Differences

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

--- 329:question:329--week_11_questions_comments-2026 [2026/11/05 03:00] – [How does this movie work as a secondary source about the past? What does the movie get right about history?] 76.78.172.73
+++ 329:question:329--week_11_questions_comments-2026 [2026/11/11 07:39] (current) – [The "So What" Question -- Why should we care about the movie and its version of history?] 76.78.172.49
@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 ======How does this movie work as a secondary source about the past? What does the movie get right about history?======
+//The Best Years of Our Lives// gets a lot right about the experiences of returning World War II veterans, but at the same time, it cannot be considered a true secondary source. A source is considered secondary if it is created after the event it is analyzing, and this movie was made in 1946 and depicts events and attitudes of the post-war period. Nonetheless, it accurately - and in a rather novel way for films of this time period - addresses the historical record about many of the challenges faced by veterans at the time. These included mental health struggles, alcoholism, unemployment, and the difficulty many soldiers had reintegrating into society and navigating relationships with others who could not really understand the ordeal they had endured. In this sense, it is a useful lens for viewing this part of U.S. history. - Charles Salcedo
 The movie obviously did their best to cover as many different veterans experiences as possible. The 3 main characters are all different ages, at different life stages, and are from different branches of the military. Homer who lost his hands really humanizes disabled people, who have typically been excluded from daily life. The movie really does portray the integration back into “civilian” life very well. They are disconnected emotionally and mentally, and it takes a lot of time for the characters to get back into how things used to be. This film really shows how important representation is, especially post war when millions of people have been affected. This movie is relatable to many, and also portrays PTSD and mental health issues. While there are still elements of its time particularly in gender relations, the movie was very empathetic to veterans issues and portrayed clearly the dilemmas faced by veterans integrating back into society. - Katie D.
@@ Line 15: / Line 17: @@
 This film is unique among those we have studied due to its proximity to the time it portrays, but this also gives the film greater potential to be an accurate secondary source. Many of the sentiments shown by characters in the film echo that of feelings during the war that a depression was on the horizon. The question as to how millions of soldiers would be integrated back into the workforce frightened many, and while efforts by the government such as the GI Bill and Selective Service prevented this, the filmmakers behind The Best Years of Our Lives understandably remained wary about the ability for these programs to work. Different characters show different perspectives on pessimistic outlooks that were taken at the time. For example, Fred’s story touches on the question of whether servicemen would take everyone else’s jobs or fail to return to the workforce properly, while Homer’s story deals with whether wounded soldiers could return to normal society. In these ways, the film is highly accurate in how it depicts the views of its time regarding the end of the war and its potential effect on the economy. - Hunter M.
+I honestly thought the film was very accurate. It was refreshing to see such a realistic depiction of PTSD and how soldiers were impacted by war. Especially where Fred Derry has a nightmare about the battlefield. The film also accurately shows how veterans were disabled through the character of Homer Parrish, who was played by real life disabled Veteran, Harold Russell. The film also accurately depicts the alienation veterans felt after the war and the discontent they felt with the people and society who did not experience the war. This includes marriages, and relationships that were also strained after the war, which is evident with Fred and his wife in the film. There really is no sugar coating in this film, war severely impacted their lives and is not something to be glamorized
+-Ellie Irwin
+This movie works particularly well as a primary source of the time because it was made directly following World War II as a snapshot of the current moment.  I find it very interesting how the film deals with disability and how it was viewed following the war versus how it is viewed now.- Tyler J.
+I think this movie is important to consider as a secondary source about the post World War II era in the US. It very effectively shows the effects that the war had on those who returned from the war as well as those who stayed behind. It shows the human cost of a major conflict in an empathetic way that is true today too and can almost be taken as a warning that the fight can continue even after fighting has ceased. -Kendall B.
 ======Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact?======
@@ Line 29: / Line 39: @@
 Ultimately, the film's greatest historical weakness is not that it misrepresents the struggles of returning veterans, but that it presents a somewhat reassuring picture of their ability to overcome those struggles. - Todd H.
+I think the film matters because of the time it was made, as it was directly following World War II and about the aftermath of the war on returning soldiers. That does not mean the movie is perfect, and that it does not leave out very important historical facts to paint the US in a better light. While their characters are flawed, they seem to paint the women in their lives as incredibly patient and there to serve and provide any convenience and Aid to the men in their lives when they had their own lives and frustrations and were not merely there to provide the men with whatever they needed.  I would have liked to see their side of the story more and the stories of African American soldiers returning home from places like France, where they were not segregated as they were in the Jim Crow South, or the stories of those in internment camps that were treated as the enemy despite having done no actions to warrant that.
