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 »
House Hunted
I'm not superstitious, or I wouldn't say this until the closing next month: Kelly and I are buying a house. It's a great house, too, with a guest bedroom and a pool, and the neighbor training horses in the back yard every day, and plenty of room for just about whatever we'd want to do with it, at a lower price than similar houses around here. It's not a hundred percent perfect but damn if it ain't close. Go »Survivor Guilty
As a longtime Survivor viewer, I've been bothered by its slow decline. Some of the show's problems are apparent on its surface, like Jeff Probst's appalling gender bias and the show's overemphasis on tacky "themes" for the season. But I got to thinking about what's wrong under the surface, on a conceptual level. Go »Not to Be Confused with Denise Sawicki
It's been two months since I first mentioned my new love Denise on the site. She's overdue for a proper introduction, since I plan to continue mentioning her on a first-name basis around here. (I don't know why some men continue to tell me about their woman by calling her "my wife" or "my girlfriend" even though I've known her and socialized with her for years.) Go »Shoulda Seen It Coming
The news that Princeton's infamous ESP research lab is soon to close (link) is both heartening and a little disappointing. On one hand, if there's anything at all to ESP, then skeptics should have no objection to private donations funding some bonafide scientific research into it – no harm done except for a hint of legitimacy. On the other hand, this lab was a black bruise for Princeton and its "findings" were routinely debunked, and a facility investigating exceptional claims must have exceptional adherence to scientific standards. Go »Party Time, Excellent
I rarely enjoy going to parties and I never drink, so it has come as a surprise to me that I have lately developed a love of hosting parties where friends drink. Kelly and I have thrown three parties in three months, each with around 20-25 guests: A Labor Day cookout with swimming in the pool, a Halloween party with costumes and horror games, and a Christmas party with a gift swap. I think we're done for a little while, just to give ourselves a break, because it takes a lot of cleaning and shopping and preparing to throw parties like this. 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.