An error in the film is when people are depicted as believing that the war caused many soldiers to be left out of work and believe that their job would not be waiting for them. In reality, due to many bills enacted during the war, returning vets were guaranteed their jobs after returning (unless the company got bought out, etc.) and could receive some unemployment up to 52 weeks. However, considering this film was made in 1946, many people believed that unemployment would be high for returning vets and that it would be difficult for them to find jobs. — Kacoyanis, Leah F. 2016/11/08 13:39

Okay so this is nit picky, but in the beginning of the film at the ATC all the marines had their hats on. In reality, when indoors officers and lower ranking personnel would take off their hats indoors. They would not have kept their 'lids' on indoors. Instead, they would probably wear a cover, which some wore in the ATC. However, they wouldn't wear their brims indoors. Another nit picky error was that Fred wore his uniform although marines are not supposed to wear their uniforms in public. He was instructed by his wife early in the film to do so, but he would have known not to wear his uniform in public. — James, Emily B. 2016/11/09 11:50

I thought it was accurate the way Al was depicted when returning to his family life. His family functioning perfectly fine without him which made him feel awkward and uncomfortable about his role. This action is similar to the way many soldiers felt when returning home to their families, many of them had grown to be independent without them which made readjusting hard for them. — Kacoyanis, Leah F. 2016/11/08 13:39

Something the movie got right is that when Fred returned home he did not get his job back because the drug store where he worked at before the war was sold out. Through his unemployment they showed what it is like to live dollar to dollar with him making dinner one night instead of going out, and how he had to stand in the unemployment line. Although he does get his job back, the movie still shows the struggle of unemployment through Fred and how not all veterans were as lucky as others with the jobs. — Mary-Margaret McMaken 2016/11/08 17:39

When Homer told his fiancee, “I don't want people to treat me differently” (I paraphrased) was probably the most powerful part of the film. Homer's pain in adjusting to civilian life along with adjusting to family dynamics and people feeling sorry for him because he is an amputee rings true for disabled veterans today. Homer's wanting to shoot a gun by himself and even buttoning his shirt up by himself falls under his quest for independence rings true to the time and veterans' adjustment experience as a whole. — James, Emily B. 2016/11/09 11:50

The film seemed pretty accurate in its portrayal of Fred's PTSD episode in the nose of the broken bomber. Also the fact that the men who had married quickly before leaving for war came back and had rather unpleasant relationships with their wives before quickly getting divorced was accurate. — Fanning Neal R. 2016/11/09 13:38

Even though the character was originally supposed to be suffering from PTSD (before it was called that) not a physical injury in the book, I really appreciate the use of an actual double-amputee-veteran in this film. It probably hit close to home during this time and resonated with a wider audience to include those who didn’t “come back in one piece.” And it shows, in a physical manifestation, that soldiers don’t always come back the same. — Callie Morgan 2016/11/09 16:37

I've been a sucker for the details throughout the entire semester, but the way the young boy running amok in the soda shop indignantly reacts towards Fred trying to discipline is a nod towards the fact that children were not used to or particularly receptive to the role of the “man of the family”, and the change that the role of father and even of man went through post-war. — Fanghella, Amy E. 2016/11/09 18:23

I particularly liked how they showed how Al kept drinking. After the war, I've heard that many of those who returned home quickly took to the bottle to calm their “nerves.” Like Al, many also drank to cope with the changes of civilian life. I also liked the brief mention of the “tobacco habit.” A lot of service men smoked. — Gaddie, Jason 2016/11/09 19:22

One thing that the movie got right was the portrayal of Homer by Howard Russell. In the scene where he is in the bedroom with Wilma, he talks about the difficulties of life without hands. He clearly feels emasculated, and even compares himself to a baby. Many war veterans were tested mentally and physically once they returned home re-adjusting to civilian life. — Trout, Christian C. 2016/11/09 20:17

