Movies: Last Movie You Watched and Rate It | Part#: Some High Number +3

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

"The film is nonpolitical and thus nonjudgmental" —Tom Hanks

"All over the political map, people have been calling Forrest their own. But, Forrest Gump isn't about politics or conservative values. It's about humanity, it's about respect, tolerance and unconditional love."
—producer Steve Tisch

Tisch is a contributor to Democratic candidates, as are director Zemeckis and Hanks. The film was basically made by Democrats, and left-leaning Hollywood awarded it 6 Academy Awards, including Best Picture. I think that your interpretation is off and influenced by your politics more than by the film's. Something that I keep reading about the film is that it's actually so apolitical that it invites interpretation. For whatever reason, conservatives interpreted it positively and embraced it during the "Republican Revolution" of 1994 and it's had a reputation as a "conservative" film ever since. I think that that, in turn, has cultivated a backlash against the film from some on the left who feel that they need to put it down for that reason. It's unfortunate, IMO, especially because it's such an innocent, feel-good film. In fact, you could say that it's a completely uncynical movie, which raises the question of how cynical we have gotten as a society if we're now turned off by that.

Here's an excellent article on the subject:
Should "Forrest Gump" be viewed as conservative propaganda | ScreenPrism

Also, for those who have seen A Quiet Place (because it contains spoilers), here's a terrific video analysis of a similar situation with that film:

Spoiler

Science-fiction has been living with this double-reading since forever. Teaching it, Invasion of the Body Snatchers is the most common object for examplifying it. Ironically, that little video made me appreciate A Quiet Place a lot more than I originally did.

 

[Osprey]

Science-fiction has been living with this double-reading since forever. Teaching it, Invasion of the Body Snatchers is the most common object for examplifying it. Ironically, that little video made me appreciate A Quiet Place a lot more than I originally did.

Yeah, I didn't like A Quiet Place when I saw it, either, but that video made me feel like giving it another chance. It's not that I disliked it because of any interpretation (how people were reading into it was news to me until I saw that video), but just knowing that there's likely nothing to interpret helps my appreciation. I'm kind of the opposite of most people in that I tend to appreciate films more when they aren't socially relevant or carry a message. I find it distracting and uncomfortable when it feels like there's a lesson being pushed in my face, even if it's a lesson that I agree with. If anything, I indulge in entertainment to get away from the real world. I understand why others prefer there to be deeper meanings, but I find it refreshing and honest when a film is about nothing more than it pretends to be. Perhaps it's the difference between viewing film as art and viewing it as entertainment.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

I for one, would love to read a ProstheticConcscience review for Forest Gump.

I guess I've got time on my hands these days. It couldn't be any worse than:

Hungerford

with annoying British people

Another take in the tired, non-budget, single-camera "idiot brings his GoPro to the apocalypse" genre. The idiot here is Cowen, a 19, 20ish English partier lad with 80's glam band hair, and he tirelessly films his flatmates and fellow partiers Adam, Adam's sister Philippa (Phil), and the geeky guy Kip who lives upstairs and stands by himself in the corner wearing headphones at parties. One hungover morning, they see a huge explosion off in the distance which creates weird glowing clouds. Huh. Oh well. Off they go to a party, bicker with their friends, Cowen goes through drama with a chick he's sweet on...and the occasional person puking blood barely makes a blip on their radar. Soon though, more people start acting up. Someone kicks in their door, attacks the squad, and they end up killing him...and noticing this weird wound on the back of his neck they didn't make. Also huh. They toss him in the dumpster outside and go to bed. Seriously. But then more and more people are freaking on them, and when vanquished, these big triangular cockroach things scuttle away from their necks! AAAAAAHHH!! But then, a weakness is found! They're vulnerable to aerosol deodorant! No, really. It's played totally straight. They briefly hook up with the neighbourhood cop who went to the Lori Grimes driving school, and Phil's captured after the inevitable crash. Will they get her back? Will the evil cockroaches be driven off? How much Axe body spray is there at the store? Chances are you won't care any more than I did.

The best part was the unintentional humour of the alien-killing deodorant. The drama fell flat, although I guess I'm just at the age where I find teenage drama tedious generally. Movie hits a lot of tired, predictable tropes. Yawn.

And just an FYI to everyone out there: if we end up together in a zombie/alien invasion apocalypse situation and you keep shoving a camera in my face, the greatest threat to your life won't be zombies or aliens.

On Netflix.

Hey look, the end of the world! What's the address of the party again? Janine's place, right? She totally digs you, bro! Go for it!

 

[kihei]

"The film is nonpolitical and thus nonjudgmental" —Tom Hanks

"All over the political map, people have been calling Forrest their own. But, Forrest Gump isn't about politics or conservative values. It's about humanity, it's about respect, tolerance and unconditional love."
—producer Steve Tisch

Hanks, Tisch and director Zemeckis are all contributors to Democratic candidates. The film was basically made by Democrats, and left-leaning Hollywood awarded it 6 Academy Awards, including Best Picture. I think that your interpretation is off and misguided. Something that I keep reading about the film is that it's actually so apolitical that it invites interpretation. For whatever reason, conservatives interpreted it positively and embraced it during the "Republican Revolution" of 1994 and it's had a reputation as a "conservative" film ever since. I think that that, in turn, has cultivated a backlash against the film from some on the left who feel that they need to put it down for that reason. It's unfortunate, IMO, especially because it's such an innocent, feel-good film. In fact, you could say that it's a completely uncynical film, which raises the question of just how cynical we've become as a society if we're now turned off by that.

