Tag Archives: Dana Andrews

The Best Years of Our Lives (1946): A ChatGTP Review

The General Review in response to the prompt: “Please write a review of William Wyler’s film “The Best Years of Our Lives”

“The Best Years of Our Lives” is a timeless masterpiece directed by William Wyler, released in 1946. Set against the backdrop of post-World War II America, the film delves into the challenges faced by three returning veterans as they attempt to reintegrate into civilian life.

One of the film’s most notable strengths is its poignant and realistic portrayal of the societal and personal struggles that veterans encountered after the war. The narrative focuses on three central characters, each representing a different branch of the military, and their distinct challenges in readjusting to civilian life. Al, played by Fredric March, confronts the complexities of reestablishing familial connections, while Dana Andrews’ character, Fred, grapples with the disillusionment of returning to a job that no longer holds the same allure. Harold Russell’s Homer, a sailor who lost both hands in combat, represents the physical and emotional toll of war, adding a unique layer of depth to the storyline.

The performances of the cast are exceptional, with each actor delivering a nuanced portrayal of their character’s struggles. Fredric March’s subtle and nuanced performance earned him an Academy Award for Best Actor, a testament to his ability to convey the internal conflicts faced by many returning soldiers. Harold Russell, a real-life veteran and double amputee, delivers a powerful and authentic performance, bringing a raw and genuine quality to his character.

Wyler’s direction is masterful, capturing the emotional resonance of the characters and the period’s social atmosphere. The cinematography by Gregg Toland is remarkable, showcasing a keen eye for detail and composition. The film’s use of deep focus allows the audience to witness the characters’ emotional turmoil in the foreground while also observing the evolving world around them.

The screenplay, written by Robert E. Sherwood, skillfully weaves together the individual stories of the three protagonists, creating a rich and engaging narrative that explores the complexities of post-war America. The film addresses themes of love, loss, sacrifice, and the profound impact of war on the human psyche, making it a thought-provoking and emotionally resonant cinematic experience.

“The Best Years of Our Lives” received widespread critical acclaim upon its release, winning seven Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Actor. Its enduring legacy lies in its ability to transcend its immediate post-war context, resonating with audiences across generations as a powerful exploration of the human experience in the face of profound societal change.

In conclusion, William Wyler’s “The Best Years of Our Lives” stands as a cinematic triumph, blending exceptional performances, meticulous direction, and a compelling narrative to create a film that remains relevant and deeply moving to this day. It is a testament to the resilience of the human spirit and the enduring impact of war on the lives of those who serve and sacrifice for their country.

A review of the character of Fred Derry in response to the prompt “Please write a review of William Wyler’s film The Best Years of Our Lives and the character of Dana Andrew’s character Fred Derry. Was the 37 year old Andrews too old for the role?”

“The Best Years of Our Lives,” directed by William Wyler and released in 1946, is a cinematic gem that explores the challenges faced by returning veterans in post-World War II America. One of the central characters, Fred Derry, portrayed by Dana Andrews, is a pivotal figure in the film’s narrative.

Dana Andrews’ portrayal of Fred Derry is a standout performance that captures the essence of a man grappling with the complexities of returning to civilian life after the war. At 37 years old, Andrews brought a mature and seasoned quality to the character, emphasizing the emotional weight and life experience that Fred carries. While some might argue that Andrews was on the older side for a character readjusting to civilian life, his age actually adds a layer of depth to Fred’s struggles.

Fred Derry’s character embodies the disillusionment and challenges faced by many veterans who returned to a world that had changed dramatically during their absence. Andrews effectively conveys Fred’s internal conflicts, from the frustration of a job that no longer holds meaning to the strained relationships with loved ones. His performance resonates with authenticity, capturing the inner turmoil and vulnerability of a man trying to find his place in a society that has moved on without him.

The choice of Dana Andrews, despite being 37 at the time, works in favor of the character rather than against it. His age lends a gravitas to Fred’s experiences, allowing the audience to empathize with the character’s struggles on a deeper level. Andrews’ portrayal showcases the resilience and strength of Fred Derry, making him a relatable and sympathetic figure for audiences of all ages.

In conclusion, Dana Andrews’ performance as Fred Derry in “The Best Years of Our Lives” is a testament to his skill as an actor. While he may have been slightly older than the typical returning veteran, his age adds a layer of authenticity and depth to the character. The film’s enduring impact is, in part, due to the nuanced performances of the cast, including Andrews, and their ability to convey the profound challenges faced by those who served in the war. “The Best Years of Our Lives” remains a timeless exploration of the human experience, and Dana Andrews’ portrayal of Fred Derry is a crucial and compelling element of its success.

The Best Years of Our Lives (1946): A Google Bard AI Review

The General Review in response to the prompt: “Please write a review of William Wyler’s film “The Best Years of Our Lives”

A Poignant and Powerful Portrayal of Post-War Struggles: A Review of “The Best Years of Our Lives”

William Wyler’s 1946 film “The Best Years of Our Lives” is not just a movie; it’s a time capsule capturing the anxieties, dreams, and struggles of America as it emerged from the shadow of World War II. Through the stories of three returning veterans – Al, Fred, and Homer – the film tackles themes of societal readjustment, physical and emotional scars, and the search for meaning in a changed world.

