Miracle on 34th Street

I have seen two versions of Miracle on 34th street; the black and white version shown on TV that was cut up to fit 45 minutes, and the 1994 version.
Both seem like typical Christmas movies of their time; the original focuses on the whimsy and comedy, while the newer version focuses on the faith aspect.
There are quite a few similarities between the two, and some differences... Rather big differences...


I'll summarize the plot itself and then discuss the differences and similarities.

     Macy's department store (Coles in the remake) had to replace their Mall Santa with another man. However, this man thinks he actually is Santa Claus, calling himself Kris Kringle, saying he was born at the North Pole, and having intimate knowledge of Santa's inner workings; he even looks like a Jolly old man!
     He ends up being very popular, thanks in no small part to the fact he gives recommendations to the parents as to where they can buy toys for cheap. (Here's my first problem... He thinks himself Santa, but yet he isn't saying "I'll bring the toys" he is saying where the parents can get the toys. I guess he just knows the underlying desires of the children or something... Or he erases the cost of the toys form the parent's bank accounts. That'd be significantly easier than delivering toys to every house.)
    This turns out to be a great business practice, as it makes the shoppers think that Macy's cares about the customer more than the money, and make them want to shop there. (Despite, you know, costing a lot more money than the alternatives.) This turns Santa into an even bigger hit.
     Around this time Kris's Sanity is called into question; and events pertaining to his sanity that involve a cane and copious amounts of ham lead to him being put into a nuthouse, where he purposely flunks his sanity test. He is then taken to court to prove that he is the real Santa Claus. Some shenanigans follow, and Kris is acquitted.
     There is also a love story and belief in Santa Claus in there, but honestly it is more than a little forgettable except for a few key scenes.


     The original (or the shortened version I saw) had it's court hearing heavily in Kris's favor, with the judge not wanting to declare him not to be Santa because he wanted to run for office, the prosecutor is just doing his job and doesn't want to send Kris to a mental institution... The judge even quickly declares a recess in favor of Kris so his lawyer can find a way for a governing body to claim Kris as Santa. Through a bit of trickery with the post office, Kris is let off the hook.

     The newer version added a lot of padding and a pointless villain. It is a whole lot meaner than the original,  and at times unpleasant. It also shoehorns in some religion (yes I know Christmas is religious, but this is a movie about Santa, religion shouldn't play too big a part). In this version, the prosecutor actually wants to send Kris to the mental institution (he's being paid by the villain), and the judge is stuck between not wanting to ruin Santa in the minds of children and wanting the money the villain is offering for when he runs for office. Kris wins out by the judge being shown a dollar bill, with the words "In god we trust" circled, and the judge declares that because the government recognizes God without proof of his existence  that the court did not need proof of Santa's existence. Which actually means he'd have to send it to a higher court...
Plus there is also the problem of the constitution saying that the government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... having "In God We Trust" on our money is already stretching it. But, Santa is non-secular, he is celebrated in Japan without Christian context, so whatever...

     Despite how short it is, I like the older version much better. Both of them contain the same sweetness and charm, but the original has it more focused and with less cynicism. And it actually begs the question for me, "What is in the scenes that were cut? This movie seems complete without them, so were they pointless padding, or were they important? If they were important, why were they removed?" It also makes me wonder about how the same could be applied to other movies; remove a lot of the padding and unnecessary scenes, leaving only the very important ones. The mark of a good movie would probably where you say that no scene is pointless, and everything is important (one can argue the second Star Trek movie is this, where every scene has something that is used again later.)

     As for the newer version... Why does Hollywood try to remake the good things? Why don't they try to remake Santa Claus conquers the martians or that one movie where Santa fights the devil... Or hell, just do an animated movie of Santa fighting the denizens of Apokalips in order to give Darkseid his coal (DC universe joke, HO!). Anything, but remake a movie that doesn't need to be remade. Is it outdated? No, it's a period piece, just like Its A Wonderful Life. Coincidentally, don't ever try to remake It's a Wonderful Life, your company will die in flames. And porcupines.


This has been Fixer Sue, tomorrow... Buddy's comin' to town.