J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
David Jimerson said:
:beer:
Forrest Gump...
- Thread starter Brandon Rice
- Start date
:beer:
LittleJimbo
New member
Vietnam, AIDS, historical events, etc.
These are all elements of a real world, and all the other characters are subject to its laws. History is the terrain of the narrative. This means that the only fantasy defined character is Gump, for he is the only one that moves beyond the consequences of real life. This would mean that he, without a better word, is a superhero of sorts. A character contrived to breeze through life like a feather, bringing a fantastical, invulnerable(to quote Gleiberman's review) touch to the people of this real world with his simple idiot philosophy.
This is a major reason that the films has no teeth for me. Because when it suits the story, Gump is able to transcend whatever obstacle he encounters. The laws and logic are only subject to Gump. In this regard Gump is never at risk. The transcendence is erratic and vacilitating, 'cause I know no rules really apply to him. I feel like the movie is constantly cheating to achieve make people cry, or laugh, etc. It rings hollow for me.
As far as glossing over complex issues of the latter 20th century....just because you define something as fantasy does not mean that it gives one the write to use melodramitic mechanisms to gloss over events that are rich and complex with a shallow entertaining touch. This is really where the movie leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
There have been films that use fantasy to deftly explore real life events and subjects that strike poignant and informative chords. Angels in America is a strong example. So is the British mini-series The Singing Detective(not the awful Hollywood remake).
All in all I equate this film more with the light-as-air Hollywood romantic comedies that are spewed on us like M&M's.
These are all elements of a real world, and all the other characters are subject to its laws. History is the terrain of the narrative. This means that the only fantasy defined character is Gump, for he is the only one that moves beyond the consequences of real life. This would mean that he, without a better word, is a superhero of sorts. A character contrived to breeze through life like a feather, bringing a fantastical, invulnerable(to quote Gleiberman's review) touch to the people of this real world with his simple idiot philosophy.
This is a major reason that the films has no teeth for me. Because when it suits the story, Gump is able to transcend whatever obstacle he encounters. The laws and logic are only subject to Gump. In this regard Gump is never at risk. The transcendence is erratic and vacilitating, 'cause I know no rules really apply to him. I feel like the movie is constantly cheating to achieve make people cry, or laugh, etc. It rings hollow for me.
As far as glossing over complex issues of the latter 20th century....just because you define something as fantasy does not mean that it gives one the write to use melodramitic mechanisms to gloss over events that are rich and complex with a shallow entertaining touch. This is really where the movie leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
There have been films that use fantasy to deftly explore real life events and subjects that strike poignant and informative chords. Angels in America is a strong example. So is the British mini-series The Singing Detective(not the awful Hollywood remake).
All in all I equate this film more with the light-as-air Hollywood romantic comedies that are spewed on us like M&M's.
LittleJimbo
New member
Fantasy/Dreams is usually used by art and people to escape unbearable reality. Both films I cited do this incredibly! With Gump the two are intemeshed. This is a very tricky world to navigate as a writer, indeed. I don't think Zemeckis is capable of this task. Nor do I think the source material is ripe for the picking. I think this movie is an entertaining mess of conflicting narrative laws.
Gump is the storyteller, the narrative is told through his perspective. Sure the "laws of the universe" are bent for the story, but that's Gump's POV. To complain that it isn't real I think misses the point. I love it when these conversations take a turn for the absurd. :beer:
rogar-Smoke(DBG):rogar-Mark-07(DBG):crybaby:
:huh:
rogar-Smoke(DBG):rogar-Mark-07(DBG):crybaby::huh:
LittleJimbo said:
I'm pretty sure you completely missed the point.
Forrest Gump doesn't center on a man's disconnect from what is real. It is his pureness and lack of affectation that allows him to accomplish remarkable things.
His life is the true and pure reality, while the hazy dreams and nightmares that follow in parallel belong to the world around him as experienced in the first-person by Jenny (and just about everyone around him).
Although she is seemingly adrift throughout the piece, it is Jenny (and his mother, of course) who guide Forrest through every experience and relationship he encounters on his way back to them. I've always thought that the feather isn't Forrest - it's really Jenny. She comes back to him at the top of the movie when he is sitting on the bench (which is really the last act of the movie) and only leaves him again when she knows that he is okay with his son. He finally lets her go in that conversation under that old tree.
Lieutenant Dan is saved by Forrest as he is saved by Jenny. They are rewarded with relationships that are blind to any outside influence, force or factor.
Forrest Gump is an example of a person we could all stand to emulate a bit more and I think Bob Z. gets it better than just about anyone else.
e
His life is the true and pure reality, while the hazy dreams and nightmares that follow in parallel belong to the world around him as experienced in the first-person by Jenny (and just about everyone around him).
Although she is seemingly adrift throughout the piece, it is Jenny (and his mother, of course) who guide Forrest through every experience and relationship he encounters on his way back to them. I've always thought that the feather isn't Forrest - it's really Jenny. She comes back to him at the top of the movie when he is sitting on the bench (which is really the last act of the movie) and only leaves him again when she knows that he is okay with his son. He finally lets her go in that conversation under that old tree.
Lieutenant Dan is saved by Forrest as he is saved by Jenny. They are rewarded with relationships that are blind to any outside influence, force or factor.
Forrest Gump is an example of a person we could all stand to emulate a bit more and I think Bob Z. gets it better than just about anyone else.
e
Last edited:
