I didn't notice any factual errors in this movie, probably because the audience would have immediately noticed anything, since it shows the very recent past for the audience at the time.- Jessie Fitzgerald

The only possible “error” that I could tell from the movie was from what Professor McClurken told us in class on Tuesday; Homer Parrish in the book was not a double amputee, instead he had muscle trauma (or spastic in the dictionary). –Alyx Wilson

Only errors that might've been semi noticeable were scene errors. When I was watching Peggy make breakfast, I noticed she took the toast out of the oven and placed it on a plate overtop. She brought Fred the eggs but never the toast off of the oven but somehow the toast ended up on the table and Fred began to eat it. Maybe there was some already on the table but it looked like to me that there hadn't been anything there other than the dishes. – Lindsey Sowers

One thing that it was impossible to ignore after the lecture is the way that the movie ignores minority and woman veterans. It isn’t surprising in a movie from 1946, but the fact that the movie goes to such lengths to include within its core three characters representations of so many kinds of veterans (the old veteran, the young veteran, the disabled veteran, the veteran whose marriage falls apart, the veteran who has a job waiting for him, the veteran who doesn’t) makes the omission that much more noticeable. By leaving out these stories and telling the others in such a complete way, it is suggesting that those veterans don’t exist or are not worth discussing. (Justin Curtis)

I personally think this film does a phenomenal job at portraying this time period. It really captures the soldiers adjustment in their home lives. They have so much anticipation upon arrival, talking about loved ones while riding the plane home. Then when they're all seen in the car, there is a little bit of hesitancy from each one in their own ways. For the family members, they have this sort of adrenaline rush to see their significant other and that slowly fades after spent some time with one another, trying to readjust. It shows the soldiers having night terrors, which was a very real thing for some. Their family members don't quite understand their 'abnormal' behavior and tell them to 'just get over it already, the war is over.' Although it wasn't being diagnosed at the time, these soldiers were most likely suffering from PTSD, some more than others. – Lindsey Sowers

This movie had a very sobering and realistic portrayal of emotional trauma. Including this aspect of a soldier’s experience was a major success of this film. Also, Homer’s struggle to adjust to his injury, both physically and emotionally, was another thing that the movie got right. Returning from the war was an adjustment, and soldiers had to cope with what they had experienced once they returned. -Maddie Shiflett

In class the GI Billows discussed on how it helped veterans readjust back from war to buy homes and finish school. This is parallel to the movie when Al Stephenson came home from war and was promoted in his job at the bank to work with veterans, specifically discussing the GI Bill with them since he knew both worlds (banking and war) well. –Caroline Collier

I believe the movie did a go job demonstrating how the veterans readjusted back to their civilian life. For instance, it shows Al getting promoted at the bank and this parallels with the GI Bill. As well, the movie showed the fear some civilians had with soldiers returning from the war and getting their job back. For example, we see this when Fred goes and visits the drugstore for the first time. A woman and another man are discussing him coming back and looking for a job. – Courtlyn P.

The movie did a great job capturing the sentiment of returning soldiers, especially those returning with disabilities, and addressed the struggles they faced as a result. The bed room scene was powerful in showing how having a character with no arms is both capable of accomplishing tasks and also dependent on others in a way that limits their freedom. The sailor feels badly because of his disability because of a sense of helplessness it makes him feel. His ability to cope and overcome the challenges presented to him is another way the film shows progression of these soldiers in their lives. The movie does not present his character as entirely dependent on others while at the same time it acknowledges that he does require help which his wife is happy to provide. –Grace Corkran

Something that stood out to me in the movie was the scenes with Al in the bank. I thought it was very interesting to show how the GI Bill was actually affecting the economy and lives of the veterans. The discussions of the “impending economic downturn” were also accurate to the time, because they had no way of knowing what was going to happen after the war industry shut down. This is emphasized from the beginning of the movie, where Fred notes all the unused planes that are going to be made into scrap. The man at the soda counter also shows that not everyone was pleased with the outcome of the war, fearing that it would plunge the country back into a depression. Although, that guy completely deserved the punch from Fred. –Erin Shaw

Al Stephenson when making the unsecured loan to the former Navy SEABEE for a 40-acre farm, makes a reference to the 1944 Bretton Woods conference that created the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) to oversee global reconstruction and stabilize the exchange rates and financial flows after the Second World War. The discussion centers around the promises made by the Selective Service Act / GI Bill that guaranteed underwriting loans to returning servicemen. – Andrew Mullins

