Wiki for Dr. McClurkens Courses

You've loaded an old revision of the document! If you save it, you will create a new version with this data.

You should do a total of 2-3 comments/questions/observations this week.  You do not need to post to all areas. Please do include links to sources, clips, images that are relevant to your point. -- Dr. McClurken

====== I.	How does this movie work as a secondary source? What does the movie get right about history?  ======

-- As we discussed in class, because of when this movie was made, it doesn't function as a potential secondary source in the ways historical films do.  -- Dr. McClurken
====== II.	Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact? ======

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? ======

====== IV.	How does this movie work as a primary source about the time period in which it was made or the filmmakers? ======

This movie is unique in comparison to the other movies we have watched in this class, since it was made during the time period that is being depicted. This film is able to accurately work as both a primary and secondary source of the time period. I think this film did a great job of showing how disabled veterans were treated when they returned home after the war. Homer’s disability, while it doesn’t appear to ever really bother him anymore, extremely bothers his family and those around him. Homer’s relationship with his newfound disability brings challenges to his reintegration back into his home life. The treatment towards Homer represents a mainstream attitude toward disabled veterans as they returned back home in the United States. I think this depiction is important too because it does not sugarcoat or show a rosy view of veterans. It shows a negative treatment that those like Homer faced as they returned home to their loved ones, and avoids a glorification of post-WWII America and the veterans. –Olivia Foster

I really loved the story line of Homer, the disabled sailor, and the way his disability was portrayed/treated by those around him. Obviously, there were a lot of injured veterans coming back from the war, but I like how the film chose not to focus on the difficulties Homer faced with using his new hands, but on the way he viewed them, and the way others treated him. From the very beginning of the movie the film emphasized how dexterous Homer was with his new hands, the focus of the storyline was, therefore, not on the physical impediment but on the mental. Like many veterans coming home with physical or mental scars, one of Homer’s greatest desires was to be treated with the dignity and respect paid to anyone else, not to be treated with pity, but merely to be seen as just another person; for the greater part of the film Homer only found this respect from his fellow veterans. I liked seeing how Homer grappled with his new hands; how in scenes like the one in the shed, he was desperate to prove himself self-sufficient, showing off his skill with a gun, but then lashing out at the small children because they made him feel like a monster to be ogled. I think that’s what made his relationship with Wilma so interesting to watch, we got to see him push her away out of a feeling of shame and inadequacy, how he feared feeling or being perceived as helpless, and how in the end when he showed his vulnerability, it was met with unconditional love. –Lucca Crowe

One of the things I didn’t like in the film was the portrayal of Al and his alcoholism, particularly how easily he overcame it. Throughout the film Al is portrayed as having an alcohol addiction acquired while overseas. His drinking is a common through line in almost every scene he is in. His addiction obviously causes trouble in the house and distances him slightly from his dutiful wife. We as a (perhaps more modern) audience are left to assume his issues with alcohol stem from some trauma he sustained during the war. All of this I like, it’s great, the issue comes when by the end of the scene he has solved his issues and is now only drinking non-alcoholic beverages. The issue is that the film’s writers set up an obstacle with serious implications and future conflict for the character, and then failed to follow through on those implications and future conflicts. The issue, (which I’m sure was a common misconception in the era), is that alcoholism and trauma are easily waved away, Al just needed to be scolded off screen and he was all better. The trauma of war can manifest in many different ways, but it can’t just go away.         --Lucca Crowe

This film does a good job of portraying the anxiety following the war. With the economy, they feared a usual post-war decline. There were fears of the new atomic bombs, and the brewing conflicts with the Soviet Union and China. All of these things were represented within the movie, and were likely relatable for the audiences at the time. -- Logan Kurtz

As most people have already said, Homer Parrish's depiction as a disabled veteran was impressive in both his adaptations to it and other people's reaction, and felt very true to many disabled veteran's stories who came home. However it works doubly as a primary source because the actor himself - Harold Russell - was a WWII vet and actually did lose his hands in an accident and was given two hooks. He was recruited out of a film called 'Diary of a Sergeant' that documented veteran rehabilitation and ended being the only person to earn two Academy Awards for the same performance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Russell. Harold Russell himself was a primary source and was most likely not even acting all that much, as the portrayal of his character and struggles around coming home disabled truly was his experience, which is something we haven't seen any of in the previous films since they were made long after the event itself. -- Jane Michael

This movie is a fascinating look into the perspectives of white Americans coming out of World War II. The film addresses the problems facing the veterans as a result of their experience during the war while also showing a general optimism for the future. Another element of the film I found interesting was how often the fear of recession was mentioned in the film. As we discussed in class, this was not something that actually happened after the war, but rather something that was expected to happen. With this movie being made so close to the end of the war, it makes sense that these anxieties are present in the film. It offers insight into what the time was like. - Maris Tiller

Unlike most movies we’ve watched, this movie was made in the same year it’s set in, 1946. This really gave people during this time insight into the lives of veterans. As we discussed in class, there was some mistrust and blaming of veterans because people thought that once veterans came home then people would lose their jobs to them, or that they would reenter a depression. It was important for people at the time to try to view this homecoming from a veteran’s perspective and how they must adapt and acclimate themselves with civilian life. The movie showed three different struggles that veterans may have come home with, such as PTSD, alcoholism, or dealing with physical differences and how that may affect not just their physical health and lives, but mental as well. This movie shows the struggles that these men faced during this time rather well. -Teresa Felipe