Strength in Simplicity: The film’s power lies in its grounded approach. It eschews sentimentality, instead opting for honest portrayals of characters grappling with complex emotions. Al, a middle-aged banker, faces ageism and career struggles. Fred, a decorated pilot, battles alcoholism and PTSD. Homer, a sailor who lost his hands in the war, confronts prejudice and self-doubt. Their individual journeys intertwine, creating a tapestry of interconnected experiences that resonate deeply.

Beyond Heroism: “The Best Years of Our Lives” doesn’t glorify war or paint veterans as superhuman heroes. Instead, it shows them as individuals with vulnerabilities and flaws. This humanization allows viewers to connect with their struggles on a personal level, fostering empathy and understanding.

Technical Brilliance: Wyler’s masterful direction shines throughout. Gregg Toland’s deep-focus cinematography emphasizes the characters’ emotional complexities, while the poignant score by Hugo Friedhofer underscores the film’s dramatic moments. The performances are equally impressive, with Fredric March, Dana Andrews, and Harold Russell delivering career-defining turns.

Enduring Relevance: While rooted in its specific historical context, “The Best Years of Our Lives” transcends time. The themes of reintegration, prejudice, and the search for purpose remain relevant today, making the film a valuable piece of cinematic history with contemporary resonance.

Criticisms and Considerations: The film’s depiction of female characters could be considered one-dimensional compared to the complex portrayal of the male leads. Additionally, the portrayal of disability, while groundbreaking for its time, might be viewed as somewhat simplistic by modern audiences.

Overall, “The Best Years of Our Lives” is a powerful and poignant film that deserves its place as a classic. Its honest portrayal of the human experience, coupled with its technical brilliance and timeless themes, makes it a must-watch for anyone interested in understanding the challenges and triumphs of individuals navigating societal and personal change.

A review of the character of Fred Derry in response to the prompt “Please write a review of William Wyler’s film The Best Years of Our Lives and the character of Dana Andrew’s character Fred Derry. Was the 37 year old Andrews too old for the role?”

Fred Derry and the Weight of War: Examining “The Best Years of Our Lives”

William Wyler’s “The Best Years of Our Lives” (1946) remains a powerful portrayal of postwar America, and Dana Andrews’ Fred Derry stands as a complex and compelling character within its narrative. Let’s dissect the film and his role, addressing the question of Andrews’ age.

Fred Derry: A Portrait of Lost Dreams

Fred, a decorated bomber pilot, returns home with the physical scars of war and the invisible wounds of trauma. He struggles to find work, reconnect with his wife Marie, and navigate a society seemingly focused on forgetting the war. His dreams of a peaceful life feel out of reach, replaced by disillusionment and frustration.

Andrews embodies Fred’s internal conflict with nuance. He portrays the charm and charisma Fred uses to navigate social situations, hiding the anxieties and despair beneath. The desperation in his eyes when pleading for a job or the quiet vulnerability during emotional moments showcase the character’s depth.

Age and Authenticity: Does it Matter?

At 37, Andrews was indeed older than the character’s 27 years. Was this a miscasting? While physical age might not perfectly match, Andrews brings another layer to the role. His maturity adds weight to Fred’s disillusionment. He portrays a young man robbed of his youth and forced to navigate a world that seems alien. This resonates with the film’s theme of lost potential and the toll war takes on individuals.

Moreover, Andrews’ age lends credibility to Fred’s struggles. Finding his place in society, navigating a volatile marriage, and confronting his demons would be challenging for anyone, regardless of age. Andrews portrays these struggles with authenticity, making Fred believable and relatable.

Beyond the Casting: Recognizing the Film’s Legacy

While the age difference might spark debate, it’s crucial to see Fred and “The Best Years of Our Lives” within context. The film’s groundbreaking portrayal of veterans’ struggles resonated deeply with audiences then and continues to do so today. It tackles social issues, the psychological wounds of war, and the complexities of reintegration with honesty and compassion.

Conclusion:

Dana Andrews’ Fred Derry, regardless of his age, remains a memorable character in a timeless film. His performance adds depth and nuance to the narrative, making Fred’s struggles resonate with viewers. Ultimately, while the age difference might be a point of discussion, it doesn’t overshadow the power of Andrews’ portrayal and the film’s lasting impact.

The Best Years of Our Lives (1946)

Back in the 1980s when I was an undergraduate at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, I was probably what the Millennial generation would call an “incel.” I had a genuinely rotten childhood. My mother couldn’t stand me. I graduated from one of the worst public high-schools in the state of New Jersey, and to be quite honest I was just a little afraid of girls. Most of the girls I knew in high school bullied me because I didn’t smoke pot or wear heavy metal T-shirts. My brother would spread rumors behind my back that I was gay.

Between the ages of 18 and 22, I spent most of my time in the Alexander Library on College Avenue, alone, in a metal stall, reading. My only companion was a homeless man, a 1970 graduate who had taken too many drugs during the 1960s to have gotten on any kind of a career path, and subsequently never left the campus. When it got cold, he would take shelter in the University media lab, watching French New Wave movies, and researching the Kennedy assassination. Occasionally he would come over and strike up a conversation.

