MovieChat Forums > The Best Years of Our Lives (1947) Discussion > one thing that I wish had been done diff...

one thing that I wish had been done differently


Am I the only one here who thought that Peggy was a bit overdramatic later in the movie? I would have preferred to see a bit more of her brother, rather than seeing all her dramatics.

I like the way they handled the scene in the cafe when her dad and Fred have that chat. When he calls up Peggy, we just see him in the background, talking to her. In the foreground, we're treated to something more fun - the piano recital. A pity that some of Peggy's dramatics couldn't have been handled a similar way. She and her mom could have had the chat about the phone call in the background (later that evening or something), while in the foreground, something more interesting could have been going on (maybe father and son talking or something).

Just a thought...

This movie still gets 10/10 from me. As for a few of the scenes, well, I know how to use the fast-forward button.

~~
Jim Hutton: talented gorgeous hot hunk; adorable as ElleryQueen; SEXIEST ACTOR EVER

reply

I respectfully disagree. Teresa Wright was terrific as Peggy. Okay, her couple of moments of emotional distress, after Fred's brush-off phone call and also after her parents shot down her mission to destroy Fred's marriage - - she chewed a little scenery there - - but she acquits herself admirably overall. She was obviously a favorite with Wyler, having taken home a best supporting actress in Mrs. Miniver under Wyler's direction. He used her again before this film too, she was nominated for The Little Foxes.

Michael Hall as Rob Stephenson did not give so strong a performance as I'd want to trade ANY of Teresa Wright's screen time for more of him in the foreground. It was a little peculiar to me, however, that we never see Rob again after his hasty exit for school before Fred has his breakfast in the Stephenson home, cooked for him by Peggy.

reply

Oh, I didn't mean to suggest that her entire performance was poor. Overall she was good, but I found a couple of those scenes to be very irritating.

I wonder what was even the point of having Rob Stephenson there in the first place, if we weren't going to see him after he takes off for school.

~~
Jim Hutton: talented gorgeous hot hunk; adorable as ElleryQueen; SEXIEST ACTOR EVER

reply

Rob is there, I would say, to illustrate the younger generation not being necessarily so enthralled with war. The way Rob says "and thank you for these things," referring to the war souvenirs his father brought back for him speaks loudly. He handles them as though they were dripping with filth. Rob parrots the science teacher, Mr. McLaghlin's cautionary lesson regarding the potential horror of nuclear war. At the same time, Rob is very much up on the boys' fascination with military hardware, pressing Peggy as to whether Fred flew in a B-17 or a B-24 and wanting to know what bomber group Fred was in. I just thought it was weird that we never saw Rob at all, ever again even though we had many scenes of the Stephenson's at-home. He didn't come with his family to Homer's and Wilma's wedding at the end of the picture.

reply

I thought that he and Homer might have clicked as friends, but that never happened in the movie.

~~
Jim Hutton: talented gorgeous hot hunk; adorable as ElleryQueen; SEXIEST ACTOR EVER

reply

I thought that he and Homer might have clicked as friends, but that never happened in the movie.


Considering Rob's questioning attitude toward the war and the radiation effects of the Japanese people? I wouldn't have been surprised if Homer went off on him the way he went off on that customer. He would've likely held back because he was Al's kid, aside from that, I don't see that going over well.

reply

I don't think that Rob would have been that rude to Homer, the way the customer was.

He might have expressed some of his views in a polite manner, and Homer would have probably taken it upon himself to explain a few things to Rob.

Rob was an older teen who didn't fight in the war. The customer was an ex-soldier who should have had more respect for his fellow soldiers/sailors. The customer should have known better, too. Therefore, Rob could have learned a thing or two from Homer (as well as from Fred and his own father). He did seem quite curious when talking to Fred the morning after. He didn't strike me as being disrespectful at all. A bit ignorant, yes. Disrespectful? Nope.

Rob seemed like the type who would learn a thing or two if he talked to the war vets. That customer wouldn't have been swayed, no matter what. No comparison.

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen 🎇

reply

I don't think that customer was an "ex-soldier" or vet- he was supposed to represent the anti-war/isolationist/non-interventionist groups of that era- like "America First" et al. Hence the flag lapel pin.

reply

Even so, I sure wouldn't put that customer and Rob in the same category.

