MovieChat Forums > The Best Years of Our Lives (1947) Discussion > After punching out the radical activist,...

After punching out the radical activist, Fred shoulda...


...given "Sticky" Merkle a swift boot in the hiney!

What would Fred have to lose?

(1.) Sticky wasn't even close to being as bad as the activist, but still deserved some sort of comeuppance for being the self-important jerk he was.

(2.) Doling out the hay-maker to the radical trouble maker was grounds enough for dismissal but no jury would ever convict Fred for assault against that loser; and dealing with Sticky in the manner I suggested would have been a nice little coupe de gras.

(3.) It would have been highly unlikely that Fred would have been jailed for so dealing with Sticky, either. In the old days, kicking someone in the seat of his pants was considered more of an insult and less of the "injury" that it's now considered to be in this day and age.

I guess Fred wanted to leave well enough alone, but in any case Sticky was the type who boot-licked his superiors and lorded it over Fred with the seniority that he (Sticky) had accumulated after Fred's first tenure at the drug store. Fred, years before, had left the store to do his bit for the country at war, while Sticky reaped the benefits of remaining behind and advancing his position as an employee while men like Fred gave of their own blood, sweat, tears and even their very lives to safeguard Sticky's way of life! And what was the first thing Sticky said to a co-worker when he noticed Fred, not yet re-hired, dropping in to feel the place out? Something to the effect that "these service men will take away our jobs!"

Man, that really burns me up! Sticky is SUCH an ungrateful little "fill-in-the-blank!" For THAT remark ALONE, he deserved to be horse whipped!

Yeah, a 10-15 seconds long added scene of Sticky Merkle getting his just desserts in SOME manner, "swift boot to the hiney" or otherwise, would have lent just a little bit more satisfaction in an otherwise monumentally great motion picture.

reply

Careful about condemning based on surface appearances. Yes, Sticky (who I thought was called Stinky until just now) seemed like a total weenie, but we don't know his full story. Did he perhaps try to enlist but was unable to pass the physical? If so, might he feel guilty about living stateside while so many of his peers were overseas facing the perils of war? We don't know. We can safely surmise that he needed his job just as badly as did each of the many hundreds of thousands of returning vets with whom he was suddenly competing. Which is not to say I wouldn't have chuckled at him getting a boot to the butt.

I have seen enough to know I have seen too much. -- ALOTO

reply

I don't think it was really necessary to hit the guy. He could have just seperated them.

reply

If it was anyone else other than his new pal Homer, yeah he probably would have tried to break up the confrontation- but it was too soon after the war and the guy hit a nerve with the two vets.

reply

I don't think I'd characterize the critic at the lunch counter as a "radical activist". He was far from it. Based on his comments, I'd say his views were more along the lines of the "America First Committee" or the German American Bund.

reply


I don't think I'd characterize the critic at the lunch counter as a "radical activist". He was far from it. Based on his comments, I'd say his views were more along the lines of the "America First Committee" or the German American Bund.


I agree. His lines show him to be either an isolationist or a pro-fascist. His full range of opinions was originally supposed to be even clearer, from what I've read.

Sherwood and Wyler butted heads with the censors on several things, including the lines for the guy at the lunch counter.

The original script had him saying, "The Japs and the Germans had nothing against us. They just wanted to fight the Limeys and the Reds. And they'd have whipped them too, if we hadn't been deceived into it by a bunch of radicals and Jew-lovers in Washington."

Joseph Breen insisted that the reference to "Jew-lovers" be removed.

The censors also had issues with the amount of drinking, and thought that Fred and Marie breaking up was disrespectful to the sanctity of marriage. ๎€› The filmmakers insisted on Fred and Marie's breakup.

reply

Come Jan. 20, 2017, the entire United States government will be under the control of the "America First" fascists as represented in this film. Just look how much they love Vladimir Putin.
The question remains: What are We the People going to do about that.

reply

Idiot.

reply

Radical Right!

reply

Stinky did deserve his comeuppance and would have been right cinematically. But in this realistic drama, the Stinkys of the world had taken over and prevail to this day.

reply

Sure the radical deserved to be clocked, but Andrews was lucky he wasn't tossed in the slammer for that assault. But that is what separates real life from life in the movies.

reply

No, wrong what occurred in the movie was probably more like real life back then- it wouldn't have even gone to court in those days once it was found out the radical was tangling with a disabled war vet with two hooks for hands!

reply

Andrews may not have been convicted but certainly would have been arrested. Law and Order prevailed in small towns of that era.

reply

Not unless the radical pressed charges against Fred,and he himself wasn't questioned about fighting with a disabled man. Fred was defending his disabled friend it could be argued also. It wasn't a small town anyway- it wasn't Mayberry- it was "Boone City" modeled after Cincinnati, Ohio. Oh yeah law and order prevailed, really? I can just imagine the cops arriving and hearing all the evidence and deciding Fred got punishment enough being fired and the radical got what he deserved just like most of us felt, case closed. I bet you'd give Sticky a raise for quickly ratting out Fred to his boss, because justice was served.