“Do you see this?” he said, pointing to a copy of Paris Match and a review of the Richard Gere movie Breathless. “Do you see this?”

“I haven’t seen it yet,” I said, “but I’m hoping to watch it when they have it at Blockbuster Video.”

“Don’t watch that crap,” he said. “See the original. Only see the original.”

“There was an original?” I said. “Is there a book?”

“No there isn’t a book,” he said. “Do you know the Zionists shot JFK,” he added before I could tear myself away. “Fucking de Gaulle was going to give them the bomb and Kennedy was going to stop it. So they sent the Mossad.”

“Look,” I said. “I agree that there’s always been something a little suspicious about the Warren Commission but I’m going to follow you down this path. I’m not a Nazi and I’m not an anti-Semite and I’m not going to scapegoat the Jews.”

“I bet you don’t know what Jack Ruby’s real name was, right?” he said, looking intently into my eyes, and shaking my chair. “Oh you don’t. Well color me surprised. Take a guess. It will seem obvious once I tell you. Ever hear of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission? Do the names Kissinger and Brzezinski ring a bell? Do some research. Think. Don’t just scapegoat the CIA like everybody else does. Go research the Lavon Affair. Use your head. Don’t be an unthinking fucking liberal.”

One day in my junior year, everything changed. I was sitting in Brower Commons, the University Dining Hall, alone with a copy of The Sorrows of Young Werther by Goethe, when I suddenly noticed I was surrounded by sorority girls, which was odd considering how I usually sat far off in the corner underneath the entrance ramp behind the tables used by the black frats. But it was unmistakable. It felt a bit like that scene at the schoolyard from The Birds by Hitchcock. Every few minutes I would look up and see another willowy blond beauty sit down at the table with her tray and begin eating. Even stranger, I noticed that when I looked up and down the table one or two of them would try to catch my eye. Finally a girl sat down next to me and tried to strike up a conversation. “Good book,” she said, except for the happy ending. I like my literature a bit darker.” Of course I didn’t say a word back, being so terrified that I could barely stop myself from running away but it didn’t matter. The next day the same thing happened. I was surrounded by beautiful woman. What the hell was going on?

Finally, after one of the girls pushed a flier in my direction inviting me to the Annual Greek Blood Drive and Christmas Party, I figured it out. “You are coming, aren’t you Jonathan?” she said before handing me another pile of fliers. “We really need your help to get the word out.” As terrified as I was of engaging in conversation with a member of the opposite sex, I managed to to elicit from her the information that a young man named Jonathan Daimlerhoff had just been elected President of the Fraternity Council, that he was a popular and charming young man with a large trust fund and a late model German car who frequently took ski trips in Vermont and threw off campus parties where large amounts of alcohol were available to people of all ages, and where the cops never harassed people since Mr. Daimlerhoff’s father was a prominent lawyer no policeman would dare cross by arresting any of his son’s guests. I also learned that I was his spitting image, that we resembled each other so much that even the cheap ugly clothes my mother got me from K-Mart didn’t clue people in that I was Stanley the Incel Rogouski and not Jonathan the Chad Daimlerhoff. I never found out the young woman’s name but she answered my questions so politely that I briefly overcame my fear of women. She even invited me to the Christmas Party to give blood. I declined.

So why have I begun a film review with such a long autobiographical digression?

In 1946, William Wyler released The Best Years of Our Lives, a film that not only won Best Picture, but became an immediate classic, widely considered to be one of the greatest American movies ever made. Starring well-known Hollywood stars like Dana Andrews, Virginia Mayo, Frederick March, Myrna Loy, Virginia Wright, and non-professional actor Harold Russell, the film told the story of three American veterans of World War II, and their struggles to reintegrate themselves into civilian life. For March, who plays Sergeant Al Stephenson, it all goes fairly smoothly. Even though he served as an enlisted man in the infantry, he has inherited money, a good education, and a position as Vice President of a local bank. He soon establishes himself as a socially concerned progressive willing to extend credit to fellow veterans even though they may lack sufficient collateral. For Harold Russell, who plays Homer Parrish, a gravely wounded sailor who lost both his arms when a Japanese Kamikaze hit the aircraft carrier he was serving on, the challenges are far more severe. Yet he still has the advantage of a solid middle class family and a fiancée willing to stay with him even with his horrible disability. Then there’s Captain Fred Derry, an army air force veteran, and the film’s main protagonist.

When we first meet Fred Derry he seems to have everything going for him. At 37, Dana Andrews was probably a bit too old to play the role of a young man who was at most in his mid-20s, but it’s easy to see why he was cast. Having already starred in the 1944 film The Purple Heart, where he played a bomber commander shot down over Japan during the Doolittle Raid who marched off to his execution by slow torture spitting defiance and patriotic fervor at his Japanese captors, Andrews was exactly the image most Americans had in their minds when they heard the phrase “war hero.” Andrews was of average height and build and not particularly handsome, but something about the way he carried himself makes you want to stand up and salute. Unlike the almost comically gigantic, macho John Wayne, Andrews came off like the kind of American everyman who rose to the occasion after Pearl Harbor and bravely volunteered to fight Hitler and the Nazis. When we first meet Derry, Parrish, and Stephenson, who immediately become friends on the trip back home to fictional Boone City (Cincinnati Ohio) Derry comes across as their leader, a commanding presence in his captain’s bars and collection of ribbons and medals.

