Wiki for Dr. McClurkens Courses

User Tools

Site Tools

Trace: • 329--week_12_questions_comments-2018 • 329--week_2_questions_comments • 329--introduction_week_questions_comments_meme_posts-2022 • 329--week_14_questions_comments-2018
329:question:329--week_11_questions_comments

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
329:question:329--week_11_questions_comments [2016/11/14 06:13] – [Additional Questions:] mlindse2329:question:329--week_11_questions_comments [2016/11/15 13:55] (current) – [1 Errors in fact] jmcclurken
Line 1: Line 1:
 ====== 1 Errors in fact ====== ====== 1 Errors in fact ======
  
-An error in the film is when people are depicted as believing that the war caused many soldiers to be left out of work and believe that their job would not be waiting for them. **In reality, due to many bills enacted during the war, returning vets were guaranteed their jobs after returning (unless the company got bought out, etc.)** and could receive some unemployment up to 52 weeks. However, considering this film was made in 1946, many people believed that unemployment would be high for returning vets and that it would be difficult for them to find jobs.   --- //[[lkacoyan@umw.edu|Kacoyanis, Leah F.]] 2016/11/08 13:39//+An error in the film is when people are depicted as believing that the war caused many soldiers to be left out of work and believe that their job would not be waiting for them. **In reality, due to many bills enacted during the war, returning vets were guaranteed their jobs after returning (unless the company got bought out, etc.)** and could receive some unemployment up to 52 weeks. However, considering this film was made in 1946, many people believed that unemployment would be high for returning vets and that it would be difficult for them to find jobs.   --- //[[lkacoyan@umw.edu|Kacoyanis, Leah F.]] 2016/11/08 13:39//  
    
 Okay so this is nit picky, but in the beginning of the film at the ATC all the marines had their hats on. In reality, when indoors officers and lower ranking personnel would take off their hats indoors. They would not have kept their 'lids' on indoors. Instead, they would probably wear a cover, which some wore in the ATC. However, they wouldn't wear their brims indoors. Another nit picky error was that Fred wore his uniform although marines are not supposed to wear their uniforms in public. He was instructed by his wife early in the film to do so, but he would have known not to wear his uniform in public.  Okay so this is nit picky, but in the beginning of the film at the ATC all the marines had their hats on. In reality, when indoors officers and lower ranking personnel would take off their hats indoors. They would not have kept their 'lids' on indoors. Instead, they would probably wear a cover, which some wore in the ATC. However, they wouldn't wear their brims indoors. Another nit picky error was that Fred wore his uniform although marines are not supposed to wear their uniforms in public. He was instructed by his wife early in the film to do so, but he would have known not to wear his uniform in public. 
Line 106: Line 106:
  
 As a veteran of the armed forces, and current employee of the department of Veterans Affairs, I can confirm __some__ of the difficulties faced by making the military, civilian transition. Although the benefits have changed since 1946, I recognized prior servicemen’s eligibility for unemployment insurance and VA approved home loans. On that, I also recognized the assumption made by the Sea Bee’s (CB) sailor of a “guaranteed loan” and the inquisitive look on his faced when asked about his collateral. I consider myself very fortunate to be a recipient of the (post 9/11) GI bill, but there is a surprisingly large amount of (honorably discharged) vets that never take advantage of the bill but still struggle to find work such as it was for Fred (the soda jerk). --- //[[dblount@mail.umw.edu|David-Blount M]] 2016/11/09 15:41// As a veteran of the armed forces, and current employee of the department of Veterans Affairs, I can confirm __some__ of the difficulties faced by making the military, civilian transition. Although the benefits have changed since 1946, I recognized prior servicemen’s eligibility for unemployment insurance and VA approved home loans. On that, I also recognized the assumption made by the Sea Bee’s (CB) sailor of a “guaranteed loan” and the inquisitive look on his faced when asked about his collateral. I consider myself very fortunate to be a recipient of the (post 9/11) GI bill, but there is a surprisingly large amount of (honorably discharged) vets that never take advantage of the bill but still struggle to find work such as it was for Fred (the soda jerk). --- //[[dblount@mail.umw.edu|David-Blount M]] 2016/11/09 15:41//
 +
 +I think this film captured the initial jolt of happiness and relief so many families experience during homecoming. Military homecomings are similar today, although depending on the time away the responses differ. As an Army brat and my numerous homecoming experiences, the initial relief and happiness rings true. This film does a good job of also capturing the after effects, the adjustment period when the longevity and time apart registers. Also, the film does a good job with showing the adjustment period, when families have to adapt to each persons' changes over the time apart. 
 + --- //[[ejames@umw.edu|James, Emily B.]] 2016/11/14 22:28//
 +
 +I think that the movie did a fantastic job of delving into the experiences of the family and soldier upon arrival. I think that this could be due to the fact that the movie was created shortly after the end of the war. It is exciting when a war hero comes back, but the adjustment can be weird. We discussed the feelings when the soldier felt he did not fit in (or felt that the family did not need him). It's a complex issue dealing with a soldiers homecoming. --- //[[rpratt@mail.umw.edu|Robert Pratt]] 2016/11/14 22:58//
 +
 +I think the movie was very spot-on when it came to the realities of men returning from war, especially post-World War II. I think these days more is known about the psychological effects of war so the men in the film likely would have not gotten help for their PTSD. As we talked about in class, many had struggles finding their place back in their families and towns after their return.  --- //[[khaynes3@umw.edu|Haynes, Kelly E.]] 2016/11/14 23:34//
 +
 +The homecoming in the film was definitely filled with tension. In some ways it reminded me of the American version of the recent film //Brothers//, albeit toned down with 1940s attitudes, but the film definitely pushed the envelope compared to other classic films I've seen. Nobody is quite comfortable, especially Homer. The film is complicated, and the characters know they have changed, and that the only way to move on is to acknowledge that.
 + --- //[[dhawkins@umw.edu|Hawkins Daniel C.]] 2016/11/15 07:06//
  