Here's an excellent article on the subject:
Should "Forrest Gump" be viewed as conservative propaganda | ScreenPrism

That's one way to see it. Then there is this way:

As this mawkish conservative movie ultimately goes to prove: ignorance is bliss.—Tom Charity, Time Out

Forrest Gump is, for all of its graces, undeniably broken thanks to [its] shameless ideological manipulation of historical truths.—Angel Fernandoz Santos, El Pais

Forrest Gump is a perfectly competent movie. Its major failure is one of morals and ideas, and the fact that so many, many people did not seem to notice or care, is what really flummoxed me.—Jeffrey M. Anderson. Combudstible Celluloid

The movie supports its optimistic agenda by evading or overlooking many hard realities of the historical period it supposedly wants to explore and understand. The result is a winning but ultimately dishonest portrait.—David Sterrit, Christian Science Monitor

Exquisitely made, expertly crafted... and a work of purest, blackest evil.—Rob Vaux, Flipside Movie Emporium

The greatest pleasure the picture affords Americans is most likely a sense of relief; Forrest Gump assures us that we've awakened from the nightmare of history; that all is forgiven, and most has already been forgotten.—Stuart Klawin, The Nation

I can't see how people with low I.Q.s or those who love them are in any way comforted by all this hogwash. I can easily see how such people might be offended by its smug unreality.—Stanley Kauffmann, The New Republic

Judging by the the movie's enduring popularity, the message that stupidity is redemption is clearly what a lot of Americans want to hear.---Johathan Rosenbaum, Chicago Reader

Gets my vote for the most offensive, morally repugnant film ever made.—Ken Hanke, Mountain Xpress

(all quotes from Rotten Tomatoes)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This article is a long read, but it covers all the bases:

Why I Hate Forrest Gump with the Heat of a Thousand Suns

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For me, the subtext of this film is "know your place and stay there." Stupidity is a virtue; protest is an affront to American values; women should stop trying to destabilize the status quo; and change is a threat. Funny how the movie's idea of good guys always seem to have an American flag blowing in the background while the counterculture types only get to look scruffy. I think the movie deliberately falsifies history for political ends in a thoroughly shameless, repugnant and manipulative way. Technically it is proficient, but I hate no movie more than this one.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Yeah, I didn't like A Quiet Place when I saw it, either, but that video made me feel like giving it another chance. It's not that I disliked it because of any interpretation (how people were reading into it was news to me until I saw that video), but just knowing that there's likely nothing to interpret helps my appreciation. I'm kind of the opposite of most people in that I tend to appreciate films more when they aren't socially relevant or carry a message. I find it distracting and uncomfortable when it feels like there's a lesson being pushed in my face, even if it's a lesson that I agree with. If anything, I indulge in entertainment to get away from the real world. I understand why others prefer there to be deeper meanings, but I find it refreshing and honest when a film is about nothing more than it pretends to be. Perhaps it's the difference between viewing film as art and viewing it as entertainment.

A work of art without anything to interpret is an aporia. Can't happen. The fact that there's two opposite readings possible makes it a more interesting film because its meaning belongs (overtly) to the reader. That's what great sci-fi do. Texts that are too didactic stray away from any artistic value.

That's one way to see it. Then there is this way:

As this mawkish conservative movie ultimately goes to prove: ignorance is bliss.—Tom Charity, Time Out

Forrest Gump is, for all of its graces, undeniably broken thanks to [its] shameless ideological manipulation of historical truths.—Angel Fernandoz Santos, El Pais

Forrest Gump is a perfectly competent movie. Its major failure is one of morals and ideas, and the fact that so many, many people did not seem to notice or care, is what really flummoxed me.—Jeffrey M. Anderson. Combudstible Celluloid

The movie supports its optimistic agenda by evading or overlooking many hard realities of the historical period it supposedly wants to explore and understand. The result is a winning but ultimately dishonest portrait.—David Sterrit, Christian Science Monitor

Exquisitely made, expertly crafted... and a work of purest, blackest evil.—Rob Vaux, Flipside Movie Emporium

The greatest pleasure the picture affords Americans is most likely a sense of relief; Forrest Gump assures us that we've awakened from the nightmare of history; that all is forgiven, and most has already been forgotten.—Stuart Klawin, The Nation

I can't see how people with low I.Q.s or those who love them are in any way comforted by all this hogwash. I can easily see how such people might be offended by its smug unreality.—Stanley Kauffmann, The New Republic

Judging by the the movie's enduring popularity, the message that stupidity is redemption is clearly what a lot of Americans want to hear.---Johathan Rosenbaum, Chicago Reader

Gets my vote for the most offensive, morally repugnant film ever made.—Ken Hanke, Mountain Xpress

(all quotes from Rotten Tomatoes)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This article is a long read, but it covers all the bases:


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For me, the subtext of this film is "know your place and stay there." Stupidity is a virtue; protest is an affront to American values; women should stop trying to destabilize the status quo; and change is a threat. Funny how the movie's idea of good guys always seem to have an American flag blowing in the background while the counterculture types only get to look scruffy. I think the movie deliberately falsifies history for political ends in a thoroughly shameless, repugnant and manipulative way. Technically it is proficient, but I hate no movie more than this one.