Rob certainly seemed like he could be taught a few things by the war vets. He was very young, and who knows what on earth they were teaching him about WWII in school? Sounds like the lectures on WWII at his school (and possibly at many other schools at the time) were quite lousy. The kids were likely getting a lot of wrong ideas.

On the other hand, I wonder just how much people knew about nuclear bombs and their effects on humans immediately after WWII ended? Didn't most of that info become general knowledge once the Cold War began (mostly in the 1950s)? I haven't seen this movie in awhile, but wasn't it Al who told his son that he didn't see/hear about the effects of the nuclear bomb on the Japanese people? If he, a war vet didn't see/hear about it, then how could he expect his son to know much about it?

The customer deserved what he got. 

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen 🎇

reply

jackboot,

I don't think it's so much a question of Rob's not being "enthralled with war". I don't think any generation is enthralled with war, especially if it's a generation at or near recruitment age. I think it's more in line with the idea many young people have of life's beginning when they're born, and that that which has gone on before is of incidental or purely academic interest. Rob's got his eye on the prize -- his own future. The past, even the recent past, is, well, a curious item to be placed in the attic and revisited -- rarely, which may have been his dad's attitude about Rob's grandfather's involvement in WWI? . . . A failing of all generations, I think.

reply

The problem with the Rob character, cwente2, is one of consistency. In scene one, he's bursting with pride and happiness when his father comes home; smiling broadly as his mom and dad re-unite. However, in his second scene, we see him skeptically accepting his father's gifts, more interested in the science of war than his father's war experience. And this is only a few hours after the family re-unites.

We're further confused by his attitude in his third and final scene at the breakfast table, where he quizzes Peggy about Fred. If he doesn't care about his father's war experience, why is he so interested in Fred's career? ("What bomber group did he fly with?") OK, maybe he has more of an interest in aero technology than the grunts on the ground, but in the end, that's what we're left with Rob; and it's not really enough to get a handle on his character. Of course, Rob's sole cinematic purpose is to show Al how much of home he left behind when he enlisted. This is a household where almost no one is recognizable to Al anymore, and that cinematic purpose is embodied most by Rob in that second scene.

Maybe "Glory For Me" plums Rob's character a bit more fully. I know there are a couple of folks on this board who've read it, maybe they can shed some light on the Rob Stephenson question.

reply

Kindly Gents,

I don't think that I assessed Rob's attitude correctly by describing it as "not enthralled with war." I'm a little at a loss for how exactly to describe him. The souvenirs scene (how ironic, when, in a short while later, once thoroughly plastered, Al will request "their song," Among My Souvenirs, for Butch to play and for Millie and he to dance to), is a curious one for me. Rob clearly is repulsed by his father's wartime exploits. The few items Al brought home and presented to Rob were pretty extraordinary - - the flag he "took off a dead Jap" with the messages from family members evinced Rob's remark that the Japanese place a great deal of importance on the family relationship, to which, Al wryly replies "yeah, unlike us." Rob does not seem to be at all interested in his father's contribution to helping win the war and instead wants to fast-forward to Al occupying Hiroshima and wanting to know Al's first-hand observations of the effects of The Bomb and how this would relate to his lessons from Mr. McLaghlin. Since Rob had not seen his father in years, maybe Mr. McLaghlin was more influential over Rob than his own father and he probably had a hard time remembering just what Al was like as a person. Rather than wanting to cheer his father and possibly saying something along the lines of "we're so proud of you, Dad," he seems to be taking the line of feeling rather sorry for the Japanese and perhaps a feeling a little displeased with his father for having been a part of the devastation and suffering levied upon the Japanese people as a consequence of their having been at war with the U.S. I didn't know what to make of this reception Rob gives his father, I always labored under the belief that our returning servicemen from WWII were met with universal praise and expressions of gratitude. Rob almost sounds like a more contemporary anti-war "peacenik" type (forgive that term. I'm not wishing to start a debate on the merits of war) who is critical of his country's - - and his own father's - - involvement in the war. For me, this really stuck out.

So, Rob seems to weigh in as somewhat more than merely to illustrate to us how much Al had left behind. He's making a statement - - a rather loaded, politically charged statement. It sure seems that way to me. It's a statement I didn't realize anyone was making that long ago.