  
Line 112: Line 122:
 This isn’t a very scholastic argument but I definitely enjoyed this movie more than I did //Gone with the Wind//. I think that //Best Years of our Lives// deserves more credit as it was portraying the time period in which it was made and therefore instead of a blatant ignorance to the facts, the errors in the film help us to understand post-war society in the 1940s. //Gone with the Wind// attempted to tell an accurate story that happened decades prior to the film whereas //Best Years of Our Lives// gives us an idea of how the return was perceived by Americans. They both portray women who appear headstrong and determined to find love but for Peggy, that’s all she tries to accomplish during the movie. We know nothing else about her whereas Scarlet had a passion for keeping her farm and land afloat by any means necessary.  --- //[[lrainfor@umw.edu|Rainford Lauren E.]] 2016/11/10 10:32// This isn’t a very scholastic argument but I definitely enjoyed this movie more than I did //Gone with the Wind//. I think that //Best Years of our Lives// deserves more credit as it was portraying the time period in which it was made and therefore instead of a blatant ignorance to the facts, the errors in the film help us to understand post-war society in the 1940s. //Gone with the Wind// attempted to tell an accurate story that happened decades prior to the film whereas //Best Years of Our Lives// gives us an idea of how the return was perceived by Americans. They both portray women who appear headstrong and determined to find love but for Peggy, that’s all she tries to accomplish during the movie. We know nothing else about her whereas Scarlet had a passion for keeping her farm and land afloat by any means necessary.  --- //[[lrainfor@umw.edu|Rainford Lauren E.]] 2016/11/10 10:32//
  
-Between the two I think they both had their goods and their bads. For example, in //Best Years of Our Lives// we have four women who actually stay through the whole movie, don’t die or disappear with no real reason, and an older woman who actually seemed like a person and not the classic loving mother/wife trope of the time. On the other hand, some of the female characters felt so flat to me in this film in comparison to //Gone with the Wind//. I liked Peggy at first, she had a personality to her, but when she fell in love with Frank she got so boring because that’s all she was there for. At least with Scarlet she kept her personality.  --- //[[mlindse2@umw.edu|Lindsey, Megan E.]] 2016/11/14 00:12//+Between the two I think they both had their goods and their bads. For example, in //Best Years of Our Lives// we have four women who actually stay through the whole movie, don’t die or disappear with no real reason, and an older woman who actually seemed like a person and not the classic loving mother/wife trope of the time. On the other hand, some of the female characters felt so flat to me in this film in comparison to //Gone with the Wind//. I liked Peggy at first, she had a personality to her, but when she fell in love with Fred she got so boring because that’s all she was there for. At least with Scarlet she kept her personality.  --- //[[mlindse2@umw.edu|Lindsey, Megan E.]] 2016/11/14 00:12//
  
  
Line 124: Line 134:
 So if we are going to talk about the entirety of the era then I think the movie did a fabulous job of showing the whitewashed version. Everything is perfect, even if there is a little struggle there is always a positive outcome. This is the way that we tend to portray this era after the war however the era was not only a white era of success. This era was a struggle for civil rights; there are more than just white people during this time. If we are to talk about the era as a whole and we include the struggle for civil rights and the struggle that many minorities faced coming home besides just the white men, then this job did a piss poor job portraying that.  --- //[[mmcmaken@mail.umw.edu|Mary-Margaret McMaken]] 2016/11/11 14:30// So if we are going to talk about the entirety of the era then I think the movie did a fabulous job of showing the whitewashed version. Everything is perfect, even if there is a little struggle there is always a positive outcome. This is the way that we tend to portray this era after the war however the era was not only a white era of success. This era was a struggle for civil rights; there are more than just white people during this time. If we are to talk about the era as a whole and we include the struggle for civil rights and the struggle that many minorities faced coming home besides just the white men, then this job did a piss poor job portraying that.  --- //[[mmcmaken@mail.umw.edu|Mary-Margaret McMaken]] 2016/11/11 14:30//
  