I'll go with Bellour and answer that film analysis is always a little fictitious - to make an exhaustive analysis, you always have to go somewhat beyond the object and re-create it somehow, even a little. Which isn't a bad thing at all. Some films offer very little elements for that long game. I'm not a fan of Forrest Gump by any means and it's not my intention to come to its rescue here, but a film that does allow that long game isn't worthless. And you said it, "for you" that's the subtext of the film, others will and should read it differently (example: https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/06/forrest-gump-movie-dark-cynical-not-heartwarming/).

 

[kihei]

A work of art without anything to interpret is an aporia. Can't happen. The fact that there's two opposite readings possible makes it a more interesting film because its meaning belongs (overtly) to the reader. That's what great sci-fi do. Texts that are too didactic stray away from any artistic value.

I'll go with Bellour and answer that film analysis is always a little fictitious - to make an exhaustive analysis, you always have to go somewhat beyond the object and re-create it somehow, even a little. Which isn't a bad thing at all. Some films offer very little elements for that long game. I'm not a fan of Forrest Gump by any means and it's not my intention to come to its rescue here, but a film that does allow that long game isn't worthless. And you said it, "for you" that's the subtext of the film, others will and should read it differently (example: https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/06/forrest-gump-movie-dark-cynical-not-heartwarming/).

Aporia, schmoria. I would say there are any number of readings of a given text, and that meaning invariably belongs to the reader/viewer. Who else? "Texts that are too didactic stray away from artistic value." That's an interesting one. In general I agree, but I kept thinking of Cardinal Newman's Apologia Pro Vita Sua. Certainly, didactic; not intended as art, but one could argue that if only in its subtlety and elegance of argument, it encourages a kind of pleasure that I often associated with great art.

To the matter at at hand. The National Review article is a chatty little number that looks like it was dashed off in fifteen minutes. Yes, he provides an alternate view of the film, but he does so after some interesting foreplay about how Forrest Gump seems "unabashedly conservative" but really isn't. What he seems to be taking aim at here is the original perception of the the film in 2009 when an earlier National Review critic claimed that the movie was "the 4th best conservative movie in the preceding 25 years." Methinks that dude got it right the first time. The main point of your guy's counterargument seems to be that hard work and patriotism didn't make Gump what he is but plain dumb luck. And we all know how conservatives hate thinking luck had anything to do with their privileged existence. It's pretty lightweight stuff. As an alternative view, I don't think this is a serious contender at all.

I did find one line interesting, his mention that upon its release "liberals [were] left scrambling to find something politically congenial." He is either misreading liberals or the film or both.

What did you expect from The National Review?

 

[Live in the Now]

Whatever politics there is in the movie has never concerned me (beyond the fact that American conservatism tends to lead to idiotic conclusions) but more that the entire film feels like a high-budget hallmark card. Just an incredibly manipulative film. It comes across as so cheap. It's a decent concept that gets dominated by corporate robots, but even a robot I'd be willing to entertain the notion of a soul or distinct voice. It's a movie of strictly props, which would be fine if it was clever about it. The biggest joke of the film - a 142 minutes joke - is played on the character of the oblivious Gump himself. Even the best satirists aren't that cruel, mostly because they're aware of what they're doing.

It's rare that someone's thoughts mirror my own in this way. I also find that the film gets worse as time moves forward more and more, exposing how blatantly shallow nostalgia is used to present a false version of history. The history presented is undeniably false. There is nothing wrong with someone liking Forrest Gump despite that, but it's way too much for me.

Also, this isn't the only movie like Forrest Gump that Zemeckis has made. I had the displeasure of watching Welcome to Marwen a few weeks ago. The movie is entirely apolitical (unless you think people with Nazi tattoos are good guys), I would say it is about a version of Forrest Gump. At least a similarly damaged person, anyway. It is also absolute garbage. So, it's not about the politics of the director or anything of the sort.

I think these two movies are perfectly in tandem with one another. They both show that Zemeckis is a filmmaker who has deeply misguided optimism in people, and a rather strange perspective in general. There are no shades of grey in those two movies. There is good and there is bad. The world doesn't work like that, and I don't think those movies are a true representation of how people are at all.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Aporia, schmoria. I would say there are any number of readings of a given text, and that meaning invariably belongs to the reader/viewer. Who else? "Texts that are too didactic stray away from artistic value." That's an interesting one. In general I agree, but I kept thinking of Cardinal Newman's Apologia Pro Vita Sua. Certainly, didactic; not intended as art, but one could argue that if only in its subtlety and elegance of argument, it encourages a kind of pleasure that I often associated with great art.

To the matter at at hand. The National Review article is a chatty little number that looks like it was dashed off in fifteen minutes. Yes, he provides an alternate view of the film, but he does so after some interesting foreplay about how Forrest Gump seems "unabashedly conservative" but really isn't. What he seems to be taking aim at here is the original perception of the the film in 2009 when an earlier National Review critic claimed that the movie was "the 4th best conservative movie in the preceding 25 years." Methinks that dude got it right the first time. The main point of your guy's counterargument seems to be that hard work and patriotism didn't make Gump what he is but plain dumb luck. And we all know how conservatives hate thinking luck had anything to do with their privileged existence. It's pretty lightweight stuff. As an alternative view, I don't think this is a serious contender at all.

