Differences

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

--- 329:question:329--week_11_questions_comments-2024 [2024/11/07 05:22] – [Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact?] 76.78.172.45
+++ 329:question:329--week_11_questions_comments-2024 [2024/11/07 15:56] (current) – [Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact?] 76.78.172.113
@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 The Best Years of Our Lives accurately captures the challenges American WWII veterans faced upon returning home, including reintegration struggles, economic insecurity, and the impact of physical and psychological trauma. Through characters like Fred, Al, and Homer, the film portrays issues like job scarcity, shifting family dynamics, and the mental toll of combat—issues that were real and widespread for returning servicemen. Homer’s story also highlights the difficulties disabled veterans faced, marking one of the first times these realities were shown so openly in Hollywood. By depicting these struggles, the film provides an empathetic view of postwar American life. -Sam B
+What stuck out to me about the film was how it showed the struggle of integrating back into society for returning war veterans. It showed the very real problems that veterans faced when they came back home, from psychological issues,  to challenges in reconnecting with loved ones and reintegrating back into society. Similarly with its portrayal of women on the home front who had previously been working during the war but now had to contend with the return of traditional gender roles after the war. They were expected to give up on their jobs and go back to being stay-at-home-wives. I thought the film was fairy accurate in portraying this aspect of life after the war. —Vumiliya V.
 ====== Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact? ======
@@ Line 19: / Line 21: @@
 There isn't much that isn't historically inaccurate with this film. The biggest issue with this film is how it ended. It accurately shows the hardships many returning veterans experienced, but since this is a Hollywood film, it's sugarcoated a little bit. Everyone get their happy ending and that wasn't always true for everyone. Plenty of soldiers returned with severe PTSD or other traumas and disabilities that weren't touched upon as in depth as it could have been. These hardships many veterans had were life long struggles that some never fully reocovered from. It is also important to note that this film was made in 1946, about a year after the war ended and the long term effects couldn't be determined at that point in time. However, American citizens have been involved in wars for a couple hundred years at this point, and the trauma that war brings was known at a certain degree by this point in time. That being said, it is a 1940s film, and taking that into account, they did a fairly decent job in its portrayal. - Emma Galvin
+Because this source was about the time in which it was made, it can’t really be considered a secondary source about the period at all. Because of this, there are hardly any errors in fact – I would even go so far as saying there were none. This is for good reason too, I mean it would be weird to make a movie about 2024 and say that there were no such things as cars yet just for fun. The closest this movie gets to “historical inaccuracy” was discussing some issues or demographics more than others. I think the movie could have touched on the wartime experiences of minorities more and maybe touched on what it was actually like for the women back on the homefront as well (although they did allude to this a bit). --Emma F.
+There aren't any significant historical errors because the movie was produced at the period it depicts. But because it only looks at white guys, it doesn't accurately reflect the variety of experiences of returning veterans. The viewpoints of Black and Hispanic veterans, whose experiences returning home frequently varied significantly, are missing. Furthermore, the movie's "happy ending" for every character oversimplifies the difficulties that many veterans have endured throughout their lives, such as their continued battles with PTSD and other traumas that aren't adequately discussed.-Ryan K
+The film simplifies the complexities of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), reflecting a limited understanding of mental health issues at the time. Additionally, it portrays women primarily in traditional roles, overlooking their significant contributions during the war. The economic circumstances depicted do not fully account for the benefits provided by the GI Bill that helped many veterans reintegrate into civilian life. - Jedidia k
 ====== How does the film’s overall interpretation(s) deviate from scholarly historical sources? ======
 I felt that this film did a very good job in remaining accurate to the sentiment of the time period, especially considering when it was made, and who was involved in making it. There were several veterans on the cast and crew, and comparing the movie to the source of the week, as well as other accounts of the time period, they can almost be mirrors of each other. There are very few details that I could see that were inaccurate, because they were pulling from not only the experiences of people they had met and talked with, but their own as well. - Caty
+Hollywood will always glamorize things, so that is the only minor issue of this film. The timelines for a complicated re-assimilation into society, rebuilding community after a war, labor and housing shortages, mental health crises, and strained relationships are sped up to fit a short narrative. In reality, such things take a lot of time to unravel, and for a lot of people, many of these issues were never really resolved, or at least took years to be. The 1940s version of romance clouds things a bit, with Peggy and Fred falling in love in one evening without knowing each other at all and ignoring all of the underlying issues already in place. The women always look perfect and the film has a happy ending, which wasn't too realistic, though it embodied post-war optimism. However, even with that being said, the filmmakers went the extra mile to ensure humble authenticity, such as the wardrobe all being bought off the rack and previously worn by the cast to ensure a lived-in feel, and the sets were built smaller on purpose to reflect average life rather than something too grand. Wyler, a veteran himself, had crew members in every department from props to gaffing who were also veterans to create more of a documentary, even from behind the scenes.  -Jenna
 ====== How does this movie work as a primary source about the time in which it was made? ======
@@ Line 39: / Line 49: @@
 This movie works great as a primary source due to when it was made. Due to the film coming out in 1946, the conflict was extremely fresh in the minds of viewers, and those that produced and starred in the film. In my eyes, this makes the film even more poignant as all of those people were surely touched by the horrors of the conflict.----Thomas K.
