list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around The Best Years of Our Lives on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/The_Best_Years_of_Our_Lives/2896/default.aspx Title: The Best Years of Our Lives
Year: 1946
Director: William Wyler
Plot: The postwar classic The Best Years of Our Lives, based on a novel-in-verse by MacKinlay Kantor about the difficult readjustments of returning World War II veterans, tells the intertwined homecoming stories of ex-sergeant Al Stephenson (Fredric March), former bomber pilot Fred Derry (Dana Andrews), and sailor Homer Parrish (Harold Russell). Having rubbed shoulders with blue-collar Joes for the first time in his life, Al finds it difficult to return to a banker's high-finance mindset, and he shocks his coworkers with a plan to provide no-collateral loans to veterans. Meanwhile, Al's children (Teresa Wright and Michael Hall) have virtually grown up in his absence. Fred discovers that his wartime heroics don't count for much in the postwar marketplace, and he finds himself unwillingly returning to his prewar job as a soda jerk. His wife (Virginia Mayo), expecting a thrilling marriage to a glamorous flyboy, is bored and embittered by her husband's inability to advance himself, and she begins living irresponsibly, like a showgirl. Homer has lost both of his hands in combat and has been fitted with hooks; alhough his family and his fiancée (Cathy O'Donnell) adjust to his wartime handicap, he finds it more difficult. Profoundly relevant in 1946, the film still offers a surprisingly intricate and ambivalent exploration of American daily life; and it features landmark deep-focus cinematography from Gregg Toland, who also shot Citizen Kane. The film won Oscars for, among others, Best Picture, Best Director for the legendary William Wyler, Best Actor for March, and Best Supporting Actor for Harold Russell, a real-life double amputee whose hands had been blown off in a training accident. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 21
Number of Lists: 14
Number of blog posts: 3
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:01:42 GMTThe Best Years of Our Lives1946William WylerThe postwar classic The Best Years of Our Lives, based on a novel-in-verse by <a href="/players/P____36855/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>MacKinlay Kantor</a> about the difficult readjustments of returning World War II veterans, tells the intertwined homecoming stories of ex-sergeant Al Stephenson (<a href="/players/P____45310/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Fredric March</a>), former bomber pilot Fred Derry (<a href="/players/P_____1708/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Dana Andrews</a>), and sailor Homer Parrish (<a href="/players/P____62220/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Harold Russell</a>). Having rubbed shoulders with blue-collar Joes for the first time in his life, Al finds it difficult to return to a banker's high-finance mindset, and he shocks his coworkers with a plan to provide no-collateral loans to veterans. Meanwhile, Al's children (<a href="/players/P____77640/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Teresa Wright</a> and Michael Hall) have virtually grown up in his absence. Fred discovers that his wartime heroics don't count for much in the postwar marketplace, and he finds himself unwillingly returning to his prewar job as a soda jerk. His wife (<a href="/players/P____46751/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Virginia Mayo</a>), expecting a thrilling marriage to a glamorous flyboy, is bored and embittered by her husband's inability to advance himself, and she begins living irresponsibly, like a showgirl. Homer has lost both of his hands in combat and has been fitted with hooks; alhough his family and his fiancée (<a href="/players/P____53410/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Cathy O'Donnell</a>) adjust to his wartime handicap, he finds it more difficult. Profoundly relevant in 1946, the film still offers a surprisingly intricate and ambivalent exploration of American daily life; and it features landmark deep-focus cinematography from <a href="/players/P___114294/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Gregg Toland</a>, who also shot <a href=/films/6239/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Citizen Kane</a>. The film won Oscars for, among others, Best Picture, Best Director for the legendary <a href="/players/P___117452/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>William Wyler</a>, Best Actor for March, and Best Supporting Actor for <a href="/players/P____62220/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Harold Russell</a>, a real-life double amputee whose hands had been blown off in a training accident. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide21Tag Target (>10)1433http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t07130qcewv.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/The_Best_Years_of_Our_Lives/2896/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/12/11/38235.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/11/2008 11:01:42 AM