*One thing the movie got right was the feeling of these 15 million men returning to the job market. When Fred came back to the drug store, the other workers in the store were talking about how if he wanted his job, he would probably get it because of his service in the war and that “nobody’s jobs are safe with all of these servicemen.” This was a common worry of those who had taken the jobs the soldiers had left behind. Fred’s experience when looking for a job was difficult as well due to the saturated job market. When the manager talked to Fred he told him that since the business changed hands, he was not required to give Fred his old job back. Fred’s experience in the job market was overall a very real problem in the time of this film. – Carolyn Stough* To add to what Carolyn said. I also thought it was a great depiction from the managers perspective. He admitted he wasn't required to give his job back. Fred said he didn't want it, he wanted a better one. The manager pointed out that just because you're a bomber doesn't mean you can work in accounting or whatever it was. The movie did a great job at showing both perspective. –William Roszell The film did a great job showcasing how hard the reunions were from the veterans as well as how the adjustments went. The film also referenced a lot of pre war historical knowledge that would have been fresh in the minds of Americans during this time. References such as making money from bootlegging and general dislike towards bankers as well as quick marriages from before the war as soldiers were leaving to go off to war. The movie also showcased how quickly the war contracts were cancelled as many planes were left and some of them new in plane graveyards. –Jack Hagn As mentioned above by some, this movie really touched on the relationships between husbands and wives during this time. One scene in particular was between Fred and his wife Marie, who he catches with another man. Marie complains that she had given up the best years of her life, which could be during and even before Fred was shipped off to Europe. Even with Homer and his disability, he does not want to trouble his fiance with his burden, and opts to push her away even though she wants to marry him still despite him losing his hands. –Alyx Wilson The movie accurately reflects the struggle servicemen and women went through upon returning to society. Businesses, people, ideas, are among a few things they find are different than when they left. It also shows how civilians react towards the servicemen-it seems most aren’t able to comprehend what the soldiers went through and just want them to “shake it off” or to “just stop thinking about it”. These part brought out the feels I guess because we know more now how it takes time for servicemen to readjust than back then. -Johana Colchado In the film, Fred's citation for his Distinguished Flying Cross identifies him as a bombardier of the 8th Air Force. Earlier in the film, he shows his wife pictures of bombs over Dusseldorf. This is historically accurate–the 8th Army Air Force was active in the European Theater of World War II, meaning that it is highly possible for them to have bombed Dusseldorf. Source: https://www.8thafhs.org/ourhistory.htm ~Will Everett This movie goes into the readjustment of soldiers back into civilian life and how this effected women. In class we talked about divorce rates being high which we can see a sample of in the movie. -Erin Andrewlevich ====== Questions about interpretation ====== Out of the entire film, only one black woman, in the women's bathroom was seen. The two women are seen throwing coins into little dishes on the counter - I assume this was for the black woman. As she could've been acting as a 'maid' in the film since this was primarily the only role black women in films were sought to have during this time period. (Based on what I've read while Researching the film The Color Purple) – Lindsey Sowers The movie did not try to over-romanticize the war or the efforts of the soldiers. The three soldiers in this film are regular people. Homer states that he did not see a lot of fighting because he worked below deck. And he did not get to meet General MacArthur just because he was an American soldier. Fred’s parents learn about how he won his medals, but he never brags or seeks praise. This movie took a much-needed, realistic approach toward the war and its impact on American soldiers instead of glorifying it. -Maddie Shiflett On the back of the box, this film claims that the soldier's return home is “a nightmare.” This film vilifies the greedy, unaccommodating civilians who oppose our 3 protagonists. If pro-veteran sentiment was so strong after WWII, how did the opposite occur to our veterans from Vietnam. Clearly FDR and others made it a priority to give veterans support once they returned home, but were they supported by the majority of public, or did the public see their government support as “hand-outs?” Also, this film dresses PTSD symptoms such as irritability, aggression, and nightmares. Was this film also trying to advocate for more health or social programs for veterans, who were portrayed as having their dignity stripped by working regular jobs? –Jessica Lynch The movie shows how the soldiers feel anxious when returning home and goes on to show their expectations vs the reality of homecoming. This is an interesting point that the movie looks into and developes throughout (the idea of expectation vs reality). It raised questions about how soldiers and their families handled the immense excitement and then adrenalin crash after they returned home. – Grace Corkran From an artistic perspective, this film made great use of camera angles, lighting, and music to convey tension, particularly in Homer's scenes. This appears to be a very progressive view of disability for a movie of its time, especially since they had an real veteran with a disability from the war playing the role. The scenes right after Homer arrives home and the subtle glances and looks he is given throughout the film shine light on the issues that disabled people, not only veterans, still face today. Homer continuously