While there weren't a lot of specific events that the film could have gotten wrong, the film definitely portrayed the overall experiences of returning veterans in an accurate way. As with WWI, returning veterans had trouble adjusting to civilian life for a number of reasons. Many were injured, like Homer (played by a double-amputee veteran), many had trouble finding work, especially fulfilling work, as with Fred, I have no doubt a large group turned to alcoholism, as with Al, and of course PTSD of different forms and degrees affected them. They also had to return to an economy that had changed since they left, reflected by Fred's experience at the drug store and Al's experience at the bank, as well as changes in social roles, as more women worked during the war to keep the economy afloat and to support the war effort. — Hawkins Daniel C. 2016/11/09 21:41

The movie definitely was accurate in the portrayal of what happens when soldiers return to their civilian lives. There is a lot of adjustment and some never seem to really readjust. I've known several people in the military and they are definitely changed when they come back. Despite there still being a struggle of readjustment, I think we as civilians have done a better job of understanding how to help the returning vets, especially in terms of helping them with their mental health and finding a new job or going back to school and that sort of thing. — Haynes, Kelly E. 2016/11/09 23:19

I thought that the opening of the film at the airport rather perfectly captured the amount of waiting around that members of the military have to do, “Hurry up and wait” as I have often heard. The level of apprehension felt by Homer is another very realistic depiction of just how afraid some soldiers are about returning home following some of the experiences they faced during the war. Fred's quick marriage to Wilma is also surprisingly authentic, as some younger couples quickly married out of fear of what may happen when the soldier went over seas. — Cooney, Corey R. 2016/11/10 04:40

The camaraderie between the service members despite their different branches is accurate, as is the light banter between them. More importantly, they got the awkward transition phase down very well too. Al feeling awkward around his family and not even recognizing his children is something that military members are briefed about today when they return from overseas. It’s clear that it didn’t happen then, at least not for Al. — Frey Lauren E. 2016/11/10 08:53

Yes, in 1947 there were racial tensions; however, my question comes to this: why did the movie leave out African American soldiers? All we see are white men throughout the movie, the only time we see a black person is when they are in servant roles like the bell hop. I am aware that racism was just a prominent in Hollywood as everywhere in the United States, but why keep them and other minorities out of the movie. Even having them in the airport waiting for planes to go home would have been nice and not just white men. — Mary-Margaret McMaken 2016/11/08 17:33

I found it particularly powerful how, when Wilma saw Homer for the first time upon his arrival home, the first thing she takes in is Homer himself rather than his disability. Do you think that was specifically directed by Wyler to make a larger point or deeper message? If so, what message did you take away from that scene? — Fanghella, Amy E. 2016/11/09 18:32

One of the situations prevalent in the film that I thought worthy of mentioning was the role of women. The movie interpreted women as working just before the men came home, but afterward we hardly hear anything about jobs, except from Fred's wife, who absolutely regrets leaving her job in exchange for Fred's much lesser wages. In the end, her independence makes her an antagonist – she leaves Fred because he doesn't have enough money to satisfy her. Al's wife, Milly, doesn't mention having a job even once. From the moment Al comes home, she is a pristine housewife. Their daughter, Peggy, does work, and she sits in between independence and good housewife. In fact, she acts like a mother when interacting with her brother. She's a Good Man away from becoming a housewife. I don't think this sort of interpretation on any of the three main women were particularly representative of the time in which it was based so much as an idealistic interpretation of what women needed to be after World War II. How did women really feel about going from steady jobs to house work and no pay? Did wives and daughters really give this up so willingly when the veterans came home? And what happened to Peggy's job in the written version? — Lindsey McCuistion 2016/11/09 20:50

So there while there were more lead female characters than in the other films we’ve watched, the presence of minorities is completely absent. Do you think that this was because of contemporary notions of segregation during the film or because that side of WWII memory was not relevant to white soldiers returning from war? — Rainford, Lauren E. 2016/11/09 22:06