Body: The fanboys are so serious about The Dark Knight being the best film of 2008 that if the Academy snubs the comic-book adaptation for a Best Picture nomination, they’re liable to storm the Kodak Theatre on February 22 in protest. But why should anyone be worried that it won’t get the nomination? It wouldn’t be much of a coup for the year’s top-grossing blockbuster to be named one of the five Best Picture candidates. In fact, since the very first Academy Awards, the top award has often been handed out to films that were #1 at the box office in their respective year. And the last time it happened was as recent as 2003, with The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Thanks to popular and talented filmmakers like D.W. Griffith, Walt Disney, David Lean and Steven Spielberg, it’s hardly uncommon for films to make money and earn critical respect. But this isn’t an opportunity to spotlight overrated top-grossing Best Pictures like Titanic, Rain Man and Rocky, which were decidedly not their year’s best films. Rather, this is a chance to ease the minds of fanboys just in case The Dark Knight doesn’t get the nod. Some of these blockbusters were indeed nominated for Best Picture, and a few even won the award, but some of them were both their year’s biggest moneymaker (in the U.S.) and best film (from the U.S.) without gaining proper Academy recognition. 1937: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs Domestic Gross: $66,596,803 It’s certainly not the best feature-length animated film from Disney. That would be the box office disappointment Pinocchio, which came out a few years later and revealed the true breadth of Uncle Walt’s magic. But this was the first, and it’s enchanting enough that it towers over even the best live-action films of its year, including The Awful Truth, The Life of Emile Zola and The Good Earth. 1946: The Best Years of Our Lives Domestic Gross: $11,300,000 If a film like this came out today, it would probably be ignored at the box office, just as most movies responding to the Iraq War and its effects have been box office poison. Yet The Best Years of Our Lives was a huge hit with moviegoers, and it was named Best Picture, too. If you haven’t seen it, you might think that its success had to do with the idea that movies were far more patriotic in tone then. But in reality, this film is more critical of post-wartime America and more supportive and revealing of veteran’s struggles than much of what Hollywood attempts now. 1957: The Bridge on the River Kwai Domestic Gross: $17,195,000 If you only knew the successes of Snow White and this film, you might think the best way to both box office and Oscar gold is to feature a song involving whistling. Unlike “Whistle While You Work,” however, the catchy tune in this film was a hit from decades earlier, and certain circumstances allowed it to add subtext, one of many elements that makes David Lean’s POW epic so rich and wonderful. Of course, it’s that widescreen mise-en-scene that really makes this film just barely edge out 12 Angry Men and Sweet Smell of Success to be considered the year’s finest Hollywood release. 1962: Lawrence of Arabia Domestic Gross: $20,310,000 Nothing against Christopher Nolan and his interest in making truly big-screen-appropriate blockbusters, but even if he does want to completely shoot his next movie for the IMAX format, he’ll never be as fit for 70mm as David Lean was. We all remember that famous shot of the rider in the distance who eventually approaches the foreground, but despite what’s written above for the River Kwai’s entry on this list, Lean wasn’t just good for widescreen spectacle. He could actually direct action pretty well, too, for starters. If only he’d lived long enough to have been forced to deliver his own superhero flick. 1965: Doctor Zhivago Domestic Gross: $60,954,000 Enough with the David Lean, right? This isn’t even that great a film, but the mid-60s weren’t a particularly good time in terms of Hollywood output. If you prefer, some sources place The Sound of Music as the year’s box office champ (its listed domestic take includes rerelease income), and there’s plenty who think that Best Picture-winner was the best film of 1965 instead (hi, Mom). 1972: The Godfather Domestic Gross: $86,691,000 It won the box office, it won the Academy Awards and it still has the utmost respect of film critics and fans today. Few people could honestly say there was a better film in 1972. Even the silly voters who allowed Bob Fosse to win Best Director for Cabaret that year probably wish they could go back and change their minds. 1980: The Empire Strikes Back Domestic Gross: $209,398,025 Argue all you want that 1977 deserves to be on this list, too, but both Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Annie Hall are better films. Besides, anytime critics include the first Star Wars as one of the best films of all time, they actually depreciate the quality of its sequel. Putting that film in the same league with The Empire Strikes Back is like putting the 1966 Batman movie on equal standing with The Dark Knight. Okay, that’s overdoing it. Maybe like putting Batman Begins on the same level, then. 1981: Raiders of the Lost Ark Domestic Gross: $209,562,121 It’s terrible to have to include two George Lucas productions on this list, mainly because by 1999 he was putting out films that were their year’s top earners and top turkeys. Plus, thanks to the latest Indiana Jones movie, it’s a little tough to watch Raiders without thinking of how the protagonist will one day fly through the air in a nuked fridge. But it’s still a damn good action-adventure flick, arguably the greatest of all time. 1985: Back to the Future Domestic Gross: $210,609,762 Robert Zemeckis gets more credit for the double success of Forrest Gump because that film won Best Picture in addition to topping the box office in 1994. Yet it’s this top-grossing film that deserves more esteem. It may not have been nominated for Best Picture, but it captured the mid-80s’ hunger for science fiction and nostalgia perfectly, turning it into one of the most memorable films of the decade, and of all time. With all respect to Sydney Pollack and John Huston, does anyone even think of Out of Africa or Prizzi’s Honor much today? 