 +The film was very accurate in its portrayal of the era, given what we know. Their fears of economic collapse are true because that is how people of the period felt. They did not yet know that their economy would boom and be prosperous. Their concerns are genuine to the time which contributes to the overall accuracy of the film.  --- //[[nfanning@umw.edu|Fanning Neal R.]] 2016/11/14 09:53//
  
  
-**+The film was an extremely accurate portrayal of the era, simply because of the time it was made in.  If a movie about 2016 was made in the year 2016 it would probably be very accurate simply because there is no research needed.  This movie captures the essence of the 1940’s better than we ever can because all we can do is look at primary sources, whereas the people acting actually experienced the culture they were depicting. -Christian Trout
  
 +The film was about as accurate as I think it could possibly be. Unlike the other films we have been watching, The Best Years of Our Lives is not based on a fictional account from a story or set in a time period decades earlier. It was a contemporary film, which meant that the production staff could simply insert aspects of their own everyday lives into the film and be completely authentic to the time. --- //[[ccooney@umw.edu|Cooney, Corey R.]] 2016/11/15 02:45//
 +
 +
 +**
 What do you think about the portrayal of Homer Parish as a character? How does the film depict 1946’s opinions on physical disabilities?** What do you think about the portrayal of Homer Parish as a character? How does the film depict 1946’s opinions on physical disabilities?**
  
Line 134: Line 149:
 I think this movie did a well job in portraying the effects the war had on soldiers. It gives a good physical portrayal of how not every person came back the same, that some men carry the war with them upon returning home and even for the rest of their life. Like Jason said, the movie did show that people were generally unaccepting of the disability, even Homer. I think showing that vulnerability in Homer throughout the movie was well done and showed that effects of war happen differently at different times for people. --- //[[mmcmaken@mail.umw.edu|Mary-Margaret McMaken]] 2016/11/11 14:30// I think this movie did a well job in portraying the effects the war had on soldiers. It gives a good physical portrayal of how not every person came back the same, that some men carry the war with them upon returning home and even for the rest of their life. Like Jason said, the movie did show that people were generally unaccepting of the disability, even Homer. I think showing that vulnerability in Homer throughout the movie was well done and showed that effects of war happen differently at different times for people. --- //[[mmcmaken@mail.umw.edu|Mary-Margaret McMaken]] 2016/11/11 14:30//
  
 +I thought it was interesting that instead of "shell shock" that Homer had initially, they chose to highlight the physical disabilities. Homer's anger and frustration rings true because so many veterans come home with physical disabilities sustained in wars. The film does a good job of showing the discomfort and unease many people viewed people with physical disabilities. 
 + --- //[[ejames@umw.edu|James, Emily B.]] 2016/11/14 22:28//
  
 +In 70 years, the the general reaction to physical disability has not improved greatly. There is still a sense of awkwardness or even unintentional pity leveled at these people, despite them simply wanting a normal life again.  --- //[[ccooney@umw.edu|Cooney, Corey R.]] 2016/11/15 02:45//
  
 **In class we discussed how the director wanted to create a realistic film that was a departure from the patriotic propaganda. Does the film reflect this? Consider the film’s ending. **In class we discussed how the director wanted to create a realistic film that was a departure from the patriotic propaganda. Does the film reflect this? Consider the film’s ending.
- 
 ** **
  
Line 147: Line 163:
  
