war ended. So that's a long period for the U. S. to have been under one administration. But despite the passing of the years, attitudes about wealth and saving up for an emergency wouldn't have changed much.
To illustrate the writers' points, there is a young couple back in 1933, played by Marsha Hunt and William Lundigan who are struggling financially. Lundigan is a painter who owes about a thousand dollars to Hunt's father (Gene Lockhart) who owns the local inn. Lockhart is not impressed with Lundigan's apparent inability to earn a decent living. He would like Hunt to throw the guy out. Of course, she's deeply in love with Lundigan and her father's opposition to her romantic choice is not easy for her deal with...besides, she believes Lundigan will eventually make good as an artist and just needs time.
Meanwhile, there is another guest at the inn who asks Lockhart's clerk (Winninger) to put a thousand dollars into the safe. Later Lockhart finds the money in the safe, and he mistakenly thinks it was put there by Lundigan to square his debts. After Lockhart erroneously claims the cash, he pays off his debts...chiefly to a store owner (Will Wright). The store owner uses it to pay what he owes to his landlady (Florence Bates).
She in turn gives the money to an attorney (Robert Shayne) to cover the cost of legal fees. The lawyer's wife (Gail Patrick, in her last film) then takes the money to pay Lundigan for a portrait she's having done for her husband. Amusingly, the money does end up going to Lundigan, who would then have given it to Winninger to give to Lockhart...thus causing the whole cycle to begin again.
I wouldn't say the plot is entirely clever, but it's a good way to show how the members of one community are all connected to each other, personally and financially. Into the mix we have a subplot involving two visiting crooks (Roscoe Karns & Allen Jenkins) who are struggling to go straight and tempted to steal the dough.
In some ways this felt like a radio play that was developed into a feature length movie, with the required padding to run nearly an hour and a half. Some of the performers are better at this kind of material than others. But all in all, it's a harmless way to spend 87 minutes and the monetary history lesson may help the viewer reflect on what's important in life.
The story begins in 1948 with Charles Winninger's character going into a bank vault to store some government bonds. He tells another person in the vault that he invests in the government instead of letting his money sit in a metal box out of circulation. It's a bit preachy to be sure, but people watching the film at the time of its release would have remembered very well when there were fears about spending money and the need to keep valuables locked up during an uncertain economic time.
One thing that struck me was how when the story flashes back to 1933, there is mention of a new president. And that FDR would have remained in office until the war ended. So that's a long period for the U. S. to have been under one administration. But despite the passing of the years, attitudes about wealth and saving up for an emergency wouldn't have changed much.
To illustrate the writers' points, there is a young couple back in 1933, played by Marsha Hunt and William Lundigan who are struggling financially. Lundigan is a painter who owes about a thousand dollars to Hunt's father (Gene Lockhart) who owns the local inn. Lockhart is not impressed with Lundigan's apparent inability to earn a decent living. He would like Hunt to throw the guy out. Of course, she's deeply in love with Lundigan and her father's opposition to her romantic choice is not easy for her deal with...besides, she believes Lundigan will eventually make good as an artist and just needs time.
Meanwhile, there is another guest at the inn who asks Lockhart's clerk (Winninger) to put a thousand dollars into the safe. Later Lockhart finds the money in the safe, and he mistakenly thinks it was put there by Lundigan to square his debts. After Lockhart erroneously claims the cash, he pays off his debts...chiefly to a store owner (Will Wright). The store owner uses it to pay what he owes to his landlady (Florence Bates).
She in turn gives the money to an attorney (Robert Shayne) to cover the cost of legal fees. The lawyer's wife (Gail Patrick, in her last film) then takes the money to pay Lundigan for a portrait she's having done for her husband. Amusingly, the money does end up going to Lundigan, who would then have given it to Winninger to give to Lockhart...thus causing the whole cycle to begin again.
I wouldn't say the plot is entirely clever, but it's a good way to show how the members of one community are all connected to each other, personally and financially. Into the mix we have a subplot involving two visiting crooks (Roscoe Karns & Allen Jenkins) who are struggling to go straight and tempted to steal the dough.
In some ways this felt like a radio play that was developed into a feature length movie, with the required padding to run nearly an hour and a half. Some of the performers are better at this kind of material than others. But all in all, it's a harmless way to spend 87 minutes and the monetary history lesson may help the viewer reflect on what's important in life.