1995: Toy Story Domestic Gross: $191,796,233 Compared to WALL-E, this film seems technically crude. It’s perhaps analogous to, in 1995, comparing Toy Story to Snow White. That’s how far it seems the wizards at Pixar have come in 13 years. But just as Disney’s first animated feature enchants us still to this day, Toy Story, far from being dated, has aged better than most of Hollywood’s films from the same year. If ever there was a year for a Pixar movie to be nominated for Best Picture, 1995 was the year. It was better than Braveheart, let alone Babe, then, and it’s better than those films now. That said, it would be just as interesting to see Braveheart 3-D next year along with the 3-D rerelease of Toy Story. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:01:42 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/11/2008 11:01:42 AMThe fanboys are so serious about The Dark Knight being the best film of 2008 that if the Academy snubs the comic-book adaptation for a Best Picture nomination, they’re liable to storm the Kodak Theatre on February 22 in protest. But why should anyone be worried that it won’t get the nomination? It wouldn’t be much of a coup for the year’s top-grossing blockbuster to be named one of the five Best Picture candidates. In fact, since the very first Academy Awards, the top award has often been handed out to films that were #1 at the box office in their respective year. And the last time it happened was as recent as 2003, with The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Thanks to popular and talented filmmakers like D.W. Griffith, Walt Disney, David Lean and Steven Spielberg, it’s hardly uncommon for films to make money and earn critical respect. But this isn’t an opportunity to spotlight overrated top-grossing Best Pictures like Titanic, Rain Man and Rocky, which were decidedly not their year’s best films. Rather, this is a chance to ease the minds of fanboys just in case The Dark Knight doesn’t get the nod. Some of these blockbusters were indeed nominated for Best Picture, and a few even won the award, but some of them were both their year’s biggest moneymaker (in the U.S.) and best film (from the U.S.) without gaining proper Academy recognition. 1937: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs Domestic Gross: $66,596,803 It’s certainly not the best feature-length animated film from Disney. That would be the box office disappointment Pinocchio, which came out a few years later and revealed the true breadth of Uncle Walt’s magic. But this was the first, and it’s enchanting enough that it towers over even the best live-action films of its year, including The Awful Truth, The Life of Emile Zola and The Good Earth. 1946: The Best Years of Our Lives Domestic Gross: $11,300,000 If a film like this came out today, it would probably be ignored at the box office, just as most movies responding to the Iraq War and its effects have been box office poison. Yet The Best Years of Our Lives was a huge hit with moviegoers, and it was named Best Picture, too. If you haven’t seen it, you might think that its success had to do with the idea that movies were far more patriotic in tone then. But in reality, this film is more critical of post-wartime America and more supportive and revealing of veteran’s struggles than much of what Hollywood attempts now. 1957: The Bridge on the River Kwai Domestic Gross: $17,195,000 If you only knew the successes of Snow White and this film, you might think the best way to both box office and Oscar gold is to feature a song involving whistling. Unlike “Whistle While You Work,” however, the catchy tune in this film was a hit from decades earlier, and certain circumstances allowed it to add subtext, one of many elements that makes David Lean’s POW epic so rich and wonderful. Of course, it’s that widescreen mise-en-scene that really makes this film just barely edge out 12 Angry Men and Sweet Smell of Success to be considered the year’s finest Hollywood release. 1962: Lawrence of Arabia Domestic Gross: $20,310,000 Nothing against Christopher Nolan and his interest in making truly big-screen-appropriate blockbusters, but even if he does want to completely shoot his next movie for the IMAX format, he’ll never be as fit for 70mm as David Lean was. We all remember that famous shot of the rider in the distance who eventually approaches the foreground, but despite what’s written above for the River Kwai’s entry on this list, Lean wasn’t just good for widescreen spectacle. He could actually direct action pretty well, too, for starters. If only he’d lived long enough to have been forced to deliver his own superhero flick. 1965: Doctor Zhivago Domestic Gross: $60,954,000 Enough with the David Lean, right? This isn’t even that great a film, but the mid-60s weren’t a particularly good time in terms of Hollywood output. If you prefer, some sources place The Sound of Music as the year’s box office champ (its listed domestic take includes rerelease income), and there’s plenty who think that Best Picture-winner was the best film of 1965 instead (hi, Mom). 