talks about wanting to be treated “like anyone else”, and over-accommodates for his disability. Placing him as a protagonist in this film provides for a great perspective that I didn't know existed in film until after the Vietnam War. While I would have been interested to see more “shell shock”, since I am a psychology major, and it was what Homer lived with in the book, I think this film does a great job at representing disability stigma and the readjustment that many people who acquire a disability must face. –Erin Shaw I thought it was really interesting to learn that the actor who played Homer was an actual disabled war veteran who lost both of his hands in combat and that he had never acted before The Best Years of Our Lives. Without any acting experiance, the director really took a risky shot at hiring him to be one of the lead actors when he had no acting experiance or training at all. But the director William Wyler said “''(he) gave the finest performance I have ever seen on the screen.''Since Harold Russel has the lived exeperiance of his character, he bring more depth to the role than any actor really would be able to since they are fully abled and can not fully understand the loss of both hands and having to relearn how to live. https://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/01/arts/harold-russell-dies-at-88-veteran-and-oscar-winner.html – Ellora Larsen I understand why we talked about minority veterans in class…I only seen one black person in this entire film. – William Roszell The film effectively captures the effects of the horrors of war on returning soldiers. We see three different soldiers deal with these emotions, (each have their own way of handling it) and try to assimilate back into society. They struggle with internal and external conflicts which affects their relationships with family and friends. It also explores realistic themes which the audience then and now can relate to. -Johana Colchado To go off of William's point the amount of black representation in this film is next to nothing and this is an example of Hollywood culture at the time. Most of the turning points for more positive representation and more equal screen time happened in the 1950's soon after this film was made because of more civil rights movements and black pressure on the American government as well as Hollywood. Although most of the casting after the push for more equal film representation was more negative roles for black actors and actresses. So the lack of minorities in this film is definitely about the interpretation by the director and culture in Holleywood as well as the the time the film was made. –Jack Hagn http://exhibits.library.duke.edu/exhibits/show/africanamericansinfilm Going off of what Will said, the only people of color I saw in this film–the luggage porter in the airport in the first scene and the women's restroom attendant at the club where Fred and Peggy had their double date–were in menial service jobs. However, this would not have been uncommon at the time, as many African-Americans would have lost the jobs they had had in heavy industry to returning whites due to systematic discrimination. Source: https://learn.uakron.edu/beyond/ww2_civilrights.htm ~Will Everett The movie did a good job in portraying the transition from being a soldier to working as a civilian. There were references to how businesses had to give veterans their old jobs, but also portrayed how businesses were interested in exploiting the fact that they were veterans, such as the bank did with Al. The movie also chose to have women be very dependent on the men of the film. While they were shown to be working before the men got back from the war, once the men returned, the women stopped working. Marie, in particular, is shown to be especially shallow, wanting to show off her soldier husband and go out to eat constantly. –Sky Horne The movie ended in a happily ever after all around, which seemed common to movies of that time period. I like the fact that it ended on the most part in an uplifting manner. It left those who watched it at the time, going through the same exact problems as returning veterans, hope, hope that their lives were going to be okay. And random fact, I thought it was interesting that Homer missed a line when saying the vows, but Wyler actually left it in the movie. -Amiti Colson ====== The movie as a primary source of its time ====== The movie clearly reflected the time it was made and portrayed by revealing accurate fears of another economic depression, civilians losing their jobs to veterans, and the uncomfortable shift for families to revert back to their pre-war gender roles. The film also showed the logistics of receiving the loans that veterans would apply for to start businesses or attend school. The film plays into the the fear of Americans' unknown future status by creating a a happy and resolute narrative the espouses hope and morale during the post-war transitions and uncertainty. –Jessica Lynch As previously stated, and to a similar degree as I posted in My Darling Clementine, this movie really is a product of the time. In contrast to Clementine however; the movie doesn't outright tell the audience where it believes the women belong. This movie is meant to cater a multitude of audiences, but I interpreted it as having its roots in the idea that women should still be submissive to the war heroes. I use the relationship of Fred and Peggy to explain this. At the beginning, Peggy stands alongside her brother and mother as individuals bolder, more independent, and changed by the war; but by the end of the film, Peggy seems to have reverted back to a more needy, stereotypical interpretation of what women were expected to be prior to the war. This all happens as a result of Fred, the war hero (I say war hero because of the fact that they devote an entire seen to his accomplishments during the war through his parents). –Robert Dallas The scene at the lunch counter with the man that Fred punched was an admission that the war may not have been fought the right way or for the right reasons, ect. This was juxtaposed with the idea that the soldiers that