The Best Years of Our Lives

The Best Years of Our Lives_360P

source: The Best Years of Our Lives

The Best Years of Our Lives

It's easy to see why this film was the best picture winner of 1946. It is meaningful, epic, and heartwarming. The Best Years of Our Lives tells the moving story of three World War II veterans who return home from the war and realize that life has drastically changed since they left. They are forced to cope with the new lifestyle that they have been so far from, and resituate themselves in unfamiliar territory. The film paints a striking picture of post-war life for veterans. It is critical but remains patriotic and triumphant towards the issues it presents. I wouldn't call this a dark film, but it's no picnic either. It's a human film that brings to light the realism of the situation as best it can. The Best Years of Our Lives starts strong and then sort of goes downhill for me. It begins with tearful reunions as the three main characters return to their families who haven't seen them in so long. Changes in their lives are immediately noticed and addressed and one theme of post-war change is introduced after another. The beginning of the film does a fantastic job addressing these subtle things without outright saying them. There is a lot of room for interpretation in the beginning of the film that sets the stage for a deeply powerful film. The whole first hour of this three hour film wonderfully set up an intriguing set of ideals the film would address. It was all done with a plentiful helping of eloquence that struck me as very unique for a film from its time. But as the film went on it morphed more and more into just a typical romance. The post-war elements still lingered and were still borough up from to time to time, but the overall focus of the film really started to switch to romances between the characters. I couldn't bring myself to enjoy this nearly as much and so the film ultimately grew dull and boring in my eyes. The story presented was well thought out and well executed, but didn't go the direction I had hoped it would. I was disappointed to see some great elements raised in the first half of the film all but go down the drain in the second half when The Best Years of Our Lives transforms itself into a tale of romance that we've all seen too many times. Overall I wasn't crushed by the films change of pace and I can really say that I liked the film. It is very well made and deserved its best picture Oscar. It isn't exactly my cup of tea so I didn't enjoy it as much as someone who loves old romance films would. I can respect the film for its integrity and talent, but it's not something I would sit through again.

I disagree with those who only went so far as to call "The Best Years of Our Lives" one of the best movies about returning servicemen. I believe it is one of the best movies ever made, period. It alternates with "Casablanca" for my all-time favorite movie, depending on which one I have seen most recently. The best compliment I can pay to this movie is that I hold it in such high regard despite having gone into my first viewing wanting to hate it. How dare this film win the best picture Oscar over my favorite movie (at the time) "It's a Wonderful Life," went my thinking. But when I saw "Best Years," I was blown away and I understood. "Best Years" has an unbelievable number of scenes that bring a tear to the eye or a lump to the throat, with only a couple of those being the result of sadness, and with most being caused by beautiful depictions of love, loyalty, pride, patriotism, or the overcoming of personal adversity. I only need to hear the opening strains of the Homer and Wilma theme music before the bedroom scene to start losing it. What I enjoy most about the plot is how steadfast all of the lead women are, each in their own unique way. I know Harold Russell and Fredric March won the Oscars-- and they were great-- but for me, Dana Andrews as Fred and the wonderful Teresa Wright as Peggy are the standouts. I find Fred's statement that Peggy should be put into mass production to be very apt. One final aspect of the movie that fascinates me is how it can be such a perfect time-capsule of 1940s America, yet still not feel dated in terms of its human interactions. I am on the clock, waiting for my next opportunity to enjoy this complete and utter masterpiece!

Nothing to add, really, to the encomia of praise contained below. I had missed catching this iconic flick several times on TCM and finally caught up with it. I had feared it might be somewhat of a soap opera, but it is an exemplar of the type of film that is able to make the viewer care very deeply about the characters portrayed. The bond that is clearly shown between the three central characters - men who had not previously known each other, either at home or during the war - shows us what a powerful bonding experience fighting for one's country is. They clearly "know" each other in a way that transcends geography and class. In a certain way this movie tells us more about WWII than many of the overtly action flicks. Another thing that this great movie brings home is the sad difference between moviemaking then and now. What we have here is clearly a powerful story about a shared national experience, with great relevance to people's lives and a strong social commentary, done up as a work of cinematic art, and Sam Goldwyn, William Wyler and all involved knew it. Compare this with the crass way that today's Hollywood churns out the dreck it calls "product", with its eyes on nothing else than the bottom line. To me the culmination of the movie is when Fred, waiting for his departing plane, climbs into one of the derelict bombers on the field. The sound track and the visuals give us closeups of the engines, and we hear the sound of them starting, taking the viewer into Fred's reverie of his wartime memories, rudely broken when a field attendant asks him what he's doing. It's one of the most miraculous moments in cinema. A note: those not familiar with the story of Harold Russell, the amputee who played Homer Parrish and went on to found AMVETS, would do well to look it up. His is a fascinating story. (And IMDB is just the place to look it up!)