Once back in Boone City, however, we realize that Derry is not all he seems to be. First of all, he’s homeless. Born into a lower working class family beaten down by the Great Depression, his parents live in a shack near the railroad. His mother is a sad, timid woman whose very manner seems to apologize for her existence. It’s early morning and his father is already drunk. Derry has no education. Immediately after graduating from high school, he got a job as a low wage “soda jerk” at a local drug store and stayed there for two years, unable to rise to anything but head clerk with a mousy little assistant he nicknames “stinky.” Probably born in 1921 or 1922, Fred Derry was still in grade school when the Great Depression hit and his formative years were spent in a country filled with poverty and despair. The New Deal and Franklin Roosevelt had made some progress in putting the economy back together but after the Republicans demanded more austerity and the Supreme Court ruled the NRA as unconstitutional, the country slid back down into a recession in 1936.

Then a miracle happened. The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and the American economy roared back to life and to heights nobody had previously imagined. During World War II the United States was effectively a socialist country with a planned economy, full employment, and a socially progressive President who backed down in the face of a potential general strike led by black leaders like A. Phillip Randolph and opened up jobs in the defense industry to women and racial minorities. People who had previously been unable to use their talents or enter the American mainstream suddenly found themselves gainfully employed, with hopes for the future and dreams of a better life. Fred Derry, an athletic young man with real courage, was quickly singled out by his superiors, and sent to officer training school, after which he was assigned to a job as a bombardier in a B-17 over Germany, a horrifically dangerous position with a low survival rate that makes a young man live for the day and take risks. The no status soda jerk suddenly finds himself an officer and a gentleman, and in the eyes of women almost a rock star. One week on leave, he marries a glamorous young woman named Marie, played by the A-list beauty Virginia Mayo. It’s not a real marriage, only a brief fling, but if you fully expect to die, why not tie the knot and make it official. Why not take possession of some high quality wedding photos you can tape up in your B-17 like pinups to show off to your crewmates, who take one look at your wife, and after convincing themselves you’re telling the truth, bow down and declare themselves not worthy to be in your presence. Fred, you the man.

Once the war is over, however, you are faced with a much more difficult fate then dying. You have to live, not as a glamorous hero facing an almost certain death fighting Hitler, but as what you once were, a lower working-class nobody with no real skills or education. Marie, your wife, is somewhere in Boone City, but she’s long since forgotten you. You can get your old job at the drugstore back, but at a lower rate of pay and with Stinky as your boss. What’s more, your coworkers resent returning veterans as a threat to their jobs, and the customers have no idea what you were only a few months before. You try to make a go of it with Marie, and even try to pressure her into becoming a stay at home wife, but she has no interest in quitting her own job, at a nightclub, and you are no longer the man she was attracted to in the first place, an officer, a gentleman, and a hero. What’s more you realize that you and Marie don’t really like each other. All you and she saw in each other was a surface appearance, the glamorous babe and the dashing captain. You certainly don’t enjoy each other’s presence or conversation. You can’t spend an evening at home. You and she must go out every night and spend money just to keep busy. Slowing down would mean facing each other and the fact that you both entered into a hasty marriage that never should have happened in the first place.

In other words, thank God I was too afraid of those sorority girls to get involved with one when she thought I was something I wasn’t.

Marie knows exactly what she wants in life, to go out on dates, drink, eat, party, be merry and have fun, to enjoy being a hot babe every man in the room wants to be seen with. In this she is not unsympathetic. Virginia Mayo was only 25 in 1946, young and movie star beautiful with the emphasis on young. The 37-year-old Dana Andrews comes off like a sour, unpleasant, middle-aged man exploiting a younger woman and trying to keep her under lock and key when she rebels against his controlling personality and abusive ways. It’s a pretty typical fate for a man who marries a woman a decade younger than he is. She still wants to go out and party. He wants to stay home and go to bed early. Hello Leo DiCaprio. But while Dana Andrews is 37-years-old, Fred Derry is still in his mid-20s, just a naïve young man who made a bad decision because he was thinking with the wrong head, something all young men do, and doesn’t deserve to be punished for the rest of his life just because he wanted a few weeks of good sex before going off to die over Berlin.

Enter Peggy Stephenson, Al Stephenson’s daughter. While Marie is a hard, brassy, working-class woman who has to get by on her looks, Peggy is a proper upper-class young lady. Played by Teresa Wright of Maplewood, New Jersey, a posh socially progressive town where I once worked as a golf caddie in their local country club, Peggy is well-educated, sensitive, and patriotic. She accepts Fred not in spite of the fact that he’s a homeless veteran suffering from post traumatic stress disorder, but because he’s a homeless veteran suffering from post traumatic stress disorder. Fred, who needs a mother to help him heal from the war, and Peggy, who loves being a healer and caretaker, may not love each other, but they need each other. What’s more, they genuinely enjoy each other’s company. Peggy visits Fred at the drug store, where he’s able to be himself and tell someone what he really thinks of the cheap cosmetics he has to sell. They go to lunch and almost forget the time. Peggy and her rich boyfriend go out on a double date with Fred and Marie and we known damn well that if it were the 1960s they’d immediately wife swap. Marie wants to date Peggy’s rich preppy date as much as Fred wants to date Peggy. Peggy not only knows Fred is poor and works at a low status job, she relishes the idea of helping him work his way up in the world. Quite simply, the proper young lady and the damaged war hero are meant to be together.