I did find one line interesting, his mention that upon its release "liberals [were] left scrambling to find something politically congenial." He is either misreading liberals or the film or both.

What did you expect from The National Review?

Haven't read Newman's text but that wasn't my point. There's certainly aesthetical pleasure to be taken out of (most) didactic texts, they're still language construction. By straying away, I meant that the most didactic, the less artistic (normally that's my impression, but not a theory I would argue for) - but even the IKEA instructions can be turned into an artistic construct, as such though, they have no real artistic value.

As for Forrest Gump, to me there's the shadow of an apory in your position too. ;-) On one hand, you seem to think that your reading of the film is the right one, and that the National Review guy is misreading it, or wrong ; but on the other hand, you reaffirm that the reading invariably belongs to the reader... So which is it? And to the question Who else? Well, depends on the approach, the meaning could belong to the author, or the text itself (I am pretty sure you were of Sontag's position on this, but I can't find the posts, obviously). I think I personally fall somewhere between Eco and Barthes on this, so yeah, the meaning should belong to the reader, but the text is serving clear guidelines and overinterpretation is avoidable.

 

[Osprey]

That's one way to see it. Then there is this way:

As this mawkish conservative movie ultimately goes to prove: ignorance is bliss.—Tom Charity, Time Out

Forrest Gump is, for all of its graces, undeniably broken thanks to [its] shameless ideological manipulation of historical truths.—Angel Fernandoz Santos, El Pais

Forrest Gump is a perfectly competent movie. Its major failure is one of morals and ideas, and the fact that so many, many people did not seem to notice or care, is what really flummoxed me.—Jeffrey M. Anderson. Combudstible Celluloid

The movie supports its optimistic agenda by evading or overlooking many hard realities of the historical period it supposedly wants to explore and understand. The result is a winning but ultimately dishonest portrait.—David Sterrit, Christian Science Monitor

Exquisitely made, expertly crafted... and a work of purest, blackest evil.—Rob Vaux, Flipside Movie Emporium

The greatest pleasure the picture affords Americans is most likely a sense of relief; Forrest Gump assures us that we've awakened from the nightmare of history; that all is forgiven, and most has already been forgotten.—Stuart Klawin, The Nation

I can't see how people with low I.Q.s or those who love them are in any way comforted by all this hogwash. I can easily see how such people might be offended by its smug unreality.—Stanley Kauffmann, The New Republic

Judging by the the movie's enduring popularity, the message that stupidity is redemption is clearly what a lot of Americans want to hear.---Johathan Rosenbaum, Chicago Reader

Gets my vote for the most offensive, morally repugnant film ever made.—Ken Hanke, Mountain Xpress

"What a magical movie." --Roger Ebert (4 out of 4 stars)

For me, the subtext of this film is "know your place and stay there." Stupidity is a virtue; protest is an affront to American values; women should stop trying to destabilize the status quo; and change is a threat. Funny how the movie's idea of good guys always seem to have an American flag blowing in the background while the counterculture types only get to look scruffy. I think the movie deliberately falsifies history for political ends in a thoroughly shameless, repugnant and manipulative way. Technically it is proficient, but I hate no movie more than this one.

If the subtext were "know your place and stay there," Forrest would've stayed in his hometown and lived a menial existence worthy of his low IQ. Instead, he leaves his hometown to go to college, travels the world and has all kinds of wonderful experiences and encounters. That seems to me to be the opposite of "know your place and stay there," since it suggests that you should ignore people who do suggest that and, instead, get out, see the world and try new things.

"Stupidity is a virtue" is not one of the film's messages, IMO. The film tells you what one of its messages is in the quote "stupid is as stupid does," which means that people should be judged by their actions, not their apparent stupidity. In other words, judge a person not by his IQ or whether he sounds dumb, but by whether he makes the right decisions. That sums up Forrest Gump, a low-IQ individual who always seems to make the right choices (unrealistically, but that's what's funny and charming about the movie). In other words, the movie's message is that the virtue lies in making the right decisions and it doesn't matter if you're stupid or not.

The rest of your readings are overreactions, IMO. The film is told through the perspective of a shy simpleton who doesn't like to rock the boat, and, thus, is adverse to protest, nonconformity and change, among other things. The movie's purpose with that is to strike a contrast with the tumultuous decades that he lives through. It's not to push a message that those things are bad. Not everything about a movie's plot that you disagree with is a "subtext." That's just looking to be offended, IMO.

You can look to be offended by just about any film if you try hard enough. Take Parasite, which I know that you're quite fond of. One could argue that deceit is a virtue because the Kims lie to get jobs, selfishness is a virtue because they get two people fired in order to take their place and women destabilize the status quo because the Kims' ruse starts to collapse when one knocks on the door late at night. You can accuse just about any film of unflattering "subtext" if you're determined to, but it usually says more about your motives than the film's, IMO.

Finally, I still don't understand how a film can be "right-wing crap" and have conservative "political ends" when it was made by left-leaning filmmakers. Even if you take the position that it could've been accidental, that still invalidates the argument that that "subtext" is in the movie, since subtext is meaning and something can't be meaning if it wasn't meant.

 

[kihei]

Haven't read Newman's text but that wasn't my point. There's certainly aesthetical pleasure to be taken out of (most) didactic texts, they're still language construction. By straying away, I meant that the most didactic, the less artistic (normally that's my impression, but not a theory I would argue for) - but even the IKEA instructions can be turned into an artistic construct, as such though, they have no real artistic value.

