Some people like parkas, but others like pookas -- spirits from Celtic mythology who show up in a very large animal form. In 1950, the world got Harvey, the cinematic adaptation of Mary Chase's Pulitzer Prize-winning play -- a film that won co-star Josephine Hull an Oscar. James Stewart starred as Elwood P. Dowd, a strange, but thoughtful man whose best friend is a 6-foot, three and one-half inch tall pooka rabbit named Harvey.

Oh, Harvey. When Easter comes, some people think of the bwok-ing Cadbury bunny, others think of fluffy little lops, but I think of the super-tall, white friend of Elwood's. There's all sorts of strange premises these days, but modern times definitely don't have a complete hold on strange stories -- like a sweet-natured man who might get committed for his seemingly imaginary friend. And, there's not many men who could pull off a friendship with a rabbit, without having it be animated. Oh, Jimmy Stewart.

It is easy to dismiss It's a Wonderful Life, and indeed, people have been doing so since the film's release in 1946. Too sentimental, too hokey, too loaded with Frank Capra's hopeful humanism -- all these complaints, and more, have been fired at It's a Wonderful Life over the years. People still watch It's a Wonderful Life, sure, but you have to ask how much of this is based in the two most corrosive reasons to watch a film -- camp and tradition. Watching a film only so you can dissect it with the sharp blades of irony can blind you to its real virtues; you look for stereotypes, not performances; listen for often-quoted lines of dialogue without ever hearing them; see scenes in the context of their pop-culture parodies instead of as what they are.

So, the virtues of It's a Wonderful Life are often ignored by detractors. I'd also put forward that the virtues of It's a Wonderful Life are, in some way, occasionally ignored by the people who love it. It's a Wonderful Life is part of the American film canon, sure, but the canon is a cage -- placing movies on pedestals can put how good they actually are out of our minds. And hurling a film on every year because you're used to doing so can turn it into something seen but unwatched, the cinema equivalent of a nativity crèche or an artificial tree: It gets pulled out every December, put away soon after, forgotten until next year.

"This list...is an absolute good." Well, it's an absolute "pretty good." As I told you yesterday, the American Film Institute has refreshed its "100 Years ... 100 Movies" list. From a master list of 400 films, a panel that included directors, screenwriters, actors, editors, cinematographers, critics, and historians, selected their top 100 choices. The original list came out in 1998, and last night's special taught us that apparently not many great films have been released since then! The new poll allowed voters to select movies released between 1996 and 2006 for the first time. Of the newly eligible films, only Titanic, Saving Private Ryan, The Sixth Sense, and Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring were added. Steven Spielberg was the director with the most films on the list, with five. Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick, and Billy Wilder each had four. James Stewart and Robert DeNiro were the most represented actors, with five films apiece. You can check out the list for yourself here.

I can sit and watch these things for hours. I don't care how many times I hear about the shark not working, I still love it. But to be honest, last night's special was a bit dull. These lists tend to be painfully predictable, and this was no exception. Citizen Kane was ranked #1 yet again, and the only major additions to the Top 10 were Raging Bull (jumping from #24 to #4) and Vertigo (jumping from #61 to #9). New to the 2007 list are the following films: The General, Intolerance, Nashville, Sullivan's Travels, Cabaret, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, The Shawshank Redemption, In The Heat of the Night, All the President's Men, Spartacus, Sunrise, A Night at the Opera, 12 Angry Men, Swing Time, Sophie's Choice, The Last Picture Show, Blade Runner, Toy Story and -- a special cheers to this one -- Do the Right Thing, though it came in at a pretty weak #96.

Titles that were removed from the 1998 list are: Doctor Zhivago, Birth of a Nation, From Here to Eternity, Amadeus, All Quiet on the Western Front, The Third Man, Fantasia, Rebel Without a Cause, Stagecoach, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, The Manchurian Candidate, An American in Paris, Wuthering Heights, Dances With Wolves, Giant, Mutiny on the Bounty, Frankenstein (1931), Patton, The Jazz Singer, My Fair Lady, A Place in the Sun, Guess Who's Coming To Dinner and Fargo. Make of those additions and subtractions what you will, but show me one person who'd rather watch Intolerance than Fargo, and I'll show you someone who is no friend of mine.

For the past half century, Harvard University's Hasty Pudding Theatricals has honored the greatest names in entertainment. Since 1951, it has given its Woman of the Year award to Katherine Hepburn, Shirley MacLaine, Meryl Streep and others of tremendous talent. In 1967, it began handing out a Man of the Year award, too. Recipients have included Paul Newman, James Stewart, Robert DeNiro and Steven Spielberg. This year's winners are Scarlett Johansson and Ben Stiller.

Now, I know I could be in the minority here, but I just don't see Johansson and Stiller being in the same boat as some of the past honorees. But I think maybe the theater group hasn't chosen Johansson specifically for her acting (or her gallbladder). I think they just want the "Sexiest Woman Alive" to lead their parade (perchance in a Cinderella costume?). As for Stiller, well, I'm sure he should be a fun guy to have around at a premiere party for HPT's latest theatrical production. He isn't the first comedy star to be honored, and at least he's still in his prime, unlike 1993 honoree Chevy Chase.

Looking through the list, it seems most of the elder greats have already been given awards in the past, but surely there must be somebody more deserving than these two. Okay, granted Stiller is a huge box office success this year, though his draw is likely temporary, but Johansson hasn't shown herself to be a great actress and so far she's been "box office poison." Who should have gotten the awards instead?