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.