In 2024 of course divorce is no big deal. In 1946 it was. William Wyler’s brilliance is in showing us the dialectical nature of social change, how the war and the economic mobilization that accompanied it not only wiped out the Great Depression, but opened up the country to a kind of social liberalism that will eventually be crushed by the McCarthy years but for a brief moment let people of all classes and status find the place they deserve. Al Stephenson is initially outraged that his daughter has fallen for a “smooth operator” like Fred Derry but it doesn’t matter. Peggy is her own woman and is going to do what she wants anyway. Indeed, while Al’s transition to civilian life is far less jarring than Fred’s or Homers, the progressive liberalism of his two grown children is a challenge to his traditional WASP, bourgeoisie ways. After giving his son a samurai sword and a flag he took “from a dead Jap” the son is horrified by his father’s racism and instead wants to talk about Hiroshima. The younger man is not thrilled by Truman’s war crime. Indeed, there’s more regret about the bombing of Hiroshima in 5 minutes Wyler’s 1946 film than there is all of Christopher Nolan’s bloated, overrated Oppenheimer. In 1946 Americans were satisfied that they had beaten German and Japanese fascism, but they by no means believed they were completely innocent.

As Fred Derry continues to fall into a greater and greater sense of despair over his lack of prospects and unhappy marriage, he gets more and more abusive towards Marie. What’s more, after a halfhearted talking to by his future father in law Al Stephenson, he gets violent, not to Marie, but to a man who half invites it but certainly doesn’t deserve it. When Homer pays Fred a visit at work, he’s suddenly approached by a middle-aged man who notices the hooks where his hands used to be. We first expect him to say something like “thank you for your service” but instead the man, an America Firster who gives off hints he’s an actual Nazi, harangues Homer about how he lost his hands for nothing. “We fought the wrong people,” he rants, “just become some commie radicals in Washington got too big for their britches.” When Fred politely requests he leave, the harangues Fred and the idea of social mobility the war provided. “You see. Now every soda jerk in the country thinks he’s someone.” The man is not violent. He’s not really even abusive but he is an irritating pain in the ass harassing a gravely wounded veteran with no hands. When he goes to pay his bill, and Homer follows him, wanting to continue the discussion, he repeats what he had said before, that Homer lost his hands for nothing and that we shouldn’t have taken sides with the Soviet Union against the Nazis. Fred has heard enough. He leaps over the counter, punches the man in the face, then throws him into a glass cabinet, knocking him out.

Fred is once again an anti-fascist hero but this time he hasn’t returned from a suicide mission over Berlin. He’s beaten up a middle-aged man for expressing an opinion. Like a teenage anarchist in a black mask he’s gotten off on punching a Nazi. If we are perceptive and not blindly jingoistic, we realize watching this scene how we have been manipulated by our government and our media for the last few decades. The social mobility and economically progressive agenda of the New Deal are long gone and whatever Bernie Sanders tells you they’re not going to return. But the cheap high of punching a Nazi — or even just an isolationist with a few suspect right wing views — is still here to be dangled in front of us every time our rulers want to go to war. Every world leader or people the the American ruling class want to get rid of has become Hitler. The Soviet Union? “Totalitarian” like Hitler. North Korea? Hitler. The Serbs in the 1990s? Hitler. Saddam? Hitler. Assad? Hitler. The Islamic extremists the CIA used to stir up violence in Kosovo and destroy Syria and Libya? Hitler. The Palestinians in Gaza? You guessed it. Hitler.

William Wyler may have been a strong supporter of the war but he sees the danger that a lot of Americans like Fred were in. If a soldier doesn’t get his life together after the war, find some purpose, then he risks holding onto the war for the rest of his life. What’s worse, he might become a destructive influence on the country he supposedly fought to protect. The Frei Korps in Germany, the American Legion, the Black and Tans, Gladio, even the persistent urge in Russia to see the world through the lens of World War II, there are many examples of even a victorious war making it impossible for a people to move on with their lives and build a better society.

Fortunately, for Fred Derry, there is redemption. After getting fired from his job at the drug store, he decides to leave town so as not to cause Al Stephenson any more grief. Marie demands a divorce, something he gladly agrees to. He says goodbye to his parents, who suddenly realize what they are losing. But when he arrives at the airport — where he’s given a ticket by a clerk played by Sean Penn’s father — Fred notices hundreds of demobilized B-17s. Initially believing they’re going to be junked, he feels cynical and hopeless. I suppose the junk man gets everyone in the end, he says to a salvage foreman. But when the foreman informs Fred that the planes aren’t going to be junked but recycled into materials to make new houses, Fred suddenly realizes that he too might be recycled back into civilian life. When he realizes the foreman is a fellow veteran, he asks him for a job, and in spite of having no experience, he’s given one. Fred may not have found his calling, but at the very least he’s found a job he can stand working for a fellow veteran. At Homer’s wedding, he meets Peggy. She’s happy to see him, even more happy he’s found a job, and even happier yet that his wife has given him a divorce. Life is going to be tough for awhile, he says, but eventually it will get better. She expresses her wish to share Fred’s misery. She doesn’t care about money. He doesn’t care about glamor. They accept each other for who they are. We are confident they will be happy together, two members of what Tom Brokaw would call the greatest generation. It’s just too bad Fred and Peggy will probably end up voting for Nixon and supporting the war in Vietnam and eventually in their old age Reagan and George W. Bush.