As for Forrest Gump, to me there's the shadow of an apory in your position too. ;-) On one hand, you seem to think that your reading of the film is the right one, and that the National Review guy is misreading it, or wrong ; but on the other hand, you reaffirm that the reading invariably belongs to the reader... So which is it? And to the question Who else? Well, depends on the approach, the meaning could belong to the author, or the text itself (I am pretty sure you were of Sontag's position on this, but I can't find the posts, obviously). I think I personally fall somewhere between Eco and Barthes on this, so yeah, the meaning should belong to the reader, but the text is serving clear guidelines and overinterpretation is avoidable.

For me, readers have the right to any opinion they want. But not all arguments in support of those opinions are created equal. Sure the text is serving clear guidelines, but I think overinterpretation is pretty much in the eye of the beholder--I suspect most of us would bewail overinterpretation primarily in opinions written by people with whose conclusions we already disagree.. Do I think my reading of the film is the "right" one? No, I wouldn't claim that because I don't believe there is a right answer to these things, though, of course, there are better answers than others. To claim one person has the right opinion and others don't is an act of hubris, not criticism. There are many ways of reading a film and we have four or five good ones covering the last several entries in this thread. You pay your money and you take your choice.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Wow. I've never wanted to see Forrest Gump more than right now.

 

[kihei]

"What a magical movie." --Roger Ebert (4 out of 4 stars)



If the subtext were "know your place and stay there," Forrest would've stayed in his hometown and lived a menial existence worthy of his low IQ. Instead, he leaves his hometown to go to college, travels the world and has all kinds of wonderful experiences and encounters. That seems to me to be the opposite of "know your place and stay there," since it suggests that you should ignore people who do suggest that and, instead, get out, see the world and try new things.

"Stupidity is a virtue" is not one of the film's messages, IMO. The film tells you what one of its messages is in the quote "stupid is as stupid does," which means that people should be judged by their actions, not their apparent stupidity. In other words, judge a person not by his IQ or whether he sounds dumb, but by whether he makes the right decisions. That sums up Forrest Gump, a low-IQ individual who always seems to make the right choices (unrealistically, but that's what's funny and charming about the movie). In other words, the movie's message is that the virtue lies in making the right decisions and it doesn't matter if you're stupid or not.

The rest of your readings are overreactions, IMO. The film is told through the perspective of a shy simpleton who doesn't like to rock the boat, and, thus, is adverse to protest, nonconformity and change, among other things. The movie's purpose with that is to strike a contrast with the tumultuous decades that he lives through. It's not to push a message that those things are bad. Not everything about a movie's plot that you disagree with is a "subtext." That's just looking to be offended, IMO.

You can look to be offended by just about any film if you try hard enough. Take Parasite, which I know that you're quite fond of. One could argue that deceit is a virtue because the Kims lie to get jobs, selfishness is a virtue because they get two people fired in order to take their place and women destabilize the status quo because the Kims' ruse starts to collapse when one knocks on the door late at night. You can accuse just about any film of unflattering "subtext" if you're determined to, but it usually says more about your motives than the film's, IMO.

Finally, I still don't understand how a film can be "right-wing crap" and have conservative "political ends" when it was made by left-leaning filmmakers. Even if you take the position that it could've been accidental, that still invalidates the argument that that "subtext" is in the movie, since subtext is meaning and something can't be meaning if it wasn't meant.

It is one of the film's messages. "Ignorance" may have been a better choice than "stupidity." But I would stick with either. You pick.

No, the rest of my readings aren't overreactions. So there, you cad.

I don't look to be offended by anything other than tennis players who insist on playing doubles.

Ah, no, disagree. Something very much can still constitute "meaning" even if it wasn't explicitly meant or intended.

You got me. I've been trying to figure out left-leaning Democrats for years.

...and, no, I don't want to talk about it anymore

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

"What a magical movie." --Roger Ebert (4 out of 4 stars)



If the subtext were "know your place and stay there," Forrest would've stayed in his hometown and lived a menial existence worthy of his low IQ. Instead, he leaves his hometown to go to college, travels the world and has all kinds of wonderful experiences and encounters. That seems to me to be the opposite of "know your place and stay there," since it suggests that you should ignore people who do suggest that and, instead, get out, see the world and try new things.

"Stupidity is a virtue" is not one of the film's messages, IMO. The film tells you what one of its messages is in the quote "stupid is as stupid does," which means that people should be judged by their actions, not their apparent stupidity. In other words, judge a person not by his IQ or whether he sounds dumb, but by whether he makes the right decisions. That sums up Forrest Gump, a low-IQ individual who always seems to make the right choices (unrealistically, but that's what's funny and charming about the movie). In other words, the movie's message is that the virtue lies in making the right decisions and it doesn't matter if you're stupid or not.

The rest of your readings are overreactions, IMO. The film is told through the perspective of a shy simpleton who doesn't like to rock the boat, and, thus, is adverse to protest, nonconformity and change, among other things. The movie's purpose with that is to strike a contrast with the tumultuous decades that he lives through. It's not to push a message that those things are bad. Not everything about a movie's plot that you disagree with is a "subtext." That's just looking to be offended, IMO.

