From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
|
|
| Editing Guidelines |
|
Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article:
- If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film)
- When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references.
- Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
|
|
|
|
|
[edit] Plot holes
It is unlikely that an older draftee like the character Al would have become an infantryman. In Stephen Ambrose's book Citizen Soldiers, it is explained that most older draftees were employed using their civilian skills. Most front line soldiers were under 25. My father, who was a 26 year old civilian machinist, was put in a motor pool as a machinist. --rogerd 10:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Good point, though I don't really think it was a plot hole. During the 2nd World War, the US drafted single men up to age 45. In 1946, when the film was released, March who played the part of Al was 49 years old. My uncle, who was 42 when he enlisted in 1942, became a US Army Air Force aircraft engine mechanic in the States and was discharged in poor health in 1944 (per his discharge papers). --TGC55 14:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Not really. He could have been a volunteer, or a WWI veteren, in each case he would have been sent overseas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.82.48.186 (talk • contribs) 13:38, November 4, 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, there were plenty of soldiers over 30 overseas. Most of them were mechanics, supply clerks, personnel clerks, translators, worked in medical-related fields, or other vital support roles, but not front-line soldiers. If he had been a WWI vet, he might have been assigned to a training role. They weren't about to assign soldiers that were less physically capable to front-line roles just because they volunteered for it. If you read Ambrose's book, you would see that half of the men in the ETO where not functioning in a direct combat role. This is much the same in the modern US Army, however today's US Army does tend to have older soldiers in combat roles, probably due to better conditioning. --rogerd 19:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Careful watching of the movie and an understanding of the rank structure of the US Army will reveal that an infantry sergeant is not necessarily a combat role; each infantry company also had NCOs in support roles such as company quartermaster or company first sergeant, an administrative position. Had he been a company first sergeant, he would have worn three "rockers" and a lozenge, but would have reverted to his "hard" stripes upon being sent home - entirely possible here in the film.68.146.200.201 09:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
You're all assuming that all assignments of people to specific job functions in the four million man Army during World War II were completely logical. While many were, some were just made based on who was available and the specific need at the moment. Also transfers between branches were common, with many Coast Artillery (which then included Anti-Aircraft Artillery) personnel being transfered in bulk to Infantry in 1944, due to reduction in Axis airpower and need for replacement infantry personnel.
From his speech, Al was a platoon sergeant on Okinawa (May 1945) . In many infantry units, lieutenants were usually in short supply, so many platoons were led by older sergeants. Also, none of the characters ever mentions whether they were drafted or volunteered. GCW50 (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] New rewrite started
I welcome any comments on the rewrite that was just undertaken. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC).
-
- The cast section should be: actor as character, hence, my update. Otherwise, nice job. Luigibob (talk) 09:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Luigi, the new section does list cast in a template box, you also have eliminated references and changed an entire section. I am reverting to the original edit and ask you to wait until I have made further changes. Bzuk (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC).
- I and (more importantly) MOS:FILM#Cast and crew information agree with Luigibob. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- The use of a simple cast list is not inconsistent with any guidelines but this cast section is not a cast list at all, it is a wholesale description of individual roles. Eliminating other AGF contributions is also involved. Bzuk (talk) 03:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC).
-
-
-
-
-
- Are you enamored with cast templates. I surely am not. And I am willing to re-write plot to make that fit. That is the only problem I have. Luigibob (talk) 05:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- What is now present is a rewrite of the plot rather than a cast list, and rather than being a graphic, easy to read form, it is a repetitive derivative that is an inconsistent and jarring note. I have no qualms about using a visual cue which is what I believe that a cast list represents and I have written them in a variety of fashions to suit the type of article. The use of the cast list table is neither my creation nor is it an issue if it was not allowed. A template box is merely that, a box providing information. Where the present edit refers to the character's role in a developed sentence for each main character, that does not leave much room for information about casting decisions, choice of actors for the role and any other aspects of casting that could have been provided. My decision to use what other editors had developed was based on how the article has related information to the reader. If a cast list based on the main characters in the order that they appeared in the screen credits did not make sense, I would have considered the edit now used as suitable. The other specious argument that tables are not allowed by the MOS: Film guidelines is not present in the statement about casts. This note states: "Background information about the cast and crew should be provided, ideally as well-written prose, and as well, The key is to provide plenty of added value "behind the scenes" background production information, without simply re-iterating IMDB. Of course, some film articles will lend themselves to one style better than others. Failing that, a cast list inserted into the body of the article may be appropriate, though some editors frown on lists inside articles." Reading any more into this guideline is an example of WP:OWN and certainly not conducive to a discourse about the relative merits of the decisions to go one way or the other. The strictly "this is the way it should be argument" and reversion of AGF submissions does not provide a balanced approach. FWIW, if your positions are firm, I have no recourse and will not continue this lively "banter." Bzuk (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC).
- Urk. What's there now isn't what I envisioned. I have to agree with Bzuk - the descriptions are really unnecessary. As for tables, the general MOS says they should be avoided for simple lists; however, at this point, I'd accept either format. Finally, what the heck does AGF mean? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Clarity, thanks for your input; AGF means "assume good faith" which is what I was indicating was what I hoped other editors would see. I have no abiding interest in this particular article other that I thought some additional information may be useful. As to the cast list list, I see it merely as a listing and normally only provide additional details regarding casting such as problems in getting a "star name" or other casting decisions. Sometimes the star that is first cast decides against the production, and "ankles" it; I love that term as it clearly shows that the original star thought better of the deal and took off. There is a bit of hurt feelings over the edit that was made but rest assured, once others have a singular attachment, I usually will try to extend a compromise but if it doesn't work, so be it, I just move on. Anyways, thanks again for your many contributions to clarity (the reasoning behind your moniker, I presume)... FWIW, my one-and-half cents worth. Bzuk (talk) 02:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC).
[edit] Aviation elements in the film
Although The Best Years of our Lives is recognized as a treatise on the veterans that were returning from war, it also represents a unique aviation film. Director William Wyler had served as a Lt. Colonel in the USAAF throughout the war and had created the landmark Memphis Belle documentary in 1944, chronicalling the last mission of a B-17 crew. The film itself as well as the follow-up documentary, Thunderbolt which was shot in 1944 but released later in 1947, used a "composite style" that combined the stores of diverse characters, albeit real-life combat aviators set in an aviation milieu. Wyler became engrossed with the stories of these flyers and endeavoured to find a way to encapsulate the epiloque to his wartime creations. In planning and preproduction, Wyler went back to the community of filmmakers and artists he knew well, seeking out famed film flyer and stunt pilot Paul Mantz, who he hired to take on the position of Air Operations Director (generally known in aviation circles as the "Air Boss"). Mantz had an impressive list of aviation related films to his credit including John Ford's Air Force (1943) and Victor Fleming's A Guy Named Joe (1944), and later was instrumental in recreating the aviation armada sequences of the epic Twelve O'Clock High (1947). More importantly, Wyler and Mantz developed the film treatment with the main characters returning from war, looking through the singularily narrow perspective of the glass "bubble" of the front compartment of a wartime bomber, reenacting the visual impact that had been so much a part of the wartime Wyler documentaries. From the vantage of a bombardier's cupola, each of the main characters stare out on a familiar yet alien landscape to which they are entering. Mantz used his converted B-25 bomber "camera ship" to recreate the feeling of the veterans looking out on a postwar world that they are not yet able to understand. The dramatic opening sequences of the film were painstakingly compiled by Wyler and Mantz along with Gregg Toland's cinematography crew to capture the emotional upheaval of the returning airman, soldier and seaman. While the ensemble cast included all the three services, it is the character of Fred Derry (Dana Andrews) who provides a poignant portrait of the veteran who at first cannot come to grips with his future. As a decorated bombardier who had risen through the ranks spectacularly due to his combat service, Derry is now faced with the prospect of returning to a life where he held a lowly job as a "soda jerk" and reconciling that he may never be able to recapture the stature of his air force days. As Derry walks among the hulks of an earie graveyard of bombers, he climbs back into the bombardier's station of a B-17 where he had flown many missions over Europe. Toland's remarkable skills in creating the sights (and sounds) of the bomber coming to life engrosses the audience in the turmoil of Derry's mind retracing a combat flight before jarringly bringing him back to reality. He realizes that the cathartic imaginary mission is over and he is sitting in the remains of his former dangerous but glorious life, one which he has to finally abandon. Derry returns to his former life, choosing to become a laborer and leaving behind not only the memories of his wartime career but also his garish war bride (Virginia Mayo) and start a new life with Peggy Stephenson (Teresa Wright). Where The Best Years of Our Lives also is considered a significant aviation film is its use of the "boneyard" sequence where the row upon row of combat aircraft were stored as the postwar air force first retired then destroyed the massive aerial armadas that had been manufactured in the U.S. Wyler and Toland devoted a significant amount of film footage to a "graveyard" sequence filmed at a former air force base, Ontario Army Air Field, located 25 miles east of Los Angeles. Although this converted air base was one of the smaller scrap yards used by the USAAF, the large numbers of junked aircraft, some stacked on top of each other, others jammed row upon row, awaiting their eventual meltdown, so moved Wyler that he established the boneyard as a visual metaphor of the end of the era. Wyler brought Fred Derry back to his combat life, as he strides thorough the bomber row, still wearing his leather aviator's jacket before climbing into a bomber and sitting in the bombardier's station, peering out of the dusty, crazed plexiglass and then dramatically reliving the emotional experiences of the life-and-death missions that he flew. Other than Lady Takes a Flyer (1958), no other feature length film recreates that fleeting moment in aviation history where the hundred of thousands of combat aircraft were unceremoniously scrapped and destroyed. In August 1944, Mantz left the USAAF with an honorable discharge as he began to plan out his postwar career. He decided to go to the reclamation centers to purchase a fleet of combat aircraft for film use. Concentrating on revitalizing his 17-odd movie aircraft fleet, Mantz was one of the first to recognize the value of purchasing the USAAF's surplus aircraft which were being sold for as little as $350 for a B-17 bomber (at Kingman Army Airfield). At the end of the war, Mantz purchased a fleet of 475 war-surplus bombers and fighters, including the front line P-51 Mustang fighters, for $55,000. His intention was to use some of this massive armada in film work – at the time, Mantz joked that he had the sixth-largest air force in the world. Despite the critics that lampooned his investment, Mantz immediately drained the fuel onboard and sold it off to make a profit on his initial investment. Retaining only 12 aircraft, the remainder of his "air force" was sold off as "scrap" at a handsome profit. One of the surviving Mantz aircraft was a B-25 that he converted into a specialized camera platform to be used for the first time in The Best Years of Our Lives and remained as the stalwart of Mantz and later Tallmantz Productions' camera aircraft, being employed in other landmark productions such as The Battle of Britain (1969) as well as countless other productions. Is The Best Years of Our Lives an aviation film, yes, it is. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC).
[edit] Popular culture
References to the impact of a seminal film such as The Best Years of Our Lives is a difficult area to address. There are a number of articles that address this topic, chiefly Wikipedia:WikiProject Popular Culture. Any submission must meet the "test" of being notable and have a significant impact on the general public. The use of singular articles, episodes, songs or mentions in other works is often problematic. I would like to discuss this issue further considering the recent contributions to this section. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC).
