Differences

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

--- 329:question:329--week_11_questions_comments-2024 [2024/11/07 09:12] – [How does the film’s overall interpretation(s) deviate from scholarly historical sources?] 71.171.124.237
+++ 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 23: / Line 23: @@
 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? ======
@@ Line 66: / Line 70: @@
 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