reply

In a Middle America town like Cincinnati, Andrews would have been arrested,but this scene and the fact the incident was soon dropped in the narrative, demonstrates that you are watching a Hollywood movie. It distorts an otherwise true-to-life story.

reply

Not necessarily. In 1946 I'd wager there were a lot more disputes solved with a punch in the nose. Unlike today when the immediate response is call a cop, whine, and lawyer-up . . . not a particularly masculine response back in the day. There are times when I'm a little sorry we've changed so drastically in the latter direction.

reply

In a bar,you're right. But not in a public place with women and kids present.

reply

Well . . . not so sure about that either. A student did it at Harvard once to an anti-Americana protester in the 60's when a Newsweek photog. was present. The picture made it into the mag. My dad (Fred's generation) was proud of the kid. . . So was I.

reply

I trust your dad had the presence of mind not to slug anyone in public, unlike Dana.

reply

When he was young (his nickname was "Spike" at the time) -- he did. Got slugged a few times himself, too. To my knowledge, no such occurrences led to a lawsuit.

reply

My Cousin Vinnie wasn't as lucky.

reply

Had Vinnie lived during Fred's time (and Spike's), perhaps he wouldn't have cared. ๎€น

reply

Vincenzo did live in that era but not much beyond it.

reply

๎€ต

reply

A frown maybe an upside down smile, but tilt on its side, and you're mooning someone. That I like.

reply

To clarify, the frown was intended to indicate sadness -- that your cousin did not live much beyond his prime. That's all. I like the "mooning" angle, too.

reply

So after a war where millions fought and died in defense of free speech, the "activist" deserved to be punched out? Besides, if you watch the scene, Wilmer attacked him first, the guy was only trying to prevent his hooks from ripping his flesh.

reply

In a word -- yes. Believing someone "deserves" to be punched isn't the same as believing such an act should be acceptable behavior under the law. The soldiers who fought and died on behalf of the principle weren't above, occasionally, punching each other out and taking the consequences.

reply

So after a war where millions fought and died in defense of free speech, the "activist" deserved to be punched out? Besides, if you watch the scene, Wilmer attacked him first, the guy was only trying to prevent his hooks from ripping his flesh.


Ummm, NO. It's 1945-46, where you will find few if any WWII veteran / amputees "ripping the flesh" of jerks like the America Firster. I don't think the s.o.b. was afraid he'd get slashed by the hooks anymore than I think Wilmer was going to slash the guy, and I also doubt either man had any intent to do bodily harm to the other; but the exchange between the two became heated and the antagonist was grossly disrespectful. He got what he deserved.

Kudos to actor Ray Teal, best known today as the sheriff and Ben Cartwright's friend in "Bonanza" and as Spencer Tracy's fellow court justice in JUDGEMENT AT NUREMBERG, for securing one of the "Kodak moments" of memorable movie scenes in cinema as the "America First" type. Teal stole that scene and it will forever remain a feather in his cap.

Secret Message, HERE!--->CONGRATULATIONS!!! You've discovered the Secret Message!

reply

he himself wasn't questioned about fighting with a disabled man.


Hey, wait a minute, that customer never laid a hand on Homer. Homer was the one that went over to threaten the guy. Just because the guy is a disable veteran, that doesn't mean he should get a free pass picking fights with people. People are seriously overreacting to that character. Disagree with him, fine. But, what's the point in picking fights and sending the guy to the hospital (as if that wasn't "comeuppance" enough)? That was just savage incivility on the parts of the "veterans."

Homer was even petty enough to strip the American Flag pin off the guy, then stole the pin after the guy was taken away! I guess the point was to show how "patriotic" he was. But, he just seemed like a petty jerk to me.

Whether people like it or not, Fred was in the wrong for violently knocking that guy into the glass display. Even if I could sympathize with Fred for being misunderstood by certain citizens, but as his boss, there is no way I would've kept him as an employee after that stunt. As dislikable as Fred's boss is, I don't blame him for firing him.

reply

[deleted]

This thread angers me so much, your response will be the last time I read it. These other responses about "disable" veterans and praising communists are moral filth.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

yes, just say no to the commies.


๐ŸŽ„Season's Greetings!๐ŸŽ„

reply

[deleted]

Ha, true.

And that was a different kind of radical. One wanting to keep out of war and, at the same time, saying that America is great.. Different than radicals of today (and since the sixties).

All Movie Reviews www.cultfilmfreaks.com

reply

Dropped him out of a bomber. :-)

reply

If Fred were to deck that idiot activist guy today, he'd be arrested, do a year or two for assault, be on probation for a few more years, and get his ass sued back to the stone age (not that he had much to lose financially at that point in his life). It's just not the good old days anymore when some dickhead gives you lip and you can plant your fist in his stupid mug then walk away satisfied.

reply

Would any jury convict him? I wouldn't.

reply

Me neither.

reply