To reply to Maggie's question about why African American veterans were left out of the movie - in 1946 and other years after World War II, African American military personnel were still ignored for their service and accomplishments. I think in class it was mentioned that one African American soldier had his eyes gauged out within hours of returning to the United States. We had talked about this in my African American history class and it was explained that African Americans returned to the same conditions of racism and discrimination post-war as pre-war. They were not given any sort of acknowledgement (at least in a positive sense) so why would Hollywood bother to tell their story? It took decades for a movie to come out about African Americans in World War II and after the war. This movie was already pushing three hours and any additional storylines would've likely only made it longer which would impact audience interest in terms of sitting still for even longer. — Haynes, Kelly E. 2016/11/09 23:22

Al Stephenson’s increased use of alcohol (Al-cohol?) was clearly a symptom of his readjustment to civilian life in a post-war society, but I had trouble discerning whether he was self-medicating as a result of post-traumatic stress (of which he showed no other signs), or he simply felt inessential due to his family’s acclimation to life without him over the course of the war. Any thought? Also, I was unsure whether or not Al was intending to be cynical or callous towards his boss during his intoxicated speech at the party held in his honor. Thought he was until he was given a sincere applause afterwards, and a loving embrace from Milly. — David-Blount M 2016/11/10 06:04

I also wondered about Al's alcohol use. The film was not afraid to talk about important issues that might have been difficult to discuss in 1946 like PTSD, war injuries, and readjusting to work and home life, but it seemed to be vague about whether Al's drinking was a problem or not. His speech at the dinner looked like it was about to go wrong, but he saved it by the end. He tries getting his wife to drink when they are at Butch's Place early in the film and at the end at Homer's wedding, but she does not really want to, and she even tells him he promised not to drink at the wedding. But while the film says that not dealing with PTSD is bad, that treating people with war injuries differently is bad, and that it's okay to feel like you don't belong when returning from the war, the film doesn't say anything about if Al is an alcoholic or not. I would think that alcoholism especially among fathers at the time was not rare, and maybe returning home from the war made it even more common, but we do not get an answer about that. — Carey Megan A. 2016/11/10 06:58

I know that families that stayed home had to do a lot of adjusting themselves, the women in particular. Peggy in particular stood out for me. She was an outgoing woman, who spoke about going to college. Even if it was a home economics class, it was still a woman going to school. She was confident enough to make a joke about being her father’s mother from a previous marriage to a complete stranger, and later try and push him to call his wife. Furthermore, she was the one to tell her mother that it was alright that Al had surprised the family and that they hadn’t gotten food and liquor that they know he would have liked. Is it something that most women, in particular young woman would have been like, or was Peggy a mixture of all women so that all those aspects could be represented? — Frey Lauren E. 2016/11/10 09:12

Early in the film, Fred’s wife works at a night club and she turns out to be a terrible person. I think this character shows what people thought in the 1940s about women who worked “scandalous” jobs. Women who worked outside the typical feminine role is automatically considered a bad person unlike Peggy who worked at a hospital is shown to be a kind and understanding person. I believe it shows stereotype of the time period. — Kacoyanis, Leah F. 2016/11/08 13:39

Most World War II movies deal with actual battles and the war fought overseas, especially modern day movies, Saving Private Ryan is a prime example. Having a movie that deals with war in the present day (1947) and deals with not only readjusting to civilian life, but also 21st century things like PTSD (Fred’s dream) makes this movie a great primary source for the day that it was made it. There is a scene where Fred’s wife, Marie, tells Fred to ‘get over it’, it being the war and dreams he has of the war. In 1947 there was no term for PTSD, soldiers were expected to ‘get over it’ (the war) by family members. Having this movie show the views of 1947 PTSD is a great primary source for how PTSD has progressed as a medical condition throughout the last 60-70 years! — Mary-Margaret McMaken 2016/11/08 17:44