You can look to be offended by just about any film if you try hard enough. Take Parasite, which I know that you're quite fond of. One could argue that deceit is a virtue because the Kims lie to get jobs, selfishness is a virtue because they get two people fired in order to take their place and women destabilize the status quo because the Kims' ruse starts to collapse when one knocks on the door late at night. You can accuse just about any film of unflattering "subtext" if you're determined to, but it usually says more about your motives than the film's, IMO.

Finally, I still don't understand how a film can be "right-wing crap" and have conservative "political ends" when it was made by left-leaning filmmakers. Even if you take the position that it could've been accidental, that still invalidates the argument that that "subtext" is in the movie, since subtext is meaning and something can't be meaning if it wasn't meant.

It is one of the film's messages. "Ignorance" may have been a better choice than "stupidity." But I would stick with either. You pick.

No, the rest of my readings aren't overreactions. So there, you cad.

I don't look to be offended by anything other than tennis players who insist on playing doubles.

Ah, no, disagree. Something very much can still constitute "meaning" even if it wasn't explicitly meant or intended.

You got me. I've been trying to figure out left-leaning Democrats for years.

...and, no, I don't want to talk about it anymore

I think you're both right, and both wrong. ;-)

But yeah, meaning certainly doesn't have to be meant. So many people doesn't realize the actual meaning of what they do or say. The intention has very often very little to do with the result.

But when you propose that "stupidity is a virtue" would be one of the film's messages, you really imply intent. And I seriously doubt that's valid. I think that you confuse stupidity/ignorance with innocence and lightheartedness.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Just discussing Forrest Gump with my wife over dinner. Asked her if she'd seen it, she says yeah, it follows him around through history, being on a shrimp boat, meeting Kennedy...why? Told her there's a big discussion going on ITT over it. What's the discussion about? Whether it's sentimentalist right-wing propaganda. She says with a straight face: "Oh yeah. Totally that."

 

[Live in the Now]

If the subtext were "know your place and stay there," Forrest would've stayed in his hometown and lived a menial existence worthy of his low IQ. Instead, he leaves his hometown to go to college, travels the world and has all kinds of wonderful experiences and encounters. That seems to me to be the opposite of "know your place and stay there," since it suggests that you should ignore people who do suggest that and, instead, get out, see the world and try new things.

Nope, he would have been drafted and killed by the Viet Cong even though someone like him shouldn't have even been eligible to go to Vietnam. Cannon fodder they used to call people like Forrest Gump. That doesn't make money for a studio though.

 

[kihei]

But when you propose that "stupidity is a virtue" would be one of the film's messages, you really imply intent. And I seriously doubt that's valid. I think that you confuse stupidity/ignorance with innocence and lightheartedness.

I'll try another way to explain it. I see the "innocence" and "lightheartedness" more as a celebration of dimwittedness (finer shaded word choice than stupidity) and indeed a corruption of innocence. Through no fault of their own, some dimwitted people, like Gump, may not have much ability but to accept what life throws their way uncritically. I think the movie presents this passive acquiescence as a kind of conformity that the country deserved from all but was thwarted by all those grimy, disloyal counterculture types.

Now I'm really not talking to anyone else, except ProsetheticConscience's wife.

 

[Osprey]

It is one of the film's messages. "Ignorance" may have been a better choice than "stupidity." But I would stick with either. You pick.

"Ignorance is a virtue" makes more sense and could be a theme of the film, but I disagree that that makes it a "message." There's a big difference between something applying in a fantasy world and it applying in the real world. It's funny to see Forrest benefit outrageously from ignorance because we understand that things would never work out like that in the real world. If anyone is getting irritated at ignorance appearing to be a virtue in Forrest Gump, he or she is taking the film far too seriously, IMO.

Just discussing Forrest Gump with my wife over dinner. Asked her if she'd seen it, she says yeah, it follows him around through history, being on a shrimp boat, meeting Kennedy...why? Told her there's a big discussion going on ITT over it. What's the discussion about? Whether it's sentimentalist right-wing propaganda. She says with a straight face: "Oh yeah. Totally that."

It's odd to suddenly hear from so many people who don't like the film, especially when it has a 95% approval rating among users at RT, but maybe it's not surprising since there are so many Canadians on this site. I can totally understand why non-Americans (especially Canadians) might not be fans of it and might assume that it's "right-wing propaganda" because it plays on American sentimentality, is flattering of America and is optimistic. It's an "American Dream" film that could be too much for some people. Even I don't watch it very often.

Now I'm really not talking to anyone else, except ProsetheticConscience's wife.

I think that this suggests a very different meaning than you meant .

 

[ProstheticConscience]

*drumroll*

Forrest Gump

with...oh, you all know. It's weird to see Tom Hanks young.

We open with swelling string music following a feather floating on the wind over humble Everytown, USA. It lands at the feet of Forrest Gump, clad in white suit, crewcut, and soiled Nikes. He's sitting on a bench waiting for a bus, and he puts the feather in the back of his Curious George book. Then he tells random passersby his life story. We start by learning he was named after Nathan Bedford Forrest, fine upstanding Confederate citizen and founder of the KKK. Yup. There's your first hint.