+So far, this is the only movie we have watched that acts as both a primary source to the time it was made and actually being a primary source itself. It details the lives and hardships many veterans had to go through and was made less than a year after the war ended. There were many veterans involved in the making of this movie which helped to give accurate stories of what the movie portrayed. It also highlights that people want an inside scoop on what many veterans were currently feeling like. It is also relatable to many veterans and probably helped them feel less alone, which is what many needed in 1946. This movie is also a great example of how Hollywood worked in the 1940s. This movie, while accurate, was fairly toned down, which tracks with the pg nature many old Hollywood films possessed. It was also a period of time right after war and many were tired of the gloom WWII brought and most likely didn't want to see a film in which a happy ending was absent. - Emma Galvin
 ====== The "So What" Question ======
@@ Line 54: / Line 66: @@
 I believe this movie is extremely important for a few different reasons. For one, it illustrates to viewers a subject matter that was very little talked about in Post-War America. By focusing on the Psychological and Physical wounds experienced by soldiers coming home from the war, it humanizes those that came home and shows the horrors of war without having to show battle scenes. This movie is extremely important considering it came out in an era full of John Wayne, masculine “shoot-em-up” movies.--Thomas K.
+This movie is important for two major reasons. One, the movie represents very accurately the end-of-the-war experience for both soldier and family. Like we have been doing with all of the movies we covered this semester, it is a great resource to offer us more insight into what this would have actually been like or how it would have played out. The second reason is it is actually a primary source of the time because it was also made during the post-war period – soldiers were //actually// experiencing this when the movie came out. That adds an extra lens of analysis and accuracy that we can look through when viewing this movie today. --Emma F.
+The film is an enduring legacy in its portrayal of the harsh realities of post-war life for veterans. It does not shy away from depicting the psychological toll of war, specifically the PTSD and substance abuse issues that many returning veterans struggled with. Likewise with its portrayal of disabled characters, Homer, who was played by an actual disabled actor; for the time period it was shot in, directly following World War 2, this specific depiction was majorly groundbreaking in that I don't believe that there were many depictions of disabled characters on screen. Especially not ones portrayed in a complex and empathic light. The issues touched upon within the film are enduring ones that are significant to modern day issues that veterans face even to this day. —Vumiliya V.
+This movie was ahead of its time and is daring in a lot of ways. Having a discussion about nuclear annihilation so soon after the war and showing elements of depression and PTSD in a time when it was taboo to talk about mental health is really forward-thinking. The social elements were also progressive, like Al eluding that his family is rare in that they actually have openly emotional discussions: regarding Peggy's feelings for a married man and Al and Milly's hardships in marriage. In a time when unhappy marriages were swept under the rug and divorce was shameful, this film touches on these components without being judgmental of the issues. No one is slut shaming Peggy for wanting to break up a marriage, thus her feelings are heard and the situation is treated with understanding, respect, and concern. She is not belittled or seen as childish. Despite being the villain, Marie's independence does bring up conversations about women's autonomy during this era, for example, she moved out into her own apartment, worked at a nightclub making good money, and decided to divorce a man that she wasn't compatible with. The way that Al's alcoholism is treated is also unique because it doesn't necessarily fit the typical tropes of the raging, abusive, alcoholic or the bum who drank his money away. He is high-functioning and it is treated as a layer to his personality. He's using it as a coping mechanism without it consuming him, and I think this is a more realistic view of the overall effects of stress and why some people feel the need to drink. This film is complex, honest, and relatable to the average person and is timeless in that way.  -Jenna
+This film is significant because it depicts the actual challenges that returning veterans encountered, including PTSD, interpersonal problems, and reintegrating into society. It helps us understand and sympathize with veterans as normal people by concentrating on what occurs after the battle ceases, in contrast to other war films. It felt significant at the time and continues to do so now.-Ryan K
+It is an important film as it explores the challenges faced by World War II veterans as they reintegrate into civilian life.The film captures the psychological and social struggles of returning soldiers addressing issues like PTSD, loss of identity, and the difficulties of readjusting to a world that has changed in their absence. By highlighting these realities, the film serves as a critical commentary on the American societal expectations of post-war life. Its portrayal of trauma and the complexities of rekindling relationships provides a timeless reflection on the cost of war. - Jedidia