 Absolutely. WWII propaganda was intended to inspire the masses, and/or, appear adventurous with promises of seeing the world. Had they used imagery of a multiple amputee, or a guy waking up in a cold sweat from night terrors for posters and literature, I assume there would have been a far less number of volunteers enlisting. --- //[[dblount@mail.umw.edu|David-Blount M]] 2016/11/09 15:41// Absolutely. WWII propaganda was intended to inspire the masses, and/or, appear adventurous with promises of seeing the world. Had they used imagery of a multiple amputee, or a guy waking up in a cold sweat from night terrors for posters and literature, I assume there would have been a far less number of volunteers enlisting. --- //[[dblount@mail.umw.edu|David-Blount M]] 2016/11/09 15:41//
 +
 +From what I have gathered from the movie it seems to me that it truly does show the good, bad, and the ugly. There are times when were are forced to see the nasty parts of America after WWII. It shows that the true picture of post WWII America was not all about waving flags and throwing parades, but it was about readjustments and awkward interactions. I’m really glad that the movie, for the most part, was able to keep a realistic image of citizens after a gruesome war. --- //[[abrooks6@umw.edu|Brooks Anna R.]] 2016/11/14 17:49//
 +
 +I think the film showed war and the post-war era that was something that was ambiguous and difficult for returning veterans and for their friends and families. We learn that all of the veterans in the film have seen terrible things and experienced terrible things, and that fitting back into civilian life is very difficult for them. They don't come home to parades and excitement, but to other people trying to scrape by. Injury, PTSD, and having trouble finding a place in society after the war were all things that the propaganda ignored or misrepresented, and this film showed all of those in a realistic way.
 + --- //[[mcarey@umw.edu|Carey Megan A.]] 2016/11/15 07:11//
 +
  
  
 **In the film we see three different family situations and dynamics. What do these interactions tell us about family values in 1946?** **In the film we see three different family situations and dynamics. What do these interactions tell us about family values in 1946?**
  
-The film felt like it was trying to relate to its audiences that veterans need support from their families and loved ones, no matter what. And, aside from Fred's situation, the people around our three veterans do a good job of fitting this image. We see the veterans struggling with adjusting almost desperately, and the people around them try their best (sometimes too much, in Homer's case) to help their beloved veterans. The women, especially, were accommodating. Unlike what we discussed on Tuesday, Al's wife seemed to never have a job, even while her husband was gone and she was expected to help run more than the affairs of the household. Peggy did have a job, but we hardly hear anything about it. I think in this way, the movie was trying to encourage women especially to become the good wives that the veterans expected to come home to.  --- //[[lmccuist@umw.edu|Lindsey McCuistion]] 2016/11/10 19:28//+The film felt like it was trying to relate to its audiences that veterans need support from their families and loved ones, no matter what. And, aside from Fred's situation, the people around our three veterans do a good job of fitting this image. We see the veterans struggling with adjusting almost desperately, and the people around them try their best (sometimes too much, in Homer's case) to help their beloved veterans. The women, especially, were accommodating. Unlike what we discussed on Tuesday, Al's wife seemed to never have a job, even while her husband was gone and she was expected to help run more than the affairs of the household. Peggy did have a job, but we hardly hear anything about it. I think in this way, the movie was trying to encourage women especially to become the good wives that the veterans expected to come home to.  --- //[[lmccuist@umw.edu|Lindsey McCuistion]]  
 +2016/11/10 19:28// 
 + 
 +I got the feeling that the film while trying to display family values as important in the readjustment of returning veterans, but that the family values were also somewhat blurred and unclear, due to the amount of families that were quickly formed before the war.  --- //[[nfanning@umw.edu|Fanning Neal R.]] 2016/11/14 09:58// 
 + 
 + 
 +At this particular point in history there are no concrete setting of a family. Men are coming home from war and the women are coming back from the work force. It’s an awkward transition time where no on really knew what was going to happen. The men were expecting their jobs back, but the women enjoyed working outside of the home. There had been the great depression where almost everyone was out of work creating a family where both parents stayed home or both went to work. It wasn’t until the war where everyone was told the role they were suppose to play. When the war was over they didn’t know what they should go back to. It wasn’t until the 50s where there was a great push to make what we would consider the ‘traditional’ family, where the mother stays at home and takes care of the house and children and the father goes out and works. So when the movie shows the four different types of family it is really showing that there was no set standard for a family and that there was a time in American history when we were very uncertain as to what was going to happen with the family.  --- //[[abrooks6@umw.edu|Brooks Anna R.]] 2016/11/14  
 +17:44// 
 + 
 +I feel like the interactions provide a good snapshot of family values in the late 1940’s.  At the end of the movie Homer marries the woman he loves, and shows some quality character development along the way.  Al on the other hand turns into a heavy drinker, showing the opposite side of the family spectrum.  And Fred is still not happy at where he is in life, but still happy to be back stateside.  Three different men, three different stories, and I think they show three different sides to the family dynamic.  -Christian Trout 
 + 
 +We see characters hold onto traditional American family values, but we also see those values tested and adjusted to fit a changing world in 1946. Women working, women deciding who they want to marry despite their parents' wishes, men discussing deep, personal feelings--all of this adds up to a new view on family values in post-war America. 
 + --- //[[dhawkins@umw.edu|Hawkins Daniel C.]] 2016/11/15 07:04//
329/question/329--week_11_questions_comments.1479104028.txt.gz · Last modified: 2016/11/14 06:13 by mlindse2