Differences

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

--- 329:question:329--week_11_questions_comments-2022 [2022/11/03 01:02] – moore_sarah
+++ 329:question:329--week_11_questions_comments-2022 [2022/11/03 05:15] (current) – [IV.How does this movie work as a primary source about the time period in which it was made or the filmmakers?] poletes_aleksandra
@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 The movie focuses mainly on the white perspective of coming back home, and ignores a large portion of veterans. WWII was a "total war" which involved people of all races, but the film centers on the suburban white men when there are so many more stories to tell was telling for the time period (this was not even 10 years after //Gone With the Wind//) but is still a missed opportunity for telling many other important stories that are still not mentioned in discussion of World War II to this day. -- Logan Kurtz
+I had the same thought that Logan did about the accuracy. This does only tell the story of white men who were in the army/navy. I think the reason that this movie does not tell the story of anybody else fits into the primary source section. At this point in time, Hollywood was absolutely dominated by white actors and actresses. Nobody else's story was being told at that time. If this movie was made in, say, the 2010s, it would likely tell the story of women, black people, Asian people, and others that have been typically missing from the narrative when WWII is talked about. -Sarah Moore
+I felt like this movie was very accurate to the time period. It showed several different perspectives of life within the same community. It was very enthralling to watch the movie because it was less over the top. It’s intriguing how entertaining the mundane can be. I felt so much for each character within the movie. Each perspective hit close to home. The movie emphasized how hard of a struggle it was for Veterans, even for Al who got a promotion once he came home. He still struggled heavily, emotionally and physically. Especially with his drinking issues and irritable behavior. Each vet fought different battles first on the battlefield and then within themselves. I do agree with what my classmates have said about only certain narratives being spoken about that. I do think that’s mainly to do with the fact that the movie was made during an era that was still very racist, and the lack of representation has direct correlation with that fact. It was a product of it’s time. -Michaela Fontenot
+ -
 ====== III.	How does the film’s overall interpretation(s) deviate from scholarly historical sources? ======
@@ Line 32: / Line 38: @@
 I think this movie is a great primary source about the time it was made. Of course, we discussed this was caused by it being made in 1946, one year after most soldiers had come home. The portrayals of the three soldiers who had come home were spot on, as far as the information we heard in class goes. There is very evidently an adjustment period for them when they return. It is difficult for Homer, who has lost his hands while at war, to adjust to the life at home. Despite any training that the hospital/place that gave him the prosthetics had given him, there are still things that are extremely hard or impossible. In the first few minutes of the movie, Al and Fred remark that he cannot hug his girl or stroke her hair with the hooks he has for his hands. Another thing that is good is the portrayal of shell-shock symptoms, which is PTSD.
  -Sarah Moore
+This film says a lot about the filmmakers and the time it was made, as it really features ideas that are uncommon for the time. Of course, the film can only be so accurate when it is fictional. However, the film features a vulnerability that is unlike many of the films we have seen. One source about the film says that “a chrysalis of an old world seems to crack open and a fragile new one begins to emerge” in the film. https://www.newyorker.com/goings-on-about-town/movies/the-best-years-of-our-lives. The Best Years of our Lives really provides a great insight into the lives of these men returning from war. -Burke Steifman
+This film was made in the period that it is portraying, which allows for a great primary source. It shows real issues that not only vets, but civilians who were on the home-front, were dealing with returning from the war. It gives the perspective of wounded/disabled veterans, and touches on those coming from different types of backgrounds. I really liked that the film showed that the veterans had worries about their jobs upon returning home. It gave a more realistic perspective and showed what their return was really like. - Neonya Garner
+As this movie was made the same time it took place, it tells a lot about what was going on. His son talks about at one point what he is learning in school. I think that is an accurate depiction of what students actually learned. I think it was also a groundbreaking film with them discussing sensitive topics. Sophie Weber