Best Years of Our Lives is a film that slipped under my radar for years--I had heard about it, but never had the opportunity to watch it. Thanks to TCM On Demand, I was able to watch it uncut and commercial free. What surprised me about this film was how quickly it was made after the war. The film frankly deals with the people who were wounded in the war, both physically and mentally. It manages neatly to encompass nearly all the varieties of war experience within three characters. We have the Air Force officer, who was a veteran of the early European bombing campaign. Because of the horrific attrition rate amongst the crews of the bombers, the Air Force at that time had a reputation for cranking out officers who quickly rose through the ranks. Such was case with this fellow who went from a lowly soda jerk in civilian life to a Captain and bombardier of his B-17. He also suffers from PTSD, called "battle fatigue" at the time. We have the Army non-com who served in the Pacific, and suffered through the horrors of that campaign. His story is opposite that of the Air Force fellow in that he goes from a prestigious job as a banker to a lowly grunt in the Army and rises to the rank of Sergeant. From the stripes on his sleeve it is clear that he is the highest level of Sergeant, yet he is still on the front line. Finally we have the Navy Seaman, who is part of the faceless support staff, commonly referred to as REMFs (Rear Echelon MFers)by the fellows on the line. Ironically, he suffers the worst physical wounds when working as a mechanic below decks on a Navy ship, his ship is struck, presumably by a kamikaze and is sunk with loss of 400 lives. He is pulled from the water but his badly burned hands are amputated and replaced with prosthetic hooks. BYOOL tells the story of how these three meet on a transport plane they have boarded for home, and how they readjust into civilian society. What impressed me most about this film is that despite the obvious issues that face the three protagonists, it never descends into melodrama. The Navy kid, played by an actual amputee, is placed into situations where we might feel sorry for him, yet the script never lets us feel that emotion. The Army sergeant is clearly an alcoholic, and the story points that out, but never dwells on it. The Air Force captain struggles with the loss of status when he is forced to return to the drug store he soda jerked in (now bought out by a large chain) and take a demeaning job to support his ungrateful and disloyal wife. The script allows plenty of opportunities for all these characters to come to some dramatic climax regarding their plights, but it neatly avoids that. But for the overly dramatic score, the director has tread around exploiting the obvious. In one scene that well represents the entire movie, the daughter of the Army sergeant (Frederic March) is having a discussion with her father and mother regarding the Air Force captain. Despite his marriage, they have fallen in love, and she is determined to break up the marriage which is obviously troubled. Now we've seen thousands of scenes typical of this where the father blusters angrily and the daughter ends up running away to her room in tears, slamming the door and falling on the bed. Later, Mom shows up, consoles daughter and offers words of motherly wisdom, and everybody lives happily ever after. In BYOOL, this scene plays out completely differently than the cliché I have described above. Sure the conversation gets heated, but all parties are reasonable, and there is a serious and timeless discussion of the nature of relationships that has some of the best dialog I have seen. Ultimately, BYOOL is a highly satisfying film, with honest performances from the entire cast. Technically, it is well shot, the editing and cinematography frame, but never overshadow the gripping narrative. Despite the score, which is cliché and over-dramatic, I give this film the highest rating that it clearly deserves

Wow. I have a ton of reviews and never got around to reviewing one of my very favorite films. While I know you can't really say which movie is best, I really can't think of another film off the top of my head that is better. I can easily see how it made the top 250 and think it would probably be rated a lot higher if it had come out recently--as the 250 is very much skewed towards newer films. I think the biggest reason I love the film is the casting. While Frederic March and Dana Andrews were genuine stars at the time, they were not huge names like Gable, Stewart or Grant. I love these three actors but think the film benefited from March (who was no longer the handsome matinée idol he'd been in the 30s) and Andrews (who played an "everyman"-type guy in most of his films). Plus, the genius of casting Harold Russell as the third returning serviceman cannot be minimized. While I hate movies that patronize the handicapped (I have a deaf daughter and cringe at patronizing), Russell's performance was anything but and was amazingly honest and powerful--earning him a very well-deserved special Oscar for his performance, not his disability. The family and friends of these men also worked out so very well. I just can't say enough positive about it. And, of course, the choice of actors and the type performance they gave was due in large part to William Wyler--my vote as the greatest director ever. Why he is not recognized as every bit the genius that Fellini, Bergman, Hitchcock, Kurosawa or Kubrick were, I don't know (actually, I think he was far better than all these directors with the exception of Kurosawa, but that's a discussion for another place). If you don't believe me about his genius, do an IMDb search on the films he made--no other director comes close in the sheer number of great films. Plus, watch the film at least two or three times and you'll notice all the fantastic scenes--wonderful camera shots (like the ones in the nosecone of the airplane) or scenes involving real people (such as the one with Harold Russell with his fiancé as she tucks him into bed--I am fighting off tears now just thinking about it). This film also has an unbelievable script--pure, real and captivating throughout! A film about returning war vets could have been trite or jingoistic, but this one maintains it dignity and humanity throughout. I challenge you to watch this and not be impressed. Unless you are a member or Al-Qaeda or a 100% America-hater, you will be hooked. And this means that French or British or Italians or those of any other nationality should be able to find so much to love and appreciate from this film than transcends nations.