+- Tyler J.
+I think the movie is fairly accurate about the struggles veterans faced after World War II, but the ending makes those problems seem easier to overcome than they often were in real life. By the end of the film, Fred has found a new sense of purpose, Homer marries Wilma, and the main characters and their families all seem hopeful about the future. Despite the film's optimism, many veterans continued to struggle with unemployment,
+disabilities, and emotional and psychological trauma for years after the war. The film also leaves out some important parts of post-war America. It doesn't show the experiences of African American veterans in any way, who faced racism and discrimination even after serving in the military. Because of these omissions and its optimistic ending, the film gives a somewhat simplified, and maybe even sanitized picture of life after World War II, even though it
+accurately and empathetically portrays many of the challenges returning veterans faced. -- Abby F.
 ======How does the film’s overall interpretation(s) deviate from scholarly historical sources (as presented in class)?======
@@ Line 34: / Line 51: @@
 I agree with a lot of what Katie is saying here. I agree with the idea that the movie kind of gives everyone a pretty positive ending, and I wish they maybe would've gone more into the internal and mental effects of returning from war. They do kind of touch on the mental impacts, like Fred struggles with nightmares of his time in the air force, but there's no further discussion that I can recall beyond the women's willingness to deal with them. Additionally, while the movie does do a great job addressing different impacts on veterans, such as returning home with physical disabilities or economic struggles, compared to some examples from the reading, these impacts don't lead to lifelong detrements for the most part. For example, in the text, the writer talks about how he encountered a veteran who was now addicted to morphine due to being treated due to injury during the war. The movie overall did a great job capturing some of the realities of returning from war, but there's more that could've not have been shown for numerous reasons. -- Grayson D.
+There is very little deviation from scholarly sources in The Best Years of Our Lives. This is a potential result of the film portraying its own time rather than a time in history. Sentiments of the American public and government during the war about the economic effects of soldiers returning are accurately portrayed, as are pessimistic sentiments of soldiers like the writings of Fussell. The gruesome nature of some injuries is tuned down in the film, but it still makes an active effort to portray things like PTSD at a time when that was highly uncommon for movies to do. Ultimately, the least historically accurate thing about The Best Years of Our Lives was the future that it predicted, as the postwar depression never materialized like many people feared it would. - Hunter M.
 ======How does this movie work as a primary source about the time in which it was made?======
@@ Line 52: / Line 76: @@
 This movie works rather well as a primary source. It was created in 1946 reflecting the times when soldiers were coming back from war. However, there was the belief that the United States didn't know where to go. They were sure if there was going to be an economic crisis like what had happened in the Great Depression. There were also the high inflation concerns with veterans needing job post war --Shelby Hawley
+The Best Years of Our Lives works as a primary source about the time in which it was made as seen through how it treats romantic relationships. For example, although Fred and Marie get divorced, all the other main romantic pairings work out/have a happy ending at the end—which reinforces the cultural/gender roles of 1946. Marie’s promiscuity and position as a working woman is punished through how the narrative paints her as a villain, which again reinforces the societal expectation of how women and marriage should be (Peggy serves as a good foil to Marie—she is respected as a nurse and is much more traditional and “plain”---and Peggy is ultimately rewarded when she ends up with Fred at the end). –Aaliyah A.
+This film was very special because it's not only a primary source about how the movie culture of the time was but the timeline of the film was also currently occurring. 1946 was the year after world war two ended so a lot of soldiers were still acclimating back to their old lives or just arriving back. The mid forties after the war have been shown to have been a very happy time and this film shows some of this optimism. The film takes a dark turn once the three soldiers that it centers around have been home for a while. Some scenes really reveal a different view of the soldier's homecoming than I've ever seen. It was eye-opening to see one of the soldiers' serious body altercations due to a bad injury. The time period brought change to people across the world. Battle wounds were not a new discovery, but the most current generation of Americans likely perceived them as either an inconvenience or were just completely bewildered. Other struggles like coming home to a changed family or career struggles after wartime are touched on more than other films. -- Autumn Morris
+The Best Years of our lives serves as a primary source as the film came out a year after WWll, the film captured the paranoia that was felt at the time following the war . Because that is what was happening in the world when the movie came out. There was paranoia, there were struggling soldiers who had to adjust back into society. I think that’s what makes the film so unique as it came out right when the film takes place. It almost works as a primary source for the war itself if it was not fictional. It does however work as a primary source for the time the film came out. As stated paranoia was a large phenomenon of the time, the war was over but there was the looming threat of nuclear war as it was a pre Cold War era. The film also uniquely discusses PTSD, something that was often not talked about in the time. The fact the film does not sugar coat the struggle of soldiers nor does it glorify war in a time of patriotism and celebration is what makes the film so unique for its time.