This movie works well as a primary source for the period in which is was made because it gathers the perspective of what the individuals coming from back from war would face as well as the individuals who stayed home continued life without their loved one(s). From the veterans who cam back, you notice in the very beginning of the film hoe reluctant they are to go back home, some of the want to go around the block and then go home because they’re “scared” about what they’ll face. With Homer, he’s terrified to think of what his family will think about his hooks as arms, with the sergeant its about the relationship with his wife and kids and Frank coming back to someone who he thought was there but isn’t. As well as the talk from when Homer was with his family, where one of the individuals (the one smoking his pipe) talked about how the depression is coming back and how employment will work. This scene accurately shows what we went over in class where the public was curious and scared of what would happen when the soldiers did come back.- Paula Perez

This movie itself is a primary source about post-World War II. I expected a movie that only really focused on the positive aspects and not the anxieties of the war. As mentioned in class, when this film was shot and released, the positive post-war effects had not kicked in yet. Al’s role in the bank provided an insight into the economic fears that were held with soldiers returning home. The anxiety of the economy tanking was valid because in every previous war, soldiers returning meant problems. I also liked how the film included that Fred’s job was not guaranteed to him because his company had been sold to another (a clause in the Selective Service Act). I like those touches in the film, because it is something that audiences would have identified with since it was their current reality. But the part of the film that I think surprised me and makes this a great primary source, is Homer’s inclusion. Disabled veterans are usually not spotlighted in film, so Homer’s presence in the film was exciting. What makes his inclusion even better is that he was played by an actual WWII veteran, Harold Russell, who had in fact lost his hands. A disabled person was playing a disabled character, which is something that doesn’t even happen in today’s movies. I like that the movie did not just brush over his disability or made the audience feel sorry for him. Homer was shown being able to do many things like opening things, writing, and drinking without assistance. The touch of Al and Fred not treating Homer any differently gave a contrast to Homer’s family who had to learn about Homer’s new situation. Families had to learn to adapt to having family members whose lives had been impacted in various ways, whether that be physically like Homer or mentally like Fred experienced with his nightmares. The transition was not easy for any of them. Al had to learn about his new family and become integrated into the life they had built, Fred experienced nightmares and adjusted to entering the workforce, while Homer had to adjust to being back home with all the judgments and coming to terms from family it took. This movie showed aspects of transitioning back to civilian life, but it also gave audiences hope. Hope that things will get better and work out, just as it had for the characters. - Taylor Coleman

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

====== V. The "So, what?" question	======

I think this film highlights a difference between American and European WWII veterans and when they came home after the war. I’ve been discussing post-WWII Europe in another history course recently, so what came to mind while watching this film is the difference between post-WWII veterans from the US and Europe. As Fred, Homer, and Al were flying back to their homes, they were noting the things around them that have and haven’t changed since they’ve been gone fighting in Europe. These men were able to return back to their families and homes, and while they were mentally, physically, and/or emotionally different, the war left the continental United States physically untouched. It made me wonder what a film about European WWII veterans returning home would look like compared to this, and how the effects of war on European cities affected these veterans in a different way. –Olivia Foster

I am obviously biased but I was slightly disturbed and also a bit confused by the scene near the beginning of the film, where Stephenson gifts his son a samurai sword and a flag that he took off of a dead Japanese soldier. It was surprisingly contentious for the time it was made - there was liberal use of the slur used for Japanese people during this time by all three vets, and all had PTSD from being involved in battle with the Japanese. However, his son was concerned for the effects of the atomic bomb on civilians, and on the American soldiers who had been at Hiroshima, including his father. Not only this, but he seemed visibly bothered by the flag and sword, although it's difficult to tell whether he disapproved or was just concerned about the bombs, as many were. It does show the conflicting opinions on the morality of US actions during the war, but also the contrast of the continued dehumanization of Japanese people by most. I'm sure that many have not thought of or heard the slur towards Japanese people, as it was most prominent during WWII, but it is alive and well, and one wonders why. -- Jane Michael

I think this movie is kind of a historical document. The film portrays the issues facing returning World War II veterans as well as their optimism for the future. I feel like the film really captures that postwar feeling while also demonstrating that something had fundamentally changed for the American people. While the individual soldiers are changed by their experiences, there is a wider feeling in the movie of hope for the future of the nation and democracy. - Maris Tiller

This movie acts as a great primary source for its time since it was made in the year it portrays in the film. From this we are able to surmise a lot from this time period. However, some of the problems that were highlighted within the film still seem to be problems today. The struggles of acclimatizing to civilian life is something many veterans today struggle with. Watching these veterans struggle with their mental health after seeing so much violence can really help with realizing the same problems faced by modern veterans. It can be really eye opening, both now and in 1946, to see how people like Homer deal with not just their physical deformity, but also their mental health as a result of this. Or how Freddy struggled with PTSD, or how Al struggled with alcoholism. These are all eye openers for people so they could see and can continue to see their struggle. -Teresa Felipe

When it comes to this movie, I think it works to show the aftermath of a “happily ever after” in a war film. Compared to the war films I have watched, they typically show the soldiers coming back to their families as the ending and the viewer sort of just assumes everything is “alright” now. Although, with this film it shows what most likely did happen to white soldiers coming back from the war and adapting to their life, or a new version of the life they once knew. I think this is explicitly shown when Fred has his nightmare and Peggy goes to comfort him, he believed he was back where he was, now it’s a matter of how to move forward, if it’s even possible it them. - Paula Perez

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

Edit summary

Note: By editing this page you agree to license your content under the following license: CC Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International