I know this is the hot topic for the week, but I just couldn’t’ help myself. “The Best Years of our Lives” is unquestionably a product of its time ….. Perhaps even a little ahead, but the point is that this movie contains endless artifacts, no longer pertinent in modern society including (but not exclusive to) an exchange of mannerisms and characteristic traits throughout the dialogue, conservative customary values regarding family and romantic relationships (with the exception of Marie Derry), music and dance, Woolworth, and smoking aboard a gov’t aircraft…..smoking everywhere, all the time! Gender roles are made apparent early on when Peggy makes mention of course in domestic science then gleefully exclaims, “I’ve even got a cookbook!” The film further demonstrates these idiosyncrasies (more than once) when referring to the concept of atomic energy and its recent use on Japan. During these conversations, there are subtle changes in tone and bodily gestures that (to me) imply either some form of guilt, or uneasy angst about this new and frightful technology that could likely be the end of them all. In fact, the young and inquisitive Stephenson boy made a very plausible/formidable doomsday theory concerning atomic energy in-conjunction with radar and guided missiles. — David-Blount M 2016/11/09 15:41

This film cannot help but be a primary source of its time. It was made directly following WWII. You could feel all the sentiments discussed in class when watching the movie. While the acting/backdrop was corny (naturally due to the time period), the attempt to portray the returning wounded shoulder felt authentic enough. Many people just wanted jobs and be treated normal even when coming back a change/wounded man. — Robert Pratt 2016/11/09 16:16

This movie provides something that not a lot of other World War II movies provide. It shows a genuine feeling of not knowing how things are going to turn out. The filmmakers did not have the advantage of hindsight in the case of this movie and so we are able to see what confuses the people about returning soldiers after the war. — Callie Morgan 2016/11/09 16:32

I believe that the movie is a primary source about its time because it shows the expectations of the time. People had expected to worse to come after the war, and openly acknowledged and talked about it. I also believe it is a primary source on how women were expected to be after the war. The women that are focused the most on and are considered good are the two young women, one who (as far as we know) didn’t have any higher education and another whose education was essentially home ec. These women were the ones who were considered good, while the woman who can be considered the antagonist was a working women during the war living on her own. By the end she is shown as nothing more than a selfish party girl. It shows the expectations of the time that the women were supposed to go back to the home while the men went to work. — Lindsey, Megan E. 2016/11/09 20:35

I felt that in a lot of ways The Best Years of Our Lives was somewhat ahead of its time. In some ways, the gender stereotypes reflected the attitudes of the time, with women expected to be homemakers (Peggy says she took a “domestic science” class during the war, while Fred's wife is portrayed very negatively), but the film does seem to dig at deeper issues, especially since Peggy aims to break up Fred's marriage and is still portrayed positively. The film tackled the psychological, psychical, and social toll of the war. From Homer's prosthetics to Al's familial problems to Fred's PTSD, the film took a progressive approach, especially with the latter aspect. Fred at first dismisses his PTSD as being “nervous out of the service” and his wife reproaches him for having flashbacks, but in the end, he finds a comfortable place in his relationships and in himself to move on. — Hawkins Daniel C. 2016/11/09 21:27

I agree with Daniel that the film seemed a bit more progressive than I had expected for the 1940's. The soldiers are portrayed in a positive, yet realistic manner. They are not superheroes that are impervious to damage, but real men that have suffered some serious wounds, both psychological and physical, over the course of the time they served. The treatment of mental illness even seems rather ahead of it's time, as they are not entirely brushed off as such an easy fix: they require work and learning to accept that they are now a part of your life. Acknowledging mental illness in a dignified manner is something that is difficult even for media today. You can definitely tell that the filmmakers were aiming for as realistically honest a portrayal of the home life of returning soldiers as possible, even if the insertion of the depression talk was somewhat premature. That being said, it would have been one of the main topics for discussion at this time, and serves as a reminder that many of these people were in fact afraid of falling into another economic depression following the end of the war. All in all, I think that it would serve as an accurate Primary Source for the time period that offers a peek into the life of your average soldiers acclimating to civilian life following the end of the war. — Cooney, Corey R. 2016/11/10 05:21

