Rethinking Forrest Gump
by Scott Hardie on October 6, 2006
Inspired by a conversation this past weekend, I've been thinking about the once-popular movie Forrest Gump. It has fallen out of favor with people who prefer its contemporaries Pulp Fiction and The Shawshank Redemption and believe it robbed them of Oscars, but to me all three films are good. Gump succeeds because of a lot of factors, but consider its acting and its visual effects. I've often heard it said that a bad performance is when you're aware it's only an actor playing a role instead of disappearing into it convincingly. Tom Hanks had starred in a dozen box-office hits by that point in his career and was the reiging Best Actor from the year before, and yet despite his familiarity to millions of moviegoers, some people still believed he was genuinely retarded because he played Gump so well. That's acting! Along the same lines, the best visual effects are said to be the ones you never notice. Gary Sinise was unknown then, but some people actually thought he was a legless actor, or even more outrageously, that he actually had his legs amputated for the role! Either the acting and the special effects were so very good as to lead people to outlandish conclusions as plausible explanations for them, or the audience for the film was as dumb as its hero. Even I'm not cynical enough to believe the latter.
One Reply to Rethinking Forrest Gump
Logical Operator
The creator of Funeratic, Scott Hardie, blogs about running this site, losing weight, and other passions including his wife Kelly, his friends, movies, gaming, and Florida. Read more »
Other Contents Under Pressure
"So this guy is on a dinner date, and he has terrible gas, but he waits because he doesn't want to be embarrassed. When they get back to her house, he can't wait any longer. He desperately asks where her bathroom is, and she says first door on the left. Go »A Pet Peeve That's Actually About My Pet
How come I can't get through the grocery checkout lane without the clerk or the bagger commenting about how many cans of cat food I buy, which inevitably leads to questions about how many cats I own, how much I feed them, and why I need so many cans? Has nobody in this state heard of stocking up? For their information, I have one cat who eats two 3-oz cans of food a day, which is more than a typical cat but not unheard-of. Go »Goodbye Dooce
Dooce.com has given me a lot of laughs over the years, and it's one of the few weblogs I have made a point to visit every day. But lately I just can't get past how much Heather bashes her husband, and with increasing viciousness. Go »What's Funnier Than a Heart Attack?
Everything, but especially finding out that it's not a heart attack. The pain started after I finished my usual Tuesday dinner with my mom at 8pm. I stood up to leave, and stiffness shot up my back and across my chest. Go »Open Letter to a Lab Technician at Manatee Memorial Hospital
Just a few things that I would have liked to have said if I could have gotten a word in edgewise: - Yes, there is a strong correlation between ultra-processed food and obesity, but so far, no causal connection has been proven. - No, organic produce is not *all* covered in pesticides anyway, although some is farmed using non-synthetic pesticide and some winds up exposed to synthetic pesticide anyway for a variety of reasons. - Bill Gates promotes and invests in soy-based meat replacements because he believes that soy products are better for the environment and for human health. Go »
Kris Weberg | October 15, 2006
The acting in Forrest Gump is fine. The problem with the film is thatr, aside from being a rather nice little tour of popular accounts of American history, it doesn't really add up to much of anything. The moral seems to be that simple-minded platitudes and a certain obliviousness equate to virtue. The plot is simply a contrivance to insert Forrest into as many recent historical events as possible without having much to say about any of them.
It looks very nice and it's quite pleasant for the running time (at least on a first viewing), but it's a fairly pointless film when all is said and done. And that, more than anything else, is why its reputation has suffered in comparison to the moral challenges of Pulp Fiction and the meatier study of virtue and character in The Shawshank Redemption.