1972: The Godfather Domestic Gross: $86,691,000 It won the box office, it won the Academy Awards and it still has the utmost respect of film critics and fans today. Few people could honestly say there was a better film in 1972. Even the silly voters who allowed Bob Fosse to win Best Director for Cabaret that year probably wish they could go back and change their minds. 1980: The Empire Strikes Back Domestic Gross: $209,398,025 Argue all you want that 1977 deserves to be on this list, too, but both Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Annie Hall are better films. Besides, anytime critics include the first Star Wars as one of the best films of all time, they actually depreciate the quality of its sequel. Putting that film in the same league with The Empire Strikes Back is like putting the 1966 Batman movie on equal standing with The Dark Knight. Okay, that’s overdoing it. Maybe like putting Batman Begins on the same level, then. 1981: Raiders of the Lost Ark Domestic Gross: $209,562,121 It’s terrible to have to include two George Lucas productions on this list, mainly because by 1999 he was putting out films that were their year’s top earners and top turkeys. Plus, thanks to the latest Indiana Jones movie, it’s a little tough to watch Raiders without thinking of how the protagonist will one day fly through the air in a nuked fridge. But it’s still a damn good action-adventure flick, arguably the greatest of all time. 1985: Back to the Future Domestic Gross: $210,609,762 Robert Zemeckis gets more credit for the double success of Forrest Gump because that film won Best Picture in addition to topping the box office in 1994. Yet it’s this top-grossing film that deserves more esteem. It may not have been nominated for Best Picture, but it captured the mid-80s’ hunger for science fiction and nostalgia perfectly, turning it into one of the most memorable films of the decade, and of all time. With all respect to Sydney Pollack and John Huston, does anyone even think of Out of Africa or Prizzi’s Honor much today? 1995: Toy Story Domestic Gross: $191,796,233 Compared to WALL-E, this film seems technically crude. It’s perhaps analogous to, in 1995, comparing Toy Story to Snow White. That’s how far it seems the wizards at Pixar have come in 13 years. But just as Disney’s first animated feature enchants us still to this day, Toy Story, far from being dated, has aged better than most of Hollywood’s films from the same year. If ever there was a year for a Pixar movie to be nominated for Best Picture, 1995 was the year. It was better than Braveheart, let alone Babe, then, and it’s better than those films now. That said, it would be just as interesting to see Braveheart 3-D next year along with the 3-D rerelease of Toy Story. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/12/5/37994.aspx Post By: pippin06
Post To: Reel Thoughts
Post Date: 12/5/2008 3:09:38 PM
Body: What's the AFI project, you ask? For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here: http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx The Best Years of Our Lives is on the following AFI lists: The Original Top 100 (#37)100 Most Inspiring Movies (#11)The Revised Top 100 (#37) The Best Years of Our Lives came to me via my weekly Netflix envelope, and I watched it a week ago, but business trips, being an actress, and a minor revisitation of the Killer Flu of 2008 (though really it's a much milder version) have prevented me from blogging about it until just now. This was another film that I knew very little about. I knew it won tons of Oscars, because I'm interested in that kind of trivia, but that's about it. Therefore, I had no expectations going in and was pleasantly surprised by what I saw coming out. This film tells the story of three military men who return home after decorated service in World War II. They meet on their trip home to fictional Boone City and form a fast friendship of shared experience, and the story intertwines each man's adjustment to home life after an absence of several years. Ex-sergeant Al Stephenson (Fredric March) must re-integrate into his family with his faithful wife (Myrna Loy) and now grown children (Teresa Wright and Michael Hall) and re-navigate his paths through the world of banking, which he left when he went to war. The trouble is, he has grown a conscience and is not so concerned with profits and the bottom line anymore, and he also has to adjust to his children's grown up sensibilities. Ex-bomber pilot Fred Derry (Dana Andrews) must return to his wife (Virginia Mayo), whom he married in a whirlwind romance, only to discover she's been working in a nightclub and awaiting the return of her husband and his expected millions of dollars in military pay. Fred realizes that being a veteran with a laudable record doesn't count for much in finding a job, and he's forced to return to working as a part-time soda jerk and drugstore salesman while his wife grows increasingly bored and bitter toward her husband when he fails to give her the glamorous life about which she's dreamed. To complicate matters, Fred develops feelings for Al's daughter through a series of clandestine events, and the feeling is quite mutual. Ex-sailor Homer Parrish (Harold Russell), a double amputee with hooks for hands, returns home to his parents and girl-next-door fiancee (Cathy O'Donnell), worried about their reactions to his disability. While they seem to adjust, he feels increasingly alienated by his disability, to the point that he grows reluctant about going through with his wedding. The three men seek solace from each other on occasion as they try to adjust to postwar society. As I said, I was pleasantly surprised by The Best Years of Our Lives. It was actually quite a dark and cynical movie for the decade in which it was produced; it was honest and real as opposed to the fairy tales that often were shown at the time, and that alone makes me like the picture quite a lot. It dared not to sugarcoat what happened to veterans when they returned to postwar America, where money and supplies were scarce, and when Roosevelt's New Deal was sputtering to fix it. Many veterans expected to be cared for upon their return, but the government failed to meet those expectations for whatever reason, which led to real and measurable consequences for the veterans and their families. The film also grappled with the emotional consequences of war and service as it related to the family dynamic. This focus made this film both compelling and engaging, drawing the viewer into this well-told story and each little niche surrounding each of the three men with heartbreaking and touching hold. Every story was relatable on some level, contemplating the frustrations, tensions, and awkwardness of coming home to something as unfamiliar as the foreign countries in which the servicemen originally fought but also focusing on the comfort and support of family and its unconditional love and its effects on survival and coping. The performances by this ensemble were all so good and so honest, but the most impressive belonged to Harold Russell. He won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor, and the proof of how much he deserved it is in the pudding of the scene in which he finally confesses to his fiancee that he doesn't think it would be prudent for them to get married, since it would mean a life of true co-dependence, as she helps him into and out of those hooks of his and with various other menial tasks. This scene and his performance is one of the best and most sympathetic performances and characterizations of the physically disabled in film - it's sensitive and touching and heartbreaking and elicited more than a few tears from me. All of the actors were good, though, and so was the direction by William Wyler and the camera work. Apparently, the cinematographer here also worked on Citizen Kane, and elements of that style can be detected in this film. "Deep focus" and expert use of perspectives added to that gripping quality of viewing the film, serving to really connect the viewer with each character's facial expressions and, therefore, thought processes and viewpoints. The feeling I predominantly had while watching this film was how intimate it all seemed to feel. I felt the other things too, such as the frustration and sadness and trepidation and awkwardness, but it all happened in each pocket of family or romantic relationship being explored in intimate settings that truly rendered the viewer the proverbial "fly on the wall." There was also rather ingenious use of mirrors or reflective surfaces at various points of the film symbolically exploring each man's individual experiences of reflection. There were elements of the film that I didn't like, though. The pacing of this emotional journey was incredibly slow. The film clocks in at nearly three hours, and there are points at which this running time is felt. I had to watch the film in two parts. I don't think there's too much trimming that could have been done, but as a character study, it's definitely one of the longest. I never grew impatient, but I did feel sleepy. I can say, though, that when I started on part 2, I was just as interested and engaged as I was in part 1. There were also some minor but curious continuity issues. For example, Al's son, who appeared in the first scenes (and was, ultimately, the most awkward actor in the piece), disappeared quickly and never reentered the picture, for no apparent reason. I found that odd, even if his presence wasn't entirely missed. Also, when did the practice of using the property being mortgaged as collateral for the mortgage itself start? Apparently, the farmer GI that Al approves for a loan/mortgage as the farmer attempts to buy land couldn't use the actual land as collateral (and farmland almost always appreciates in value because it is not developed for other uses). Or, maybe that was forgotten, so that the loan approval would be more dramatic. Anyone have any historical facts or insight? There were other continuity issues, but those are the ones I remember a week later. Still, these are minor complaints about a film that I otherwise enjoyed quite a bit. I especially liked the last scene - how it was shot, performed, and so on. I won't talk too much about it since I don't want to spoil anything. I'm inclined to rate this film an 8 for having minor flaws but being very good. I don't think it passes the test, though. Like I said, it's long and a little slow and sad for much of it. Also, I fail to see how it inspires, as the AFI rated the film 11 on that list, unless it's to consider how each family naturally adjusted and responded to their hardships. That's just a footnote comment, though, and while I may have missed the inspiration of the film, I would still recommend watching it because the film itself is unique and a great time capsule piece for the period. It's also a great slice of Americana and, therefore, likely deserves it's (consistent) rating on the AFI's greatest lists.