fought in it were not “suckers” but well-respected for doing the right thing and fighting for their country. This portrays the attitude at the time that the war may not have been this glorious crusade but most people cared about the soldiers and highly respected them regardless of their feelings about the war. -Jessie Fitzgerald I believe this film works well as a primary source of its time because it can resonate with the people who lived during this time. I believe it shows a good representation of what life was like for the men coming back from war. It shows the struggle that these men faced and the adjustments they make to adapt back to civilian life, for example Fred with returning to his dead-end job at the drugstore and Homer with his disability. Along with following the lives of these men and how the war has effected them. We get to see how the war affected their families at home and how their lives changed while the men were away at war. – Courtlyn P. “The Best Years of Our Lives” was the first we have watched to be made very close to the time period it is about, making it an fairly accurate representation of 1946 views. The sense of coming economic anxiety was a big deal for the main characters. The film also shows the resentment many people felt over veterans benefits when Fred is getting a job. The film is also the first depictions of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder before it was recognized as such, represented by Fred’s reoccurring nightmare.-Kyle Moore One aspect of this film that shows that it is a primary source of its time is the fact that when this film was made, everyone was expecting to be thrown into another economic depression. This is especially seen in the very end of the movie when Fred tells Peggy that their life together was going to be hard and that it would be years of financial trouble and being pushed around. Even though the film ends on a happy moment with the wedding and with Fred and Peggy getting together, this final sentiment from Fred reflects the expectations of the American people in this time. – Carolyn Stough Like others have previously commented, this film is the closest we’ve seen that accurately reflects the time period and doesn’t over exaggerate or undermine the events that took place post WWII. Filmmakers made sure to not shy away from the challenges that arose from servicemen returning from war. I would recommend this film to someone as a primary source of its time because it accurately and tastefully represents the events that of the time period. -Johana Colchado The movie definitely shows the way that society looked upon returning veterans, and handled it with a great amount of respect. The way that nearly everyone looks at the returning veterans as different people, while they simply wanted to return to their regular lives. With the influx of soldiers, this was something that people would have been worried about. Similarly, Fred’s struggle to find work due to the influx of veterans was a great representation of the time. The movie also represented the view that women should return to being submissive, as everyone woman in the movie who does this is much happier at the end. The one character who doesn’t, Marie, is more dominant in the relationship between her and Fred, and she is portrayed extremely negatively for this fact. –Sky Horne The movie is a good primary source for the time in which it was made because it shows the economic and societal anxieties that soldiers returning to civilian life would have faced. Since the film was released only a year after the end of World War II, the trouble that the main characters have would have been relatable to a lot of Americans. The ending shows that even though the lives of these men have been forever changed, they are still able to make it in the post-war world, a message that would appeal to audiences who were struggling to regain a feeling of normalcy themselves. - Sam Hartz ====== Comparing the reading to the movie ====== Fussel talks about how the Army bred anger into his civilian life.. made me think of Homer and how he came back and started out well and then soon started to distance himself from his family and girlfriend so much so they felt like they didn't know him. Then, while he's in the shed after shooting, he breaks his metal hands through the windows and yells at his little sister asking if her and her friends want to see them and what they can do which ends up frightening her. – Lindsey Sowers The reading is an interesting take on life after the war (and even a bit of the life during it) in regards to the soldiers; and frankly, I can see certain aspects of the man telling the story in each of the returning soldiers in this film. The trauma of losing comrades in battle relates to Fred's nightmares over the incident that killed his friends. The injuries sustained in action relates to Homer's amputated state as a result of his ship being hit (though he says it wasn't really “action”). And the struggle to figure out where he fits in society following the war not only represents Al, but it frankly represents all three of the soldiers as they all struggle to adapt to the changes that occurred while they were off fighting the war. –Robert Dallas First of all, I thought the comparison Fussell made to the scene in Gone With the Wind was interesting, since it was such a prominent piece of pop culture at the time. I would have liked to see the experiences of a veteran going off to college, like Fussell, in the film. However, the experiences Fussell describes are similar to those that Fred, Al, and Homer have after returning home. I thought the part where Fussell described his constant state of anger was similar to how Fred began acting about halfway through the film, especially once he started having trouble finding work and in his marriage. Fussell is also similar to Fred in that he didn't go into details about the war, or how bad off he was, with his loved ones. The notion of “never being under someone's orders again” reminds me of both Fred and Al, who must adjust to subordinate jobs, even subordinate to former apprentices, after achieving a rank