We follow Forrest from his humble beginnings in rural Alabama where his mom sleeps with the school principal to get him (being of low IQ) into school, to his ability to run really, really fast and far, and his childhood friendship with Jenny, an abused girl who becomes the love of his life and promptly f***s off to go do drugs and slum around with hippies, druggies, Black Panthers, disco druggies and other such wonderful folks. Turns out Forrest was present for basically every major event in US history from about 1960 onward...but he doesn't really have much awareness of it. He's just there, sincerely slow and incredibly sweet, and with more than a little subtext of him being slow because he doesn't become cynical. We go to Vietnam, China, a shrimp boat, running all across the US, then finally back to Alabama where Haley Joel Osment can adorably carry on the Gump name. The real shtick of the movie was inserting Tom Hanks into various historical footage, which was really significant when it was released. Nowadays of course any tween with a cellphone can do the same thing, but I do remember the fuss over how original and different it was at the time. IMHO it was that which won it the Oscar over Pulp Fiction, and not the treacly Boomer nostalgia. And that was still a travesty.

Whoo, where to begin with this one. There's a lot to unpack here. I totally get where kihei and others are coming from on this...but I don't know if I'm quite there. Yeah, with Forrest being as low IQ as he is, there's a lot of questions about informed consent that come up...should he be a soldier? Should Bubba have? Is Jenny sleeping with him statutory rape? Are we really expecting the guy who directed Back to the Future to tell us? Yeah, no. The cloying sentimentality is knee-deep. It's as subtle as a brick in the face. I haven't rolled my eyes so many times since my wife dragged me to Batman versus Superman. But...and I say this with all respect...I think this movie might have been overanalyzed.

Pulp Fiction kicks so many layers of ass over this movie it's just stupid Gump won the Oscar. OK Boomer.

Behold the soul of America.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Sheeesh. I leave you kids for ONE DAY and look at the mess I come back to!

 

[OzzyFan]

*drumroll*

Forrest Gump

with...oh, you all know. It's weird to see Tom Hanks young.

We open with swelling string music following a feather floating on the wind over humble Everytown, USA. It lands at the feet of Forrest Gump, clad in white suit, crewcut, and soiled Nikes. He's sitting on a bench waiting for a bus, and he puts the feather in the back of his Curious George book. Then he tells random passersby his life story. We start by learning he was named after Nathan Bedford Forrest, fine upstanding Confederate citizen and founder of the KKK. Yup. There's your first hint.

We follow Forrest from his humble beginnings in rural Alabama where his mom sleeps with the school principal to get him (being of low IQ) into school, to his ability to run really, really fast and far, and his childhood friendship with Jenny, an abused girl who becomes the love of his life and promptly f***s off to go do drugs and slum around with hippies, druggies, Black Panthers, disco druggies and other such wonderful folks. Turns out Forrest was present for basically every major event in US history from about 1960 onward...but he doesn't really have much awareness of it. He's just there, sincerely slow and incredibly sweet, and with more than a little subtext of him being slow because he doesn't become cynical. We go to Vietnam, China, a shrimp boat, running all across the US, then finally back to Alabama where Haley Joel Osment can adorably carry on the Gump name. The real shtick of the movie was inserting Tom Hanks into various historical footage, which was really significant when it was released. Nowadays of course any tween with a cellphone can do the same thing, but I do remember the fuss over how original and different it was at the time. IMHO it was that which won it the Oscar over Pulp Fiction, and not the treacly Boomer nostalgia. And that was still a travesty.

Whoo, where to begin with this one. There's a lot to unpack here. I totally get where kihei and others are coming from on this...but I don't know if I'm quite there. Yeah, with Forrest being as low IQ as he is, there's a lot of questions about informed consent that come up...should he be a soldier? Should Bubba have? Is Jenny sleeping with him statutory rape? Are we really expecting the guy who directed Back to the Future to tell us? Yeah, no. The cloying sentimentality is knee-deep. It's as subtle as a brick in the face. I haven't rolled my eyes so many times since my wife dragged me to Batman versus Superman. But...and I say this with all respect...I think this movie might have been overanalyzed.

Pulp Fiction kicks so many layers of ass over this movie it's just stupid Gump won the Oscar. OK Boomer.

Behold the soul of America.

Lived up to the hype. I agree with your conclusion, ProstheticConscience, on this. Given all the circumstances with how the movie was made, who made this movie, and how the events play out, I think those right wing interpretations are purely coincidental. And the more politically correct issues across the board in the movie are an interesting find. Even before reading everyone's opinion on this, I felt Forest Gump was a pure over the top sentimental, over the top Pro-America/American-isms, feel good underdog movie while throwing arguably the most charismatic actor and nostalgic "special effects successful" family friendly director into the mix. Pure box office and oscar bait that's harmlessly manipulative and executed with aplomb, nothing more and nothing less. All in all I guess.....Audience members are like a box of chocolates, you never know what interpretation you're gonna get".

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Not to prolong the discussion (this probably won't because my observations here are pretty trite, surface level stuff) but my distinct memories and feelings about Forrest Gump was that in the moment (as a high schooler), I liked it upon first watch. it helped that GIRLS liked it. Date movie. Then I saw it a second time and thought, eh wasn't as good as I remember. Saw it a third time my junior year of college and outright disliked it. Haven't watched it since. Unlikely to feel compelled to return to it. The movie didn't change in that time, but I certainly did. As for its politics — at some point you are who your friends are. That's all I have to say about that.

And now on to the weekly roundup. Here's the entertainment of interest I consumed this week:

Chopping Mall. Great title, though it's a bit of a misnomer. Should really be Laser Mall. More killer mall security robots than Forrest Gump, so that was a big plus for me. If the title appeals to you it delivers exactly what you want. Unless you want chopping. Again, no actual chopping.