]]>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 20:09:38 GMTpippin06Reel Thoughts12/5/2008 3:09:38 PMWhat's the AFI project, you ask? For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here: http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx The Best Years of Our Lives is on the following AFI lists: The Original Top 100 (#37)100 Most Inspiring Movies (#11)The Revised Top 100 (#37) The Best Years of Our Lives came to me via my weekly Netflix envelope, and I watched it a week ago, but business trips, being an actress, and a minor revisitation of the Killer Flu of 2008 (though really it's a much milder version) have prevented me from blogging about it until just now. This was another film that I knew very little about. I knew it won tons of Oscars, because I'm interested in that kind of trivia, but that's about it. Therefore, I had no expectations going in and was pleasantly surprised by what I saw coming out. This film tells the story of three military men who return home after decorated service in World War II. They meet on their trip home to fictional Boone City and form a fast friendship of shared experience, and the story intertwines each man's adjustment to home life after an absence of several years. Ex-sergeant Al Stephenson (Fredric March) must re-integrate into his family with his faithful wife (Myrna Loy) and now grown children (Teresa Wright and Michael Hall) and re-navigate his paths through the world of banking, which he left when he went to war. The trouble is, he has grown a conscience and is not so concerned with profits and the bottom line anymore, and he also has to adjust to his children's grown up sensibilities. Ex-bomber pilot Fred Derry (Dana Andrews) must return to his wife (Virginia Mayo), whom he married in a whirlwind romance, only to discover she's been working in a nightclub and awaiting the return of her husband and his expected millions of dollars in military pay. Fred realizes that being a veteran with a laudable record doesn't count for much in finding a job, and he's forced to return to working as a part-time soda jerk and drugstore salesman while his wife grows increasingly bored and bitter toward her husband when he fails to give her the glamorous life about which she's dreamed. To complicate matters, Fred develops feelings for Al's daughter through a series of clandestine events, and the feeling is quite mutual. Ex-sailor Homer Parrish (Harold Russell), a double amputee with hooks for hands, returns home to his parents and girl-next-door fiancee (Cathy O'Donnell), worried about their reactions to his disability. While they seem to adjust, he feels increasingly alienated by his disability, to the point that he grows reluctant about going through with his wedding. The three men seek solace from each other on occasion as they try to adjust to postwar society. As I said, I was pleasantly surprised by The Best Years of Our Lives. It was actually quite a dark and cynical movie for the decade in which it was produced; it was honest and real as opposed to the fairy tales that often were shown at the time, and that alone makes me like the picture quite a lot. It dared not to sugarcoat what happened to veterans when they returned to postwar America, where money and supplies were scarce, and when Roosevelt's New Deal was sputtering to fix it. Many veterans expected to be cared for upon their return, but the government failed to meet those expectations for whatever reason, which led to real and measurable consequences for the veterans and their families. The film also grappled with the emotional consequences of war and service as it related to the family dynamic. This focus made this film both compelling and engaging, drawing the viewer into this well-told story and each little niche surrounding each of the three men with heartbreaking and touching hold. Every story was relatable on some level, contemplating the frustrations, tensions, and awkwardness of coming home to something as unfamiliar as the foreign countries in which the servicemen originally fought but also focusing on the comfort and support of family and its unconditional love and its effects on survival and coping. The performances by this ensemble were all so good and so honest, but the most impressive belonged to Harold Russell. He won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor, and the proof of how much he deserved it is in the pudding of the scene in which he finally confesses to his fiancee that he doesn't think it would be prudent for them to get married, since it would mean a life of true co-dependence, as she helps him into and out of those hooks of his and with various other menial tasks. This scene and his performance is one of the best and most sympathetic performances and characterizations of the physically disabled in film - it's sensitive and touching and heartbreaking and elicited more than a few tears from me. All of the actors were good, though, and so was the direction by William Wyler and the camera work. Apparently, the cinematographer here also worked on Citizen Kane, and elements of that style can be detected