in the air force and army, respectively. Having personal accounts like Fussell's allow us to see through the propaganda about the glory of war that was so widespread during this time, and I'm glad this film also got that message across. –Erin Shaw One thing that struck me comparing the Fussell reading to the movie is the part at the end of the reading where Fussell talks about being angry. Fussell discusses how the army bred anger in him and that bled over into his civilian life. In the movie, however, the negative effects of the war manifest them as depression or general malaise, with characters very rarely losing their temper. Even when characters do lose their temper, they immediately recover and are back to being cool, calm and collected. I feel like this has more to do with what male protagonists in the 40’s are supposed to act like than it does with History. (Justin Curtis) ====== The “So, what?” question ====== This film contradicts common understandings about the post-war period in the United States. It was not as idyllic as we often think. The GI Bill was a positive thing, but it did not fix all of the soldiers' problems. This was a time of great uncertainty as the country underwent big changes and soldiers had to find jobs and readjust to civilian life. -Maddie Shiflett The scene toward the end with Homer and Wilma was the most powerful, where Homer admits how utterly helpless he is once his 'hooks' are removed. Not only did the veterans have to come to terms with their visible and invisible wounds, society and their loved ones had to as well. The movie depicts the World War 2 veteran but also represents the same issues of patriotism, camaraderie, and difficulties readjusting that today's veterans go through as well. –Andrew Mullins Unlike Gone with the Wind, this film does not seek to glorif war or the causes which led to the fighting. The film does not have any battle scenes and yet is able to show the horrors of war and the very serious affects that it had on all those involved. It shows that the America and the American people were not the same after the war. – Grace Corkran The movie is one of the most grounded in reality that we have seen. By relying on interesting characters instead of an interesting plot its better at telling the story the of WWII veterans coming home in a way that's relatable. Though the characters are not real, it seemed like real veterans like those characters probably did exist in 1946 and the movie did a good job of embodying them. -Kyle Moore As we discussed in class, The Best Years of Our Lives did very well at the Oscars. I read that the movie was one of the top grossing films of the decade so I looked to see how well it did compared to other popular films in America. I looked at a site that adjusted the grossing value with inflation and found that the movie still made the top 100 films (#85) which is right under Rocky. And in the 40’s alone the movie was the 7th top grossing film It is incredible to me that William Whyler (the Director) and Samuel Goldwyn (the producer) were able to illustrate a moment in time that the audience was currently living through, and apparently get it right. It’s incredible to me because through all of the experiences of the war, the movie apparently was able to at least, for the most part, approach sensitive topics and present them accurately. Perhaps the main qualm is the semi-optimistic ending, but that is the feeling that the movie wanted the audience to leave with I assume. Despite all of the despair and chaos that war brought in battle and on the home front before and after 1945, their lives moved on. –Lake This movie shows the change in how we see veterans coming home from war, disabilities, and PTSD. Movies tended to glorify the war story and veterans with depictions of easy lives after the war where they win the girl or live a happy life with their families. This movie really flipped the coin especially in a time where people needed to see that their lived experience was valid and they really were not the only ones going through it. I think it would be interesting to look more into how the movie inspired other movies directly after the time it was made and then the lasting impact into war movies today. – Ellora Larsen Harold Russell sold his second Oscar to pay his wife’s medical bills in 1992. He was only paid $10,000 for his role in the movie and did not receive and residual income afterwards. For someone who was so adored by audiences, following this movie, it seems like Russell was forgotten. He did continue to work in veterans affairs and advocate for their rights but the money he earned from that may not have been enough. Russell’s story is very symbolic of what happened to a lot of veterans after the WWII and other wars throughout the 20th century. While the government did do better than they had following past wars to attend to veteran’s needs, there were still many forgotten servicemen who struggled to make ends meet after paying such as heavy price. –Lake Wiley https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1992-08-07-9203110034-story.html This movie explores the difficult, traumatic adjustments like unemployment, adultery, and alcoholism that three returning veteran servicemen experienced in the aftermath of World War II. It's like in class when we talked about how there is a manual to make any man into a soldier, but there's no manual, well at the time there wasn't, to make a soldier into a civilian again. This movie talks about the concept that men have the best times of their lives during service, not when they get home. When they get home from war they have to face the realities of the things that happened to them and the aftermath of restarting an everyday life. -Amiti Colson Most depictions of war focus on the actual battles and the fighting. This movie shows some of the forgotten effects that war can have on people, even after all the fighting is over. Americans had lived through World War II and now wanted a film that would depict what they were experiencing in the aftermath**. I think it’s also one of the most accurate movies we have watched so far. - Sam Hartz