954. SnowOwl - 10/10/99 11:59:07
PM
Cal,
Hate was probably too strong a word to use, but I disliked what I
felt was the overt manipulation and political subtext. Sure,
there were some fun bits and I thought Hanks did a good job, but
in general it left me uncomfortable. Having said that, I probably
wasn't in the best frame of mind to watch it anyway - I'd just
lost a fight with my husband over whether to watch the movie or
what promised to be an excellent British play.
955. Dantheman - 10/11/99 6:29:37
AM
CalGal,
My objection to Forrest Gump is that it forces down people's
throats a very popular and very wrong view of the history of the
baby boom generation. Is that what you meant by the "pious
shit"?
956. CalGal - 10/11/99 7:08:51 AM
My objection to Forrest Gump is that it forces down people's
throats a very popular and very wrong view of the history of the
baby boom generation.
I don't think it forces anything down one's throat. But then--as
the discussion on 12 Angry Men might have shown--I don't fuss
much over the little stuff. I didn't view it as a history of the
baby boom generation, rather than two paths through the extremes
of a particular time.
I certainly didn't see any history portrayed incorrectly.
976. CalGal - 10/11/99 11:03:52 AM
Dan,
Heavens. What difference does it make whether or not FG is the
definitive version of boomer history? I don't think it described
anything inaccurately--just incompletely.
If the reason I liked the movie had to do with its portrayal of
boomer history, then I suppose we could argue about whether or
not it captured the troubling era in all its many faces. But I've
already said that I enjoyed it for other reasons.
I think the more conceivable criticism is the complaint that the
movie lectured. Shrug. I would argue that those who saw it as a
lecture probably misread the tone. Or perhaps I did--in which
case, I'm happy for it. I'm all for misinterpretations saving me
from hating a movie.
It is also possible that the movie intended to be
something more than I perceived it. Oh, well. See my previous
comments on the unimportance of intent. For whatever reason, I
enjoyed the movie for its love story, the way that they made his
accomplishments believable, and the meeting up of the different
story lines.
It's not like I'm claiming it's a classic of the modern era. I
just liked it more than others did.
977. Dantheman - 10/11/99 11:22:23
AM
CalGal,
I think you're misunderstanding me. I am not stating that view
presented by the movie (shared by many other icons of the boomers),
that the struggles faced by the boomers were unique and that they
singlehandedly cured the world's problems over the resistence of
their elders, was incomplete, just laughably wrongheaded.
What love story? Robin Wright's character made it very clear that
she wanted nothing to do with Gump until she was dying and needed
someone to care for her kid. Does the movie provide any reason to
suspect that if she didn't contract AIDS that he would have ever
seen her again? He loved her throughout, but it takes 2 parties
to have a love story.
The visual effects and Hanks' acting were great, and provided the
sole reasons to see the movie.
981. CalGal - 10/11/99 12:26:33 PM
Dan,
Where do you see the movie presenting the struggles faced by
boomers as unique? Or that they cured the world problems? I saw
no such presentation. You seem to be bringing that to the movie.
As for Jenny's character, I disagree to a certain extent. In the
first place, she did love him as part of her past--the only good
thing that came from it. There are various things that wouldn't
have happened if she hadn't have loved him--her kindness after he
beat up her date, her joy at finding him at the Washington
Monument (still my favorite point of the movie), her returning to
visit when she needed to recharge.
Was she using him? I don't think so. I would say that she took
his love for granted. But then, so did he take her love for
granted. They were both kind to each other at times when no one
else was. Given that the movie doesn't provide her motivations, I
think you have to look at what they did show, which was
that she never betrayed him to others, never sold him out or
bailed out on him to avoid looking bad in front of her friends.
She also never asked for money--and only asked for his help with
her son when it was clear she was dying.
Given all that, I think you need to find another explanation for
her behavior than some sort of callous usage of Forrest. With her
history, I think there are plenty of other believable reasons.
982. Dantheman - 10/11/99 12:37:19
PM
CalGal,
By your own admission, you missed the preachiness of the movie (which
no shortage of other eMoters have noted).
As to Jenny's motivations, I don't think they consituted love in
any romantic sense. They were friendly throughout and she took
pity on him, but nothing more.
983. Raskolnikov - 10/11/99 12:45:48
PM
I don't hate Gump, I just see it as an inconsequential little
comedy with failed aspirations toward significance. My main gripe
with it as that it avoids any real commentary on what happens. It
is just a very brief travelogue through Boomer history, and says
nothing about it.
But I did laugh quite a bit, and thought Hanks' and Sinise's
performances were quite good.
987. CalGal - 10/11/99 12:58:29 PM
Dan,
Actually, I said that I might have missed the preachiness.
In other words, I was allowing that as a possibility. Equally
possible is that the preachiness wasn't there. Thus far in my
debates on Gump, I haven't seen a compelling argument for
preachiness that doesn't rely on something external to the movie--which
doesn't generally count.
Most people, incidentally, have just said they hated it. I don't
know if they hate it because it was preachy.
As to Jenny's motivations, I don't think they consituted love
in any romantic sense. They were friendly throughout and she took
pity on him, but nothing more.
I don't recall saying that it was love in the romantic sense.
That being said, your second sentence is woefully inaccurate.
I would say Rask's assessment of it is closer to my own, except I
never much care if a movie pretends to significance if I don't
see it in the movie itself. Zemeckis might have preened himself
on it, critics might have vaunted or castigated it based on its
supposed significance-- but if it didn't carry into the movie, I
don't care much about it. I didn't see it in the movie itself.
And I would have disliked the movie if it had provided commentary--that
was, in fact, one of the reasons I enjoyed it.
989. Raskolnikov - 10/11/99 1:16:57
PM
How could you not see the attempts at significance in Gump? The
most obvious example is his monologue on Jenny's grave, about
whether we are guided by God or by random chance.
992. CalGal - 10/11/99 1:50:22 PM
Rask,
That's the "significance"? Heavens. That was pretty
mild. And also in keeping with the movie and the character, given
his life. I thought you meant "significance" in some
great cosmic "this is the quintessential essence of the
boomers" philosophical sense.
994. Raskolnikov - 10/11/99 2:06:43
PM
"That's the "significance"? Heavens. That was
pretty mild. And also in keeping with the movie and the
character, given his life. I thought you meant "significance"
in some great cosmic "this is the quintessential essence of
the boomers" philosophical sense."
Well, that was my point. Its attempts at significance weren't
very important, but they were certainly there, and took up a huge
chunk of screen time.