in this film. "Deep focus" and expert use of perspectives added to that gripping quality of viewing the film, serving to really connect the viewer with each character's facial expressions and, therefore, thought processes and viewpoints. The feeling I predominantly had while watching this film was how intimate it all seemed to feel. I felt the other things too, such as the frustration and sadness and trepidation and awkwardness, but it all happened in each pocket of family or romantic relationship being explored in intimate settings that truly rendered the viewer the proverbial "fly on the wall." There was also rather ingenious use of mirrors or reflective surfaces at various points of the film symbolically exploring each man's individual experiences of reflection. There were elements of the film that I didn't like, though. The pacing of this emotional journey was incredibly slow. The film clocks in at nearly three hours, and there are points at which this running time is felt. I had to watch the film in two parts. I don't think there's too much trimming that could have been done, but as a character study, it's definitely one of the longest. I never grew impatient, but I did feel sleepy. I can say, though, that when I started on part 2, I was just as interested and engaged as I was in part 1. There were also some minor but curious continuity issues. For example, Al's son, who appeared in the first scenes (and was, ultimately, the most awkward actor in the piece), disappeared quickly and never reentered the picture, for no apparent reason. I found that odd, even if his presence wasn't entirely missed. Also, when did the practice of using the property being mortgaged as collateral for the mortgage itself start? Apparently, the farmer GI that Al approves for a loan/mortgage as the farmer attempts to buy land couldn't use the actual land as collateral (and farmland almost always appreciates in value because it is not developed for other uses). Or, maybe that was forgotten, so that the loan approval would be more dramatic. Anyone have any historical facts or insight? There were other continuity issues, but those are the ones I remember a week later. Still, these are minor complaints about a film that I otherwise enjoyed quite a bit. I especially liked the last scene - how it was shot, performed, and so on. I won't talk too much about it since I don't want to spoil anything. I'm inclined to rate this film an 8 for having minor flaws but being very good. I don't think it passes the test, though. Like I said, it's long and a little slow and sad for much of it. Also, I fail to see how it inspires, as the AFI rated the film 11 on that list, unless it's to consider how each family naturally adjusted and responded to their hardships. That's just a footnote comment, though, and while I may have missed the inspiration of the film, I would still recommend watching it because the film itself is unique and a great time capsule piece for the period. It's also a great slice of Americana and, therefore, likely deserves it's (consistent) rating on the AFI's greatest lists. http://www.spout.com/blogs/jakestevens/archive/2008/3/6/25919.aspx Post By: JakeStevens
Post To: JakeStevens Blog
Post Date: 3/6/2008 9:58:03 AM
Body: This is a brashly realistic film examining the manner in which WWII veterans were treated when they returned home. It's especially bold for a film that came out in the mid-40's to take such a honest look at the way our government, work force, and the general public seemed to chew up these young (and old) men alike and spit them back out. What's especially striking is Harold Russell's performance - he's a real veteran of the war with a disability that would be devastating to most people, and even though they explore his difficulties settling back into everyday life, he seems to have things well under control. I could have done without the longing romance between Peggy and Fred, but Teresa Wright is pretty enough to suspend my disbelief long enough to understand how Dana Andrews could fall for her. All in all, a good film to see if you're the sort of anti-war type...and even better still to see if you are pro-war (because maybe then you'll begin to understand...bah...enough...)
]]>Thu, 06 Mar 2008 14:58:03 GMTJakeStevensJakeStevens Blog3/6/2008 9:58:03 AMThis is a brashly realistic film examining the manner in which WWII veterans were treated when they returned home. It&#39;s especially bold for a film that came out in the mid-40&#39;s to take such a honest look at the way our government, work force, and the general public seemed to chew up these young (and old) men alike and spit them back out. What&#39;s especially striking is Harold Russell&#39;s performance - he&#39;s a real veteran of the war with a disability that would be devastating to most people, and even though they explore his difficulties settling back into everyday life, he seems to have things well under control. I could have done without the longing romance between Peggy and Fred, but Teresa Wright is pretty enough to suspend my disbelief long enough to understand how Dana Andrews could fall for her. All in all, a good film to see if you&#39;re the sort of anti-war type...and even better still to see if you are pro-war (because maybe then you&#39;ll begin to understand...bah...enough...) http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Classic/MemberTagFilms.aspxClassic
Number of films tagged: 816