The Best Years of Our Life is often compared to It's a Wonderful Life. They never should be. Their only commonality is the desire to make a serious comment about a war that took millions of lives. It is hard to know what value individual life may have. (How many people know that 1 in 22 people lost their lives violently in the last century? What a statistic we have to live with.) Also our feelings about war have changed in 60 years. We have progressively moved from thinking that war is just if the enemy is the right one to believing that no war is totally just, especially the ones that have been fought recently. I have been a life long pacifist. I oppose all war. Not long ago I had that position tested. It occurred while I was on the USS Lexington, which is permanently anchored in Corpus Christi, Texas. The ship required a crew that is 3 or 4times the community in which I live. It is a powerful experience, moving around on her decks. She had seen a great deal of action. Someone granted me the right to be a pacifist and it was not cheaply bought. I cannot watch The Best Years of Our Life without thinking about things like the Lexington. Each of the three veterans paid their dues. And they paid mine as well. No one of them got off any easier than any other. The Navy, Air Force and Army paid equally although in different ways. Each had problems directly related to the war. And each had to work terribly hard to overcome those difficulties. It took more courage to face their civilian surroundings than it did to deal with war, because each had to do it on his own. Each could understand and sympathize with the problem of the others: ultimately no one could help. The moving part of the film (this could be the beginning part of the spoiler) is what follows when one of the male leads found someone who knew enough to give advice. The obvious case is when Derry told Herald to marry the girl. Don't hesitate, do it tomorrow. It is hard for Harold to believe that anyone could love him when he had been a football hero and athletic star before the war. But to his credit, Harold listens. The other is when Al tells Derry to stay away from his daughter. The meaning was clear. Mend your relationship with your wife – standard fair for 30's/40's films. Derry did not debate the point: he felt he was not fit for Al's daughter. So he agreed. The truth of the film comes out when we consider the daughter feels the same way about Derry. Real emotions from real people. I think our era has deep problems with feelings and sentiment and honor. I sometimes think we believe these values do not exist. That's perhaps why people looking at this film have problems. Al is not free of advice he does not totally want. Any time his boss talks to him, Al gets tied in knots. And rightly so. There are some things that cannot be judged by the standards of occupation: they must be judged by huge general intangibles and only someone tested by the severities of life would understand what those intangibles are. All of this leads up to a scene near the end where all the planes that fought so valiantly are stripped, stacked, stored, discarded and soon to be recycled: their function, worth and pride as translucent as Derry himself. He can overcome that translucency which he does, making him fit, in his mind, for the woman he loves. I gave The Best Years of Our Lives a 10 and there are few films I feel that way about. This is not a film for popcorn. It deserves our attention. We are very privileged to eves drop on something so private as the lives of these wonderful people. We ought to be careful that we don't abuse that privilege.

This American masterpiece came as near perfection as popular art contrives to be, from its beautifully equivocal and suggestive title to the magnificent performance elicited by William Wyler from the nonprofessional amputee Harold Russell The film epitomized both the dream and the reality of the postwar world… This intimate engagement with the psychological facts of American life gave it an almost universal audience… But, unlike contemporary and preceding "message" pictures, it was not a preachment… It showed Americans as they are, presented their problems as they themselves see them, and provided only such solutions—partial, temporary, personal—as they themselves would accept… The picture's values are the values of the people in it William Wyler, an outstanding director, triple winner of the best picture Oscar, adds an air of distinction to melodrama, epic and Westerns... With his distinguishing visual style and his taste for solemn material, he gained a reputation as a meticulous, serious artist... Wyler's most adept use of deep-focus reveals the real commitment to emotional content... The film tells the story of three men coming home from war to a small middle-American community, and find it variously difficult to pick up where they left off... The three heroes are: a middle-aged sergeant (Fredric March), magnificent as the devoted family man who succeeds in breaking the ice with his family; an incisive Air Force captain (Dana Andrews) returning to an unfaithful wife; and a tormented sailor (Harold Russell) who has lost both hands in service, replaced by hooks in real life... Winner of 7 Academy Awards including Best Picture, "The Best Years of Our Lives" is eloquent and compassionate, a deeply personal motion picture with touching wordless homecoming scenes: The first words of the sergeant's loving wife when he arrives home unexpectedly: "I look terrible! It isn't fair of you to burst in on us like this." The involuntarily sob of the sailor's mother when she first sees her son's mechanical hands... She blurts out: "It's nothing!" With her dry-martini voice, Myrna Loy combines charmingly her wifely qualities with motherly ones; Teresa Wright is lovely as the sergeant's nice daughter who falls in love with the pilot; Virginia Mayo is harsh as the disloyal flashy blonde wife whose first loves are money and high life; and Cathy O'Donnell is wonderful and sensitive as the sailor's fiancée... The situations and even some of the characters seem a little obvious, but this is a superb example of high-quality film-making in the forties, with smiles and tears cunningly spaced and a film which says what is needed on a vital subject...