Miracle On 34th Street: Movie Analysis

I got curious comparing two versions of Miracle on 34th Street, about how the 1994 version of the movie handles the issue, so the other night my husband and I watched it. Actually, we watched it over two nights because we didn’t want to stay up too late, but that is beside the point. The point is I took three pages of notes about the difference between the two movies and wanted to write them up here. I liked the old version much, much better than the new one. They still had Kris Kringle hit someone with a cane. In both cases the person hit had made a comment declaring that there was something wrong with people who dress up as Santa Claus. In the old version, the store psychologist had said that people who dress us as Santa Claus must have some sort of guilt complex they are trying to compensate for. In the modern version the person implied Santa is a pedophile. In the second movie the violence takes place in public and everyone around, including Kris Kringle, is absolutely horrified. There is a

The Judge says they aren’t there to prove if God exists but about the existence of a being “just as invisible and just as present.” The question of whether or not Kris Kringle is really Santa Claus is not resolved by proving the post office is willing to recognize him as such, like in the 1947 version, but in making the comparison with the “In God We Trust” on the dollar bill and saying that the “the state of New York, by a similar demonstration of the collective faith of its people can accept and acknowledge that Santa Claus exists.” He exists because people want to believe he exists. The implication of the second movie seems to be the mirror image of the Judge’s concluding statement. If we can believe that Santa exists, then why can’t we also believe that God exists? The movie mentions how belief in Santa is not natural but taught. Without coming out and fully saying it, the movie implies the same could be true about