One of the things I noticed in the film is that Homer wrote to his family about his “condition.” In the readings, the narrator wrote to his family about his condition, which was slightly less severe than Homer’s. But like the Parrish family, the author’s family was as equally as appalled. The feared the worst about him. During WWII, service men didn’t have facetime or even cross-continent telephones. All they has was “snail mail.” — Gaddie, Jason 2016/11/09 19:48

The reading following a war veteran's life at the end and after World War II shares many similarities with the veterans depicted in the movie. He was jaded and disillusioned after the war, like Fred. He developed a drinking problem that changed from severe to habitual, like Al. He was tired and angry at accusations of his war being pointless, after all he had sacrificed, like Homer. His sentiment developed into one more directed at the US government and not the people around him, although the former led to bitter reactions to the latter. Unlike the film's characters, however, he finished his education and became a professor. Despite his assertion into a relatively normal life, he still felt the weight of what he called “something close to [post-traumatic stress disorder]”, jumping at sounds and counting hist steps. We don't see much of this behavior throughout the film, but at that time they didn't have a word for it. Maybe it hadn't been experienced wholly enough to be considered important to depict, or it just didn't seem prevalent enough to be noticeable yet. This source is a reflection from decades later, so the author has a much clearer understanding of what he experienced, as opposed to the raw feeling of the experience itself. — Lindsey McCuistion 2016/11/09 20:40

This film is made about the time period in which it is made, which seems a little unusual. Did it help the overall success of the film that it was an actual film instead of a documentary about the troubles of returning soldiers? — Fanning Neal R. 2016/11/09 13:41

I agree that it was a unique choice to create a WWII movie so close to the actual event. I think that can be used as a source to accurately depict the events of World War II and more importantly the sentiment felt post-war. I think this leaves out hindsight, so the film makers got to delve into the feelings of the unknown (the pessimism of the time) along with the looking into the transition for soldiers — Robert Pratt 2016/11/09 16:19

Can we count this film as a secondary source? Is the movie more powerful because it is based on the same time period it is made? Or is the movie worse off because it does not have the luxury of hindsight? What might have been done differently if the film was made at a later time? — Trout, Christian C. 2016/11/09 20:21

Though it is not technically a film on history, I think it’s important to study movies like this because it’s history in film. Throughout this semester we have watched movies that represents two periods in one, but we often don’t think of movies based of their own time as history films. Studying movies made in and for their own time not only allows us to see what life was like then, but also question which movies today can be seen as historical films on their own times. — Lindsey, Megan E. 2016/11/09 20:56

I think the fact that this film was made during the time it is presenting provides us with an even more accurate depiction of both. While the film is missing certain details and glossing over the struggles of returning home from war by with distractions of a love story, it reveals how middle class whites experienced or at least perceived the return in a way that did not depress but entertained and uplifted. This film is unique to those we have looked at thus for in that regard. Does this make the movie both a primary source and a secondary source of its? — Rainford, Lauren E. 2016/11/09 22:26

This film was clearly a pretty accurate version of what happened when veterans returned home after WWII. At many points during the movie, it seemed almost too real for a movie from the 1940s. At a time when Hollywood was being censored and society was about to grow even more conservative, this film showed audiences that talking about PTSD (or whatever they called it at the time) is important for returning veterans, that veterans might be injured when they came home and that their friends and family should still treat them like people, and that finding work and fitting in in civilian life would be hard. There is an even a scene where Al's son talks about the effects of radiation on the Japanese. It seems like this film opened the door for other films that dealt with the effects of war on returning veterans in a realistic way. Without this, I do not know if we would have had films like Jarhead, Brothers, or the Hurt Locker, and I am sure the popularity of this film changed the way people at home talked about war and PTSD. — Carey Megan A. 2016/11/10 07:05