Number of people who tagged: 312

Number of times used: 1453

]]>Sun, 23 Aug 2009 22:54:36 GMT8163121453Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/family/MemberTagFilms.aspxfamily
Number of films tagged: 6288

Number of people who tagged: 226

Number of times used: 1138

]]>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 20:09:21 GMT62882261138Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/war/MemberTagFilms.aspxwar
Number of films tagged: 6176

Number of people who tagged: 180

Number of times used: 607

]]>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 04:50:24 GMT6176180607Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/emotional/MemberTagFilms.aspxemotional
Number of films tagged: 66

Number of people who tagged: 45

Number of times used: 106

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:02:06 GMT6645106Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/WWII/MemberTagFilms.aspxWWII
Number of films tagged: 58

Number of people who tagged: 41

Number of times used: 75

]]>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:49:02 GMT584175Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/smalltown/MemberTagFilms.aspxsmalltown
Number of films tagged: 913

Number of people who tagged: 37

Number of times used: 86

]]>Sat, 22 Aug 2009 10:20:15 GMT9133786Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/touching/MemberTagFilms.aspxtouching
Number of films tagged: 87

Number of people who tagged: 36

Number of times used: 110

]]>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:15:29 GMT8736110Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Best-Picture/MemberTagFilms.aspxBest-Picture
Number of films tagged: 83

Number of people who tagged: 26

Number of times used: 118

]]>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:16:34 GMT8326118Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Honest/MemberTagFilms.aspxHonest
Number of films tagged: 16

Number of people who tagged: 26

Number of times used: 31

]]>Sat, 03 Jan 2009 04:21:11 GMT162631Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/americana/MemberTagFilms.aspxamericana
Number of films tagged: 230

Number of people who tagged: 9

Number of times used: 11

]]>Mon, 20 Oct 2008 04:02:44 GMT230911Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Best-Actor/MemberTagFilms.aspxBest-Actor
Number of films tagged: 78

Number of people who tagged: 9

Number of times used: 87

]]>Tue, 04 Nov 2008 05:35:20 GMT78987Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/homecoming/MemberTagFilms.aspxhomecoming
Number of films tagged: 408

Number of people who tagged: 9

Number of times used: 12

]]>Mon, 08 Jun 2009 13:02:54 GMT408912Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Best-Director/MemberTagFilms.aspxBest-Director
Number of films tagged: 39

Number of people who tagged: 8

Number of times used: 47

]]>Sat, 27 Sep 2008 03:53:34 GMT39847Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/edgy/MemberTagFilms.aspxedgy
Number of films tagged: 9

Number of people who tagged: 8

Number of times used: 9

]]>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 01:24:41 GMT989Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Best-Score/MemberTagFilms.aspxBest-Score
Number of films tagged: 27

Number of people who tagged: 7

Number of times used: 35

]]>Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:08:48 GMT27735Tag