+-Ellie Irwin
+As others have already said, this film has a very interesting quality of having been made within a year of the end of the conflict it portrays the effects of ending. Thus, I think it works as a great primary source about the time in which this film was made. At the time the film was made, you would've seen people actually coming home from the war with the disabilities and traumas that the film portrays. Obviously the film is fictionalized, so it is ultimately still a secondary source, but as a primary source about the mid-1940s, I find that it portrays the very real anxieties that Americans were experiencing at that time, while also bringing to light the realities of post-war trauma. -Ezra C.
+This movie is unique compared to other movies we have watched because it was released in 1946 and is set after the end of World War II in 1946. This sets it up to be an excellent primary source about the post World War II era as the creators of the movie were setting the scene of very current and real issues. Fears about financial burden, changing family dynamics, and the struggle to adjust to post-war life are effectively demonstrated in the movie as real contemporary issues to the time. -Kendall B.
 ======The "So What" Question -- Why should we care about the movie and its version of history?======
+In a 2020 interview with AFI Movie Club, American director, producer, actor, and World War II veteran Mel Brooks called The Best Years of Our Lives a “healing picture.” Brooks asserts that the movie perfectly captured what America was feeling after having experienced the “catastrophe” that the country had just endured during World War II. He called it healing because it explored all of the challenges that everyone from the soldier, to the girl left behind, to helpless-feeling families found themselves facing after the war and taught them how to make “peace with the world, in our souls, and with each other.” This is the value he sees in this movie, and I agree that it is why we should care about it. - Charles Salcedo
 This movie so intimately and accurately shows the often-forgotten story of what happens next after war. Throughout the war, Americans were being fed very pro-American material to encourage the nation to hold fast in their support on both the home and war front. That is juxtaposed with this film where not everything is happy go lucky, it confronts the harsh and unpredictable reality of the nation in 1946. A very interesting question that I think this movie poses is what do we do with a population that has seen so many horrors and integrate them back into a population who has not gone through such things? While many movies cover the contemporary moment, this movie is unique because it seems to understand the importance of the time. It doesn’t sugar coat the issues and covers factors that would end up being very important for the post-war period, including the effects of the GI bill, the soon-to-come baby boom, the effects that war would take on the large veteran population, as well as the fear of new atomic weapons. We should care because this movie shows what it was like to live a typical messy human life after WWII and we should be grateful we have this artifact of the time. – Nora M.
@@ Line 74: / Line 111: @@
 This film shows the reality of war. When historians look into the past, they know what the future looks like. However, those who lived the experiences don't know. There are anxieties that can rise from what is going to happen next. This film gives the audience a visual on the struggles of veterans whether it be unemployment, disabilities, addiction, mental illnesses, homelessness, etc. --Shelby Hawley
+I care about this film because it brought new post wartime struggles to my attention. I had seen men coming home from the war to find a young child that he had never met but this film showed me how a soldier no longer knew his now adult children. Making up for the time lost is not a topic that's talked about enough. It's heartbreaking to lose even a chunk of time with your children while they are growing up but doing so while feeling guilty about your obligations has to be even harder. The Best Years of Our Lives pulls at your heartstrings and makes you think on what you could have done differently if you were in its characters shoes. This film does so much more than care, it makes you reconsider your own decisions and about how grateful you are to be able to make them with a sound mind.  -- Autumn Morris
+The primary reason I personally care about this film is because it builds off of knowledge I already had while bringing to my attention I was unaware of. I knew about trauma soldiers from WWI had but not so much WWII, though I could extrapolate based on my knowledge about that war and the new ways in which it had horrors. As well, I was familiar with the basic idea of soldiers having PTSD from their service, but this showed me a bit more of the realities of just how bad it can be for them, and other related concerns such as addiction that can spring up. -Ezra C.