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 »
Silly Caucasian Girl Likes to Play with Samurai Swords
I heard that a teenager was questioned by the Secret Service after she posted an icon saying "Kill Bush" on her myspace page. My companions were up in arms over it, saying that's a violation of free speech and how dare they scare her, et cetera. I don't see how she was charged with any crime or how this how this disrupts anything but her school day. Go »His Name is Bond
[Spoilers for Casino Royale.] One of my favorite bits of any fan-invented mythology is the identity of 007: It is held by some series fans (and me) that "James Bond" is merely a codename. When one Bond is killed or retires, another one takes his place and assumes the same name, which is why you see a different actor every decade and the man doesn't age despite having been around since the Kennedy administration. Go »Nuts and Veggies
If you haven't heard, VeggieTales is coming to NBC. Without reference to God. And the creator feels duped. Go »Solitaire
Right now, I don't think I could write emotionally about my feelings from last night as well as I could have in the moment, but I haven't finished considering them and this is a part of that process. Long story short, I found myself passing on friends who really wanted to spend time with me in order to sit here and write code for Celebrity Goo Game, and I came to question what the hell I was doing. As in, my whole lifestyle. 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.