I wonder what Valentine Davies’ head must’ve been like. She’s credited for the story to Miracle on 34th Street (though the screenplay is accredited to director George Seaton), so Davies was most likely the one who decided to use a court hearing as a means of conveying yuletide joy. Sounds a little crazy on the surface of it, don’t you think? I personally think that it would either take a great amount of insanity or genius (it’s amazing how often those two coincide) to look at something as purposefully impartial, tedious, humorless and boring as a court case and think of it as the perfect setting for an uplifting and entertaining holiday classic.

I know that I’m getting ahead of myself, but does this movie really need an introduction? This is one of those classic Christmas stories that seems to have written itself into our genetic code, right in there with “A Christmas Carol” and the Rankin-Bass Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer. Everybody knows this story about an old man who thinks he’s the one and only Santa Claus. For my part, I remember seeing a musical stage adaptation a few years ago and I vaguely remember seeing the ’90s remake when I was a little kid. This is my first time seeing the original movie, though, and I’m glad to say that it met my expectations.

A key part of what made this movie work is in how its premise was treated. The film takes great pains to maintain ambiguity regarding whether or not Kris Kringle is the genuine article or just a delusional old man. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that the truth of the matter is considered a non-issue. The film seems much more concerned with Father Christmas as a metaphor and a symbol than as a person in and of himself.

The film’s premise demands that our characters consider the concept of Santa Claus from every possible angle. My favorite example probably comes during the hearing, when a politico advises a New York judge on the ramifications of conclusively ruling that Santa doesn’t exist (the toy companies suffer, union jobs are lost, the Salvation Army falls apart, disgruntled voters everywhere, etc.). Still, the most prominent examples must be in the character arcs of Doris and Susan Walker. Doris went through a painful divorce a few years ago, resulting in disillusionment with such emotional and unreliable things like hope. To that end, she’s raised Susan without a shred of fantasy. No bedtime stories and certainly no Santa Claus.

This is actually an argument that I’ve heard increasingly often as an adult: Why teach our kids about Santa Claus when they’re only going to learn eventually that he doesn’t exist? According to the movie, it’s because such fantasies are part of what makes life worth living, especially during that turbulent time we call childhood. The film posits that the happiness of children is worth the lie, equating the Santa Claus legend with fairy tales, playing make-believe and daydreaming. Unfortunately, the film neglects to point out that the latter three examples implicitly ask for suspension of disbelief, whereas the Santa myth is usually presented as fact.

The movie talks at great length about imagination, faith, the Christmas spirit and the growing commercialization of the holiday, all with the subtlety of a snowplow. The movie even has one of those transparently evil Christmas-hating villains that I talked about in my Bad Santa review. However, I will grant that the movie has a few surprisingly clever moments, particularly during the court hearing. For example, I liked how the president of Macy’s was so scared of bad press that he testified under oath that Kris Kringle was the real Santa Claus. The court case’s ultimate resolution was also elegant and nicely presented, though I seriously doubt that misdelivered mail would hold up as conclusive proof in any court today.

(Side note: The ’94 remake took a different approach, using the phrase “In God We Trust” as a declaration of the U.S. Government’s belief in an imaginary being. It’s a novel idea that maintains the original film’s theme of faith and it carries the added bonus of turning money — thus, commercialism — on its ear to Santa’s advantage. It’s still flimsy, however, and it doesn’t prove — as the original did — that Kris Kringle himself was the only true Santa.)

Nevertheless, the entire film and all of its trite cliches are beautifully carried by a superb cast. Edmund Gwenn simply is Santa Claus in this movie, masterfully depicting the enthusiasm, innocence and sincerity that we’ve all come to associate with the character. Susan is played by a very young Natalie Wood with just the perfect mix of childlike uncertainty and intelligence beyond her years. Maureen O’Hara does a great job of making Doris’ arc believable, though she’s stuck with a fair bit of schlocky lines in the process. John Payne is suitably energetic and charming in the role of Doris’ love interest and Santa’s lawyer. I could go on and on.

Miracle on 34th Street doesn’t know the meaning of nuance, but the story is appealingly earnest in its presentation. The film leaves a lot to be desired from a technical standpoint, but the actors are all amazing. The arguments about faith and fantasy are made without any regard to logic or common sense (in fact, the film seems to ardently favor emotions over logic in any conflict between the two, a philosophical stance that I personally disagree with), but these broader themes are presented in ways that tie very nicely into yuletide cheer. It all balances out to a solid, if old-fashioned, holiday classic.