It was interesting to watch a movie made about service members coming home from the war at a time when service members were coming home. I suggested when watching My Darling Clementine (and I feel as though others felt the same way) that a western movie was made to get people’s mind off the war, and yet here’s one that was made the same year that directly addressed it. As we discussed, The Best Years of Our Lives swept the Oscars, and looking on IMDb, My Darling Clementine didn’t get nominated for anything, at least not for the Oscars. A lot of us have commented on Al’s alcohol use to combat what was likely PTSD, along with coming home and feeling as though his family didn’t need him. PTSD wasn’t fully recognized until 1980, several decades after this movie was made, but it was clear that something was affecting a lot of the service members coming home, and it seems as though the filmmakers wanted to address it. If that was indeed their intention, I certainly applaud their efforts. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0038762/awards?ref_=tt_awd — Frey Lauren E. 2016/11/10 09:22

How do you think the movie did in portraying the many aspect and tensions of homecoming?

Overall, I think the movie did a pretty good job of portraying the tensions of coming home. The movie depicted awkwardness of fitting in a family unit, nightmares from the war, and disabilities. However, it does seem like everyone got a happy ending o it was romanticized in that regard because we know that not all WWII vets completely transitioned back. — Kacoyanis, Leah F. 2016/11/10 10:11

I like that the film attempted to show three different scenarios for veterans. One man comes home to his loving wife and family and works to get to know them again, the other struggles to find a job or relate to his wife and ends up divorced and unemployed (granted, the reasons for this may not have been typical), and then the third scenario depicted a wounded veteran returning home and attempting to get back to normal life only the disability he received overseas impacted his social life and assimilation greatly. The film oversimplifies how easy it was for veterans to find work and does not reveal what happened to the wounded. The characters in this film are middle class, nuclear family, privileged veterans who are honored and highly regarded but does not convey the conflict upon returning home. — Rainford Lauren E. 2016/11/10 10:37

As a veteran of the armed forces, and current employee of the department of Veterans Affairs, I can confirm some of the difficulties faced by making the military, civilian transition. Although the benefits have changed since 1946, I recognized prior servicemen’s eligibility for unemployment insurance and VA approved home loans. On that, I also recognized the assumption made by the Sea Bee’s (CB) sailor of a “guaranteed loan” and the inquisitive look on his faced when asked about his collateral. I consider myself very fortunate to be a recipient of the (post 9/11) GI bill, but there is a surprisingly large amount of (honorably discharged) vets that never take advantage of the bill but still struggle to find work such as it was for Fred (the soda jerk). — David-Blount M 2016/11/09 15:41

I think this film captured the initial jolt of happiness and relief so many families experience during homecoming. Military homecomings are similar today, although depending on the time away the responses differ. As an Army brat and my numerous homecoming experiences, the initial relief and happiness rings true. This film does a good job of also capturing the after effects, the adjustment period when the longevity and time apart registers. Also, the film does a good job with showing the adjustment period, when families have to adapt to each persons' changes over the time apart. — James, Emily B. 2016/11/14 22:28

I think that the movie did a fantastic job of delving into the experiences of the family and soldier upon arrival. I think that this could be due to the fact that the movie was created shortly after the end of the war. It is exciting when a war hero comes back, but the adjustment can be weird. We discussed the feelings when the soldier felt he did not fit in (or felt that the family did not need him). It's a complex issue dealing with a soldiers homecoming. — Robert Pratt 2016/11/14 22:58

I think the movie was very spot-on when it came to the realities of men returning from war, especially post-World War II. I think these days more is known about the psychological effects of war so the men in the film likely would have not gotten help for their PTSD. As we talked about in class, many had struggles finding their place back in their families and towns after their return. — Haynes, Kelly E. 2016/11/14 23:34

Compare and contrast this week’s movie with “Gone with the Wind” (1939). How do they represent gender roles? How do the two movie differ in such a short amount of time.