Homer Parrish, however, will probably stick to the progressive faith of the New Deal. Harold Russell, the young non-actor who played Homer, and who won two Oscars for his performance, did not continue as a professional actor. Instead he went to graduate school at Boston University and received a masters degree. Eventually he ended up heading an organization for disabled veterans. When President Truman fired Douglas MacArthur, Russell wrote a letter supporting him and affirming civilian control of the military. The American Legion denounced him, but he stood his ground.

As head of AMVETS, Russell wrote to President Truman in 1951 supporting his decision to dismiss General Douglas MacArthur during the Korean War. Russell’s telegram to Truman cited MacArthur’s “repeated insubordination in violation of basic American principles governing civil versus military authority.” His telegram asserted that those were “obvious grounds” to relieve MacArthur. Erle Cocke, Jr., commander of the American Legion, said that he was “shocked by the news” that AMVETS and the American Veterans Committee supported MacArthur’s firing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Russell

Harold Russell died in 2002 at the age of 88 after having spent almost 60 years with his horrific disability. Sadly he began to run out of money at the end of his life and had to sell his Best Supporting Actor statue to provide for his wife’s medical expenses. We live in that kind of a country. The New Deal is long gone, replaced by a voracious yet vacuous neoliberalism. Harold Russell was no John Wayne. He did not profit from the War that made him famous. He didn’t grandstand. He was not a glamorous hero, just an ordinary man who paid a heavy price to defeat Hitler and Japanese fascism and who later stood his ground supporting a democratically elected President against an egotist. For that he deserves to be remembered. What’s more the deep focus, black and white photography of The Best Years of Our Lives hint at a nobility that seems gone from the United States. Every frame could be a Life Magazine still photo, the Midwest — actually Southern California standing in for the Midwest — clean, sharp, full of promise, looking towards a future we no longer seem to believe in. Sadly our ruling class will still invoke the Harold Russells and Fred Derrys of the past to justify the rapacious, unjust wars of the present.

The Purple Heart (1944)

In April of 1942, the United States aircraft carrier Hornet, three cruisers, and seven destroyers sailed to within 750 miles of the Japanese mainland. On the deck of the Hornet were 16 long-range, B-25 bombers, stripped down, and loaded with a much fuel and as many bombs as they could carry. Although the “Doolittle Raid” caused only minor damage to a few industrial and military installations on the outskirts of Tokyo, Yokosuka, Nagoya, Kobe and Osaka, the psychological effect was considerable. Only 4 months after Pearl Harbor, the United States Navy had hit the Japanese mainland. Of the 80 men who began the raid, 69 made it safely to nationalist held areas of China, or to the Soviet Union. Three were killed over Japan. Eight were taken prisoner by the Imperial Japanese Army.

The Purple Heart is a fictionalized drama about the 8 crew members of the Doolittle Raid who went missing in action. Made in 1944, before anybody knew that 3 were executed and 1 died in a prisoner of war camp, Lewis Milestone’s film is a bloodthirsty, racist, genocidal exercise in propaganda designed to justify the murder of Japanese civilians. It is also, along with Robert Aldrich’s brutally cynical film Attack, the best American movie about World War II. While the Japanese characters in The Purple Heart are depicted in such a demeaning, bigoted manner that you can barely understand what they’re saying half the time, Milestone’s film embodies the contradictions of the American war against Imperial Japan in a way that’s true to history. In 1944, the United States was a democracy. Imperial Japan was a fascist abomination bent on conquering all of East Asia. Yet by 1945, after the American government murdered hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians in the Tokyo fire bombings, and in the nuclear attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, very little moral difference remained between the two belligerent countries.

The Purple Heart takes place entirely in a Japanese courtroom. Eight American airmen commanded by Captain Harvey Ross, played by Dana Andrews, are on trial, not as POWs, but as common criminals, accused of machine gunning Japanese civilians at schools and hospitals. The trial is a mockery of justice. Newspaper reporters from friendly nations like Germany are admitted. Journalists from neutral countries like Portugal and the Soviet Union suddenly find that their press credentials are no longer valid. The 8 men are assigned a “defense attorney” who never consults with his “clients,” or cross examines witnesses. The prosecuting attorney is a sadistic Japanese army officer named General Mitsub. The “judge” isn’t a judge at all, but a Japanese warlord. Captain Ross is not allowed to meet with either the Red Cross or the ambassador from the Swiss embassy. The verdict is a foregone conclusion. Captain Ross and his seven crewmen will be found guilty.

“So why have the trial at all?” the viewer wonders. “Why not just line Captain Ross and his men up against the nearest wall, and call the firing squad”

While Lewis Milestone’s depiction of the Japanese is not only racist, but genocidal, his depiction of their politics is surprisingly realistic. The only reason Captain Ross and his 7 crewman are on trial at all is a bureaucratic squabble between the Japanese Army and the Japanese Navy. General Mitsub, an army officer, wants the Americans to swear under oath that the 16 bombers came from an aircraft carrier. For him, it would be a loss of honor if they came from occupied China. The Japanese Navy, on the other hand, denies that an American carrier got within 1000 miles of the Japanese mainland, even though the United States cruiser Nashville had sunk a Japanese picket boat that got too close to the Hornet’s task force.

In other words, if General Mitsub cannot prove that the Doolittle Raid came from an aircraft carrier, he’ll have to commit seppuku. If he succeeds in extracting a confession from Captain Ross, and his men, then the Emperor will put the blame on the navy. One by one he calls up the members of Captain Ross’ crew out of their cell, and tries to torture them into admitting the 16 bombers came from the Hornet. There’s Sergeant Jan Skvoznik, a big Polish American football player. He loses his mind. There’s Lieutenant Angelo Canelli, and Italian American painter. They break his hands. There’s Sergeant Howard Clinton, a teenager from the south. After he refuses to talk, they cut out his vocal chords. Finally, there’s Captain Ross himself. As the senior officer, he’s tortured psychologically, not physically. “I worked on a fishing boat out of Sante Barbara,” Mitsub says. “I mapped every inch of your coastline from San Diego to Seattle.”

The climax of the Purple Heart comes when the judge offers the Americans a deal. As soldiers “just following orders,” they don’t even have to admit they came from an aircraft carrier. All they have to do is name their commanding officers. When Captain Ross asks for a recess, General Mitsub is confident that he’s won. But the American commander has something up his sleeve the Japanese of Lewis Milestone’s film will never understand, radical democracy. Mitsub, like all authoritarians, had hoped to beat the enemy by divide and conquer, by isolating the weakest link in the chain. Captain Ross decides that he can not only win, but he can win playing by Mitsub’s rules. The military chain of command is suspended, he announces during the recess. He won’t order any of the men to stay silent against their will. They will take a vote. What’s more, the vote will be decided, not by majority rule, but by consensus. He holds out a vase and passes it around the room. Each man will drop his wings inside, broken if he votes to talk, unbroken is he votes to say silent and die. Mitsub comes into the room to announce that the recess is over. Captain Ross hands the vase to the judge. If there’s even one pair of broken wings inside the vase, all eight men will tell the court what they want to hear.

Needless to say, in a pro-war propaganda film like The Purple Heart, there won’t be any broken wings. There aren’t. One by one, the judge counts them out. One by one, they’re unbroken. When he reaches the eighth unbroken wing, he looks both enraged and dismayed. “Is this your answer?” he says in disbelief. Captain Ross stands up and gives a defiant speech that’s both ridiculous and inspiring. “This war won’t be finished until your dirty little empire is wiped off the face of the earth,” he says. We hear a gunshot. General Mitsub has committed suicide. Democracy has beaten fascism. As odd as it may seem in a pro-war, racist, genocidal work of propaganda, that’s the message. Democracy is good. Torture is bad. Real men stand up for democracy against torture, kangaroo courts, and fascist intimidation.

Whether or not Lewis Milestone – a Russian Jew making a racist film, even as Hitler was gassing Jews in Eastern Europe – genuinely believed his genocidal depiction of the Japanese is beside the point. Nobody believes it today. There’s anti-Japanese, and anti-Chinese bigotry in the United States of 2015, but even the most hard core racist would find the depiction of the Japanese in The Purple Heart almost comically dated. On the other hand, Lewis Milestone raises issues, kangaroo courts behind a wall of censorship, torture, the electronic surveillance of prisoners and the denial of counsel to the accused, that are sadly relevant to the United States of The Patriot Act.

Everything Lewis Milestone accused the Japanese of in 1944, anybody could accuse the United States of in 2015. Everything that General Mitsub did to Captain Ross and his crew, George W. Bush and Barack Obama have done to Chelsea Manning, Barrett Brown, and Jeremy Hammond. No American can honestly watch The Purple Heart in 2015 and say he’s like Captain Ross or Lieutenant Wayne Greenbaum, Ross’s second in command, an educated Jewish American from New York, a CUNY graduate who can quote the Geneva Convention from memory. On the contrary, if General Mitsub presides over a mockery of justice based on divide and conquer, surveillance, torture, and arbitrary executions, we all remember how George W. Bush said “the Constitution is only a piece of paper,” or how Alberto Gonzalez called the Geneva Convention “quaint,” or how Barack Obama declared Wall Street to be above the law, and then went on to prosecute journalists and whistle blowers.

What’s more, even in 1944, Milestone’s propaganda was full of holes. While the Doolittle Raid bombed only military targets, by 1945, the United States Air Force under Curtis LeMay was committing crimes against Japanese civilians far and away worse than machine gunning a schools and hospitals. LeMay’s air force burned Tokyo to the ground, killing over 100,000 people and displacing over a million. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were two of the greatest war crimes in history. Indeed, the American mass murder of Japanese civilians along with the internment of Japanese Americans based on nothing but the color of their skin gives the lie to the idea that “we” were fighting for democracy against the Japanese. On the contrary, we were fighting for empire. Whatever his intentions, Lewis Millstone gets it all up on screen, the democratic, multicultural ideal of Roosevelt’s New Deal America, and the genocidal racism that made it impossible.