+I appreciated how immersed we feel in the setting, though this is likely just because the film was being made about the present instead of an earlier date so the filmmakers didn’t have to worry so much about period-accurate costumes and whatnot. Nevertheless, the focus on regular people and their experiences shows that the experiences of regular veterans was important to the filmmakers. Instead of focusing on great heroes, we get perspectives on different kinds of veterans, their families, and their lives. — Sasha Poletes
 ====== V. The "So, what?" question	======
@@ Line 47: / Line 61: @@
 This movie was refreshing to watch. The closeness of this movie to the actual events it was portraying gave a sense of reality to a fictional landscape it was portraying. I think that this movie was trying to say that 1946 is a transition. Returning soldiers are having a tough time, but it will get better. The end of the movie is hopeful for the future and shows that the transition to civilian life is possible. The inclusion of a disabled character played by a disabled person truly made me happy to see. Their narrative is not being erased here, even if the narratives of others are. The movie does give a range of veterans. Al is of an affluent background, while Fred is lower income. Homer is a representative of the suburban middle class. They all vary in how the war impacted them, thus providing a range of perspectives. The perspective of Black soldiers is ignored and so is that of women entirely besides the perspective of wives and daughters of soldiers returning. This movie does something though that I did not expect of a post-war WWII America that I grew up learning about. I grew up learning about the baby boom, the joyous celebrations on the days of victory, and how things got good for America. I did not get a nuanced view of how the anxieties of the soldiers returning, how it impacted the family structure, and that it was not an easy homecoming for anybody. Is it a perfect portrayal of what the post war climate was like? No, but this film is a great primary source into what it was like for soldiers returning, their families, and how people felt about them returning. - Taylor Coleman
+Best Years of Our Lives is a fantastic primary source for what white American veterans experienced after they came home from WWII. It's also a good example of how mental health was seen at the time. People thought that mental problems could just be waved away with time and minimal effort. Attitudes towards treating mental health have mostly improved. However, some people still have similar attitudes to the ones held in the 40s. -Katherine Rayhart
+I thought this film was very interesting, and even though it doesn’t serve well as a secondary source, it has several unique aspects. First, Homer’s disability is something that is not often covered in war-related films. The mental and physical effects of losing body parts in battle is a huge challenge, and it was impressive to see this film acknowledge it. As a whole, the postwar perspectives of this film were exceptional, as well as the fact that this was made and set in 1946. -Burke Steifman
+Some people have commented on the lack of differing perspectives outside of that of White men. But I think that just shows the reality of the 1940s. Hollywood back then was not interested in showing stories involving people of color. Had this film been made later in the 20th century, it likely would've been a very different story. - Neonya Garner
+This movie discusses a lot of sensitive topics that were not usually shared in films but were accurate representations of the soldiers returning from war. It discusses the ptsd soldiers had once they returned and how hard it was for them to get out of the war mindset. It also did a good job of representing how families reacted to their soldiers' problems. Homer having the hooks was very difficult for his parents to accept. It also showed how families moved on. Kids grew up and people moved away which is not something that is always discussed. -Sophie Weber
+I think that this is the best movie we’ve watched yet. It did an amazing job showing the struggles vets face coming home and readjusting to civilian life. It also showcased the civilian point of view from many different angles, both supportive and un-supportive. I see why this movie won best picture in 1946. I think this movie is a really good depiction of post war life, and it’s probably the first time it was able to be documented and commented on in this particular format. This is a very meaningful movie that I think everyone should see.-Michaela Fontenot
+I thought this movie deviated from many american war films, at least up to that point, that painted war as quite heroic and glorious. It is also interesting in that it focuses on what happens to soldiers after the war instead of including fighting. Either way, I appreciated that it was critical of society and the government, even if indirectly most of the time. The main characters’ frustration with their lives after the war is evident. A scene that stuck out to me was at the beginning when they are all trying to get home and it is generally chaotic — it reflects poorly on the demobilization plan since it seemed that nothing was organized and getting home was difficult. In general I think this is a powerful movie that likely had an impact on audiences going to watch it since in 1946 things weren’t looking very good for veterans. — Sasha Poletes