A Half Loaf of Kung Fu. Early Jackie Chan (here still Jacky). The goofy grace is there, but the wacky sounds and fart jokes were just a tad too childish for my tastes. The climactic fight is good fun though if you just want to jump to the last 20 minutes or so.

Dogs Don’t Wear Pants. Finnish movie about a widower who finds relief to his emotional pain through a Dominatrix. It’s well shot. I was bored for about two-thirds the running time, which is saying something for a film with so much squeaking leather. The last third does just enough to pull me back toward a slight recommendation but not a full one. The climax is pleasing (these are not puns), but I still debate if the journey is worth the time. Too dour for too long. Even the “sex” is a bit dull.

(It suddenly occurs to me that maybe it’s the titles drawing me in here ... that’s quite a trio of titles ...)

Ronin. Rad car chases. A wanton disregard for innocent bystanders that was shocking when I saw this in the theaters on its first release and is still effective now. Seriously, how many action movies actually show innocent people getting randomly creamed or shot in car chases and shootouts? A jazzy David Mamet script (writing under a pseudonym) with all his signature jargon and double speak and a nice twisty plot.

Cutter’s Way. Underseen early 1980s crime flick anchored with a pair of good performances from Jeff Bridges (as the calm one) and John Heard (as the headcase). They’re buddies who get wrapped up in a murder mystery. It isn’t a whodoneit. Really more of a character study of a pair of wounded, broken men, especially Heard as a bitter and belligerent Vietnam vet. I never heard of Lisa Eichhorn before this but she’s the third part of their triangle and gives a great, sad, soulful performance. This was just a nice dusty, beat-up, yellow-paged paperback of a movie.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

"Ignorance is a virtue" makes more sense and could be a theme of the film, but I disagree that that makes it a "message." There's a big difference between something applying in a fantasy world and it applying in the real world. It's funny to see Forrest benefit outrageously from ignorance because we understand that things would never work out like that in the real world. If anyone is getting irritated at ignorance appearing to be a virtue in Forrest Gump, he or she is taking the film far too seriously, IMO.



It's odd to suddenly hear from so many people who don't like the film, especially when it has a 95% approval rating among users at RT, but maybe it's not surprising since there are so many Canadians on this site. I can totally understand why non-Americans (especially Canadians) might not be fans of it and might assume that it's "right-wing propaganda" because it plays on American sentimentality, is flattering of America and is optimistic. It's an "American Dream" film that could be too much for some people. Even I don't watch it very often.



I think that this suggests a very different meaning than you meant .

Oh, you're welcome to hold the opinion you want, but drop the Canadian stuff. I live in Montreal but grew up in the United States and I believe Live in the Now is American as well. Not all of us are just pure-bred Canadians and even if we would ve, you don't have to be American to enjoy or tolerate the film. The film is popular around the world.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Splitting this one out because I wanted to write a little longer on it.

The General. Fantastic stunts and physical comedy. Visually clever. I mean this as a compliment, but it felt like a platform video game to me ... new level after level, challenge after challenge. There’s a really delightful sense of humor here. Though he never says it, Keaton’s character has to keep thinking “You got to be kidding me!”

All that said, there was a big hurdle for me to clear with this and frankly, it was big enough that I’m not sure I’d return to it despite the positives. It is uncomfortably pro-Confederacy. Now, before anyone jumps down my throat on this. Yes, I understand it’s a product of the time. I too am a product of my time. Sometimes those times don’t mesh. From reading up on it after the fact, I guess this is based on a real incident in which Confederates retook a train the Union stole, though I’m also not sure “truth” is a defense for a film so intent on fantastical fun.

Hollywood has a LONG history of making stories about the South during the Civil War. I understand it. Dramatically it’s far more interesting than the North. This typically doesn’t bother me. But drama plays different than comedy. So my issue here is tone. The movie is apolitical. You could swap the sides and it doesn’t change a thing. Everything could transpire pretty much the same (though the train would have to run in opposite directions). Reason and philosophy are not discussed. It’s just about people going from point A to B and back to A. No room for politics on this train. That’s not its intent and it is, perhaps, unfair of me to raise the issue.

My mind can understand and acknowledge all of that, but my gut also reacts and the reality is I had a very real gut rejection of rooting for and having a good ol’ time with the Confederates as they pantsed a bumbling Union army no matter how clever and creative that execution was.

I am by no means suggesting CANCEL IT. Nor do I have any issue with anyone who enjoys or loves it. Its joys and wonders are evident. Its influence is undeniable. I’m not here to tell anyone they’re wrong or foolish. If anything I’m probably exposing myself as a fool. To be honest I’m surprised I had this reaction. I wouldn’t have anticipated that, which is probably why I’m still rambling on here about it.

I've been wracking my brain for a few days to see if I can come up with other movies with a similar dynamic that I've struggled with, but I really can't. Again, for the purpose of drama, I don't have issues following/seeing/understanding/empathizing with a POV I don't actually agree with. But that sort of conflict is oftentimes baked in. We're all humans at the end of the day, right?

I do wonder how much of our current moment in time has influenced my feelings. Would I react the same if I saw this five years ago? 10 years ago? I think it might have been different for me. I’m trying not to open a can of worms here (he says, while awkwardly cranking the can opener) but some of the sentiments