The Ox-Bow Incident (1943)

The Ox Bow Incident has so much intense, dramatic focus that even its flaws, like the crappy studio lighting, only seem to lend to it a stripped down authenticity. Based on the novel of the same name by Walter Van Tilburg Clark, William A. Wellman’s brutal masterpiece about three innocent men lynched by a mob of Nevada ranchers stars Henry Fonda, Jane Darwell, Dana Andrews, and a young Anthony Quinn. That such a film could be made in the middle of a war against fascism speaks highly of American culture. That such a film could be made at all reminds us that there’s a dark, sinister side of American history that we often ignore.

It’s 1885, two cowboys, Gil Carter, Fonda, and Art Croft, Harry Morgan, ride into a small town in Nevada called Bridger’s Wells. Bridger’s Wells is not a friendly place. Not only have the local ranchers had to deal with ongoing epidemic of cattle-rustling, there’s something deeper going on. After Gil Carter learns that his favorite prostitute has been driven out of town, he picks a fight with another cowboy, an angry reaction we don’t entirely understand until we realize that there’s a big shortage of available women in town. Bridger’s Wells, like many towns on the American frontier, has a toxic, masculine culture that comes from having no women or children.

We find out just how toxic Bridger’s Well is when a young man arrives with the news that Larry Kinkaid, a popular local rancher, has been murdered. In a matter of only minutes, a posse forms. The posse, led by Major Tetley, an ex Confederate army officer, Deputy Butch Mapes,  and a genuinely frighting Jane Darwell as a hardass, butch cowgirl named Jenny Grier, is an obvious lynch mob from the very beginning. A local judge does make a token effort to stop it, but gives up at the first signs of resistance. Arthur Davies, a shopkeeper, pleads with the mob to wait until the sheriff gets back into town, or, at the very least, bring anybody they catch back for a fair trial. Gil Carter and Art Croft, not being popular, solid citizens, and fearful they might be themselves accused of rustling, decide to tag along in order to avoid looking suspicious. The mob bullies Sparks, an African American preacher, into being their unofficial chaplain. They ride out to look for suspects.

After an abortive attack on a stage coach — which contains Gil Carter’s prostitute ex-girlfriend and her newly acquired rich husband — the lynch mob comes upon three men in sleeping bags, a half senile old man, and two men who appear to be in their 20s or 30s. One is a white man named David Martin, who’s played by Dana Andrews. Earlier that day he made the mistake that will cost him his life. He bought a stock of cattle from Larry Kincaid and didn’t get a bill of sale. The other young man, a Mexican named Francisco Morez, Anthony Quinn, is a gambler and petty thief David Martin had decided to hire without checking into his background, another fatal mistake.

The real heart and soul of the Ox Bow Incident is how differently both men react to their inevitable deaths.  Francisco Morez, as a brown skinned Mexican, has no illusions about what a posse of thirty, heavily armed white ranchers means. It’s a lynch mob. He’s not going to get a fair trial. He’s never going to see a judge or get a lawyer. They probably don’t even care if he’s innocent or guilty. They want their blood and they’ll get it. After a token attempt to escape, Morez concludes that fate has quite obviously punched his ticket and his time on earth is over. All he needs is a priest, or, in lieu of that, a Spanish speaker who will take his final confession back to a priest. His final prayer, in Spanish, is so moving you can see the blood lust in the eyes of the lynch mob briefly dissipate.

For David Martin it’s not that easy. Martin is a solid, middle-class citizen from out of town, an educated family man who composes a letter to his wife that’s so well-written that the shopkeeper Arthur Davies thinks if it’s only read out loud it will prove his innocence. Davies doesn’t understand that Major Tetley, the deputy, and Jenny Grier, the three ringleaders, don’t really care if he’s innocent or not. The contrast between Dana Andrews and Jane Darwell is revealing. All the strength that Darwell exhibited as Ma Joad has become toxic. She’s a cold Maggie Thatcher of the frontier, a stone face woman without any sign of feminine gentleness or compassion. Dana Andrews, on the other hand, even though he made his career playing macho war heroes, is soft, feminine, vulnerable. At first he can’t believe what’s really happening to him. Then he pleads with his soon to be murderers to have mercy on him because he’s a husband and a father, pathetic in his inability to see that he’s no longer in a civilized country where things like that matter. They may invoke law and order, but this mob is nothing more than a gang of serial killers. David Martin is not only every solid middle-class citizen who can’t believe it when the law doesn’t realize he’s innocent. He’s a human sacrifice to the blood lust at the heart of frontier America.

Gil Carter and Art Croft represent the rest of us. A pair of everymen who know what they’re witnessing is wrong, they make the right choices. Carter especially, who tries, and fails, to stop the lynching, acts heroically. But Wellman’s vision is too uncompromising and darkly Calvinist for any kind of happy ending. All we get is a brutal, ironic twist. The cavalry, the town sheriff, finally arrives, but 5 minutes too late. Then we learn what really happened to Larry Kinkaid.