This isn’t a very scholastic argument but I definitely enjoyed this movie more than I did Gone with the Wind. I think that Best Years of our Lives deserves more credit as it was portraying the time period in which it was made and therefore instead of a blatant ignorance to the facts, the errors in the film help us to understand post-war society in the 1940s. Gone with the Wind attempted to tell an accurate story that happened decades prior to the film whereas Best Years of Our Lives gives us an idea of how the return was perceived by Americans. They both portray women who appear headstrong and determined to find love but for Peggy, that’s all she tries to accomplish during the movie. We know nothing else about her whereas Scarlet had a passion for keeping her farm and land afloat by any means necessary. — Rainford Lauren E. 2016/11/10 10:32

Between the two I think they both had their goods and their bads. For example, in Best Years of Our Lives we have four women who actually stay through the whole movie, don’t die or disappear with no real reason, and an older woman who actually seemed like a person and not the classic loving mother/wife trope of the time. On the other hand, some of the female characters felt so flat to me in this film in comparison to Gone with the Wind. I liked Peggy at first, she had a personality to her, but when she fell in love with Fred she got so boring because that’s all she was there for. At least with Scarlet she kept her personality. — Lindsey, Megan E. 2016/11/14 00:12

Overall how does this film do in capturing the entirety of the era it portrays?

I think the move does an accurate job portraying the legitimate fears everyone held for soldiers returning and trying to find a job but as we know from class, the economy boomed and a majority of people received jobs or education which was not depicted in the film. — Kacoyanis, Leah F. 2016/11/10 10:11

So if we are going to talk about the entirety of the era then I think the movie did a fabulous job of showing the whitewashed version. Everything is perfect, even if there is a little struggle there is always a positive outcome. This is the way that we tend to portray this era after the war however the era was not only a white era of success. This era was a struggle for civil rights; there are more than just white people during this time. If we are to talk about the era as a whole and we include the struggle for civil rights and the struggle that many minorities faced coming home besides just the white men, then this job did a piss poor job portraying that. — Mary-Margaret McMaken 2016/11/11 14:30

The film was very accurate in its portrayal of the era, given what we know. Their fears of economic collapse are true because that is how people of the period felt. They did not yet know that their economy would boom and be prosperous. Their concerns are genuine to the time which contributes to the overall accuracy of the film. — Fanning Neal R. 2016/11/14 09:53

The film was an extremely accurate portrayal of the era, simply because of the time it was made in. If a movie about 2016 was made in the year 2016 it would probably be very accurate simply because there is no research needed. This movie captures the essence of the 1940’s better than we ever can because all we can do is look at primary sources, whereas the people acting actually experienced the culture they were depicting. -Christian Trout

What do you think about the portrayal of Homer Parish as a character? How does the film depict 1946’s opinions on physical disabilities?

I think it reflects the demand for perfection seen in the late 1940s and 50s. The characters, except for Wilma, Al, and Fred, are all generally unaccepting of Homer’s disability. Homer himself rejects his condition. Homer seems to, initially, at the beginning, be fine with his condition. But later on in the film we see that he is more effected by it than he lets on. — Gaddie, Jason 2016/11/10 14:38

I think this movie did a well job in portraying the effects the war had on soldiers. It gives a good physical portrayal of how not every person came back the same, that some men carry the war with them upon returning home and even for the rest of their life. Like Jason said, the movie did show that people were generally unaccepting of the disability, even Homer. I think showing that vulnerability in Homer throughout the movie was well done and showed that effects of war happen differently at different times for people. — Mary-Margaret McMaken 2016/11/11 14:30

I thought it was interesting that instead of “shell shock” that Homer had initially, they chose to highlight the physical disabilities. Homer's anger and frustration rings true because so many veterans come home with physical disabilities sustained in wars. The film does a good job of showing the discomfort and unease many people viewed people with physical disabilities. — James, Emily B. 2016/11/14 22:28

In class we discussed how the director wanted to create a realistic film that was a departure from the patriotic propaganda. Does the film reflect this? Consider the film’s ending.

The answer is both yes and no. In the beginning, we see that life during, and after, the war was not so grand as the propaganda of the period had claimed it was. Homer is permanently disabled and is an outcast, Al does not recognize his family and turns to drinking, Fred has a hard time readjusting and has “war nerves,” people were not as patriotic as believed, etc. By the end of the movie, however, people find their happy ending after all, whereas others in real life didn’t. — Gaddie, Jason 2016/11/10 14:46

I think the director did a pretty good job in showing the realism of veteran experiences, trauma, and difficulty adjusting, even by the end. There is the happy ending, but I think this was the director trying to project optimism onto an overwhelmingly pessimistic nation after the war. Even as the happy, Shakespeare-esque wedding happens at the end of the movie, we still see Al drinking profusely. We still see Fred struggling with his own life, unhappy with his new job but glad to have one in general. I think Homer's experience is the only true turnaround: he gets married to the woman he loves, finally confident that she can love him back. None of the men are perfect by the end of the movie, but they are trying to get to where they want to be in society. — Lindsey McCuistion 2016/11/10 19:40

Absolutely. WWII propaganda was intended to inspire the masses, and/or, appear adventurous with promises of seeing the world. Had they used imagery of a multiple amputee, or a guy waking up in a cold sweat from night terrors for posters and literature, I assume there would have been a far less number of volunteers enlisting. — David-Blount M 2016/11/09 15:41

From what I have gathered from the movie it seems to me that it truly does show the good, bad, and the ugly. There are times when were are forced to see the nasty parts of America after WWII. It shows that the true picture of post WWII America was not all about waving flags and throwing parades, but it was about readjustments and awkward interactions. I’m really glad that the movie, for the most part, was able to keep a realistic image of citizens after a gruesome war. — Brooks Anna R. 2016/11/14 17:49

In the film we see three different family situations and dynamics. What do these interactions tell us about family values in 1946?

The film felt like it was trying to relate to its audiences that veterans need support from their families and loved ones, no matter what. And, aside from Fred's situation, the people around our three veterans do a good job of fitting this image. We see the veterans struggling with adjusting almost desperately, and the people around them try their best (sometimes too much, in Homer's case) to help their beloved veterans. The women, especially, were accommodating. Unlike what we discussed on Tuesday, Al's wife seemed to never have a job, even while her husband was gone and she was expected to help run more than the affairs of the household. Peggy did have a job, but we hardly hear anything about it. I think in this way, the movie was trying to encourage women especially to become the good wives that the veterans expected to come home to. — Lindsey McCuistion 2016/11/10 19:28

I got the feeling that the film while trying to display family values as important in the readjustment of returning veterans, but that the family values were also somewhat blurred and unclear, due to the amount of families that were quickly formed before the war. — Fanning Neal R. 2016/11/14 09:58

At this particular point in history there are no concrete setting of a family. Men are coming home from war and the women are coming back from the work force. It’s an awkward transition time where no on really knew what was going to happen. The men were expecting their jobs back, but the women enjoyed working outside of the home. There had been the great depression where almost everyone was out of work creating a family where both parents stayed home or both went to work. It wasn’t until the war where everyone was told the role they were suppose to play. When the war was over they didn’t know what they should go back to. It wasn’t until the 50s where there was a great push to make what we would consider the ‘traditional’ family, where the mother stays at home and takes care of the house and children and the father goes out and works. So when the movie shows the four different types of family it is really showing that there was no set standard for a family and that there was a time in American history when we were very uncertain as to what was going to happen with the family. — Brooks Anna R. 2016/11/14 17:44

I feel like the interactions provide a good snapshot of family values in the late 1940’s. At the end of the movie Homer marries the woman he loves, and shows some quality character development along the way. Al on the other hand turns into a heavy drinker, showing the opposite side of the family spectrum. And Fred is still not happy at where he is in life, but still happy to be back stateside. Three different men, three different stories, and I think they show three different sides to the family dynamic. -Christian Trout