Wanting to know about Fred's career - - which planes he flew, which bomber group he flew with - - that seems like a pretty innocent boyish interest. I'm sure Rob needed to know all of this for when he eagerly shared with his school-friends the fact that Cpt. Derry had stayed at his home. He would sure sound like a clueless dweeb not to know which bomber group Fred was with or even which planes he was flying.

The scene that seemed to most painfully show how much of a stranger Al was in his own home immediately followed the souvenirs scene, when Al and Millie were left alone for the first time in however many years Al had been away. Al and Millie sat across the room from each other, Al couldn't sit still, he was anxious and restive, he offered his wife a smoke, forgetting that she didn't smoke and the air was thick with tension. She was trying too hard to make pleasant conversation and Al looked like he'd rather be out on patrol or hitting a beach. I thought that scene was particularly well-played.

reply

Rather than wanting to cheer his father and possibly saying something along the lines of "we're so proud of you, Dad," he seems to be taking the line of feeling rather sorry for the Japanese and perhaps a feeling a little displeased with his father for having been a part of the devastation and suffering levied upon the Japanese people as a consequence of their having been at war with the U.S.


What's wrong with sympathizing with the Japanese? A lot of people may look on the bomb as a "necessary" thing. Even if one was to think that way, that doesn't mean that Japanese deserved what happened to them. I found it too bad really that Al didn't seem to notice any of the bomb's effects on the people at all, considering how much it devastated them.

I didn't know what to make of this reception Rob gives his father, I always labored under the belief that our returning servicemen from WWII were met with universal praise and expressions of gratitude.


Thank goodness (in a way) that they weren't. We can be appreciative of our relatives and veterans, that doesn't mean we have blindly praise them or agree with them on everything they do, like bringing home an anonymous dead man's souvenirs and just calling him a "dead Jap." I just can't wrap my head around how callous and blaise Al was about presenting his son with something he basically stole off soldiers he may or may not have killed himself.

reply

Oh yes, he was definitely interested in the planes rather than on the souvenirs. He seemed quite fascinated by all the talk of nuclear bombs as well.

~~
Jim Hutton: talented gorgeous hot hunk; adorable as ElleryQueen; SEXIEST ACTOR EVER

reply

I agree with you there, cwente2. Rob was mostly concerned about his own future. Excellent way of putting it!

~~
Jim Hutton: talented gorgeous hot hunk; adorable as ElleryQueen; SEXIEST ACTOR EVER

reply

Rob says "and thank you for these things," referring to the war souvenirs his father brought back for him speaks loudly. He handles them as though they were dripping with filth.


Can you blame him? Al did say he got them off a "dead 'Jap' soldier." As cool as I think swords are, I would've been disgusted too. I would've been more disturbed if Rob just simplemindedly and gleefully accepted the presents and said "Gee thanks, Pop. You're the best!"

I suppose it's for this "ungrateful" attitude poor Rob was never seen again. Character that disagreed with the veterans in this movie didn't tend to come off well in this movie.

reply

I got the impression that Rob wasn't really sure WHY his father gave him those things. I don't think he was ungrateful. Just a bit...confused.

A pity that they didn't do a bit more with Rob's character - show him learning a thing or two from the war vets. Instead, he was just sort of dropped from the picture. A lost opportunity, for sure.

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen 🎇

reply

It was a little peculiar to me, however, that we never see Rob again after his hasty exit for school before Fred has his breakfast in the Stephenson home, cooked for him by Peggy.

According to the actor, Michael Hall, there was an issue with his contract and the studio did not want to pay him more money for what would have been a brief appearance as Rob. After getting only bit appearances in other films, the actor became a rather wealthy art dealer. He lived to age 93.

reply

I think the problem with Rob Stevenson is that the actor who portrayed him simply could not act. I always wondered why he was chosen to play the part. Was he somehow related to someone connected with the movie? For me, it's the one flaw in an otherwise flawless movie. I LOVE this movie, so I'm glad to see Rob head off to school never to return home.

reply

I had no problem with this actor. He had such a small part that he really couldn't show us what he's capable of...

~~
JimHutton (1934-79) & ElleryQueen

reply

He stank.

reply

I will agree that the part where she dramatically drops onto the bed and starts crying is very overdramatic and a couple of people in my class were laughing at that part believe it or not. But when Peggy says she's gonna break up Fred and Marie's marriage, I feel like that's at a point where the audience wakes up and sees that Peggy is still a teenager or at least coming together as a woman but isn't quite there yet. She believes that because two people aren't happy that means that gives them the right to break up a marriage but that is how teenagers think as well. So it shows that Fred did need to end things with Peggy on the phone until he got his marriage straighten out with Marie.

reply

Probably just as well that her father stepped in to say a few words to Fred. And Fred was mature enough to avoid Peggy until he and Marie broke up. He could have told off Peggy's father, but he respected both her and her dad too much to do that.

~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍

reply

Once he got back home Fred quickly realized he had jumped into a bad marriage. Bad for both him and Marie. He's dealing with the emotional trauma of that problem and at the same time as part of the problem he can see in Peggy the kind of girl with whom he could have built a solid marriage.

Peggy is a little more level headed than he was when he first met Marie, but she too is letting her emotions override her judgment. Both of them are allowing their emotions to take them down a path fraught with problems and complications.

Al is the stern father motivated to protect his daughter. But as he says he also has a liking for Fred. In his confrontation he points out that what Fred is doing is wrong. And Fred realizes that Al is correct.

It might not make as much sense to the "do your own thing" crowd today, but in the moral climate of the 1940's Fred couldn't argue with what he knew was right.

***
It's easier to be an individual than a god.

reply

I don't think that this has anything to do with morals. If Peggy had been some woman whom Fred picked up somewhere for a quick fling, then he would have had the affair and that would have been it. This sort of thing happened in the 1940s, too. I think that he cared for Peggy (as well as her reputation) and respected her too much to have the affair. Plus, he was friends with her family.

If he really wanted to have an affair with someone, he would have gone to a bar and picked up some chick there for a one-night stand. He didn't want that. He wanted to be with Peggy for the rest of his life.

~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍

reply

I'm going to stick to my position.

I really do see the issue of "right and wrong" as a part of Fred's dilemma. That's not to say that it was unknown at that time for people to have affairs. Of course they did. Nor is it to say that Fred wasn't the kind of person who could yield to temptation.

But what makes the situation of the 1940's different from today is the difference in what kinds of conduct were officially proclaimed as proper and acceptable and how those official attitudes universally accepted as correct by the cultural environment in which the individual lived affected his own thoughts and attitudes.

A person in the 1940's might have an affair and not have a guilty conscience about it. But at the same time he could recognize that what he was doing was taught and believed by society to be wrong. And he himself could also accept that it was wrong even though this was not going to stop him from doing it. It was not a thought process of "I going to do it because I don't think it's really wrong." It was more like "I know it's wrong but I don't care. I'm going to do it anyway."

During this time it was certainly considered to be wrong for a married man to become involved with another woman. Divorce was also widely regarded as morally wrong even though the laws allowed it. So when Fred saw himself tied to Marie who he no longer loved and attracted to Peggy instead society did not offer the fine and dandy solution acceptable to everyone of simply divorcing Marie and marrying Peggy. It would be legal to do this but the culture in which he lived would not have approved.

Fred understood this and it added to his sense of being trapped. So when Al confronted him and very quickly brought up the point that he had a wife Fred couldn't answer. Yes he respected Peggy and had a friendship with Al. Those too were factors. But even if they hadn't been part of the equation Fred had just been reminded that this was wrong. And he couldn't argue with that.

***
It's easier to be an individual than a god.

reply

Oh, people weren't THAT different back then. I know that the movies show that people before about 1965 had more morals, a conscience, etc., but in reality, some things haven't changed THAT much. I'd just like to kindly point out that Marie was carrying on with another man (without a guilty conscience) and that she assumed that Fred had had his flings with women whom he met in French bars.

As for divorce talk, I recommend you check out films released before the production code was put into place. For starters, there is the 1920s silent film called Doomsday (starring Florence Vidor), which showed a different side to marriage/divorce before 1965. The 1933 films Baby Face and The Kiss Before the Mirror are worth a look, too. Sorry, but films released when the production code was in place aren't exactly a measure of reality.

(I got an earful about morals on the board for Sunday in New York...a film starring the very moral Jane Fonda.... ...and of course the usual "today's generations don't know/don't understand" crap on that board as well. If people are going to lecture my generation about pre-1965 morals, they should at least stick to movies not starring Jane Fonda. )

If Fred wanted to cheat on his wife the way she was cheating on him, he would have found himself a girlfriend. He just realized that the woman couldn't be Peggy. In fact, maybe he even did go out and have a one-night stand. It's just that the director didn't need to show this.

~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍

reply

The movie Sunday in New York isn't one that I follow so I had to make a special visit to read that "earful about morals" you mention. I think it gives me a little more understanding of your sentiments regarding that kind of discussion.

I never saw my own participation in the subject of this thread as a case of looking down on and disparaging a younger person from a newer generation. And I still don't. If I have any ability to know my own mind I can honestly state that this isn't the way I think. I didn't know what your age is and the thought never crossed my mind to wonder about it. I respect it when someone posts an intelligent and well stated message, and I've always thought your various posts were well written.

And I really don't think there's very much difference in the way we view this particular issue as it is portrayed in BYOOL. So I'll just give some thought to some of the things you posted and elaborate on my views regarding the way the issue of "right and wrong" affected Fred's reaction to the dressing down Al gave him.

I agree that people weren't that different back then. Not in terms of human nature. And I don't believe I claimed that they were. You cited a silent movie from the 1920's and two from 1933 which show people engaged in marriages/divorces/affairs where considerations of love, honor and the accepted standard of morality were not part of the arrangement. I tried to think of other examples that could also be cited. The ones that quickly came to mind were the historical examples of Lady Caroline Lamb and the complicated marital situation between Andrew Jackson and his wife Rachel--which was portrayed in the movie The President's Lady . And from the realm of fiction I thought of Anna Karenina and Sister Carrie.

What does make a difference is that people in all times have to adapt to the environment in which they live. In any culture there are those who are the leaders. They will dictate and proclaim to everyone else the standards of what is right and proper and what isn't--from their point of view. There will also usually be those who insist on marching to a different drummer, but the great majority will go along and conform to and vocally support the official standard coming down from the leadership, regardless of what their own inner wishes and feelings might be. Put Oliver Cromwell in charge and everyone will live a Puritan lifestyle--if they don't want to stir up trouble for themselves. Replace Cromwell with Charles II and it's party time.

Films are not necessarily a measure of reality regardless of whether they were made before, during or after the Production Code. But they tend to reflect the times in which they were produced. The old standards of morality were certainly shifting in 1946. The book Virtue Under Fire is a detailed examination of how World War II impacted attitudes toward sexual relations. So when Marie has affairs, without a guilty conscience, when she suggests that Fred had had flings when he was away, when Fred and Peggy let their mutual attraction lead them onto potentially dangerous ground, this is a valid reflection of the actual times.

But if virtue was under fire it had by no means been discarded. The old standards of morality were still the official standards and everyone knew it. Fred knew it. Al made his argument to Fred based on those standards. "What about your wife?" And Fred understood the point.


***
It's easier to be an individual than a god.

reply

Thanks for the detailed reply. Okay, so Fred understood the point when Al asked him where Fred's wife fits into the picture. If someone had asked Marie where her hubby fits into the picture when she was carrying on with what's-his-face, she wouldn't have cared.

I think that there are plenty of people today who could be asked "what about your spouse?" and they would know exactly what that means. Some folks would think twice about having the affair, while others would not. It has nothing to do with generational issues. Different people have different ideas about morality, that's all.

The one film from the twenties which I mentioned does have divorce mentioned. The two from 1933 deal more with adultery than with divorce. Perhaps those two from 1933 aren't the best examples, but my point was that adultery was discussed in film back then. All three movies are well worth a look, if you can find them.

~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍

reply

No what Fred said made perfect sense. Even during that period they portrayed the home wreckers in a good light when the home they were wrecking was doomed anyways.

reply

Good point about the home wreckers. If a marriage is stable, it would be pretty much impossible for someone to come along and break it up. It's easy to point fingers at the so-called home wreckers, but even if they make themselves scarce, the marriage still won't work if it's a bad marriage. Peggy's dad had Fred break it off with her, and yet the Fred-Marie marriage still didn't last. It didn't last because the couple wasn't in love anymore.

~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍

reply

she just needed some chill pills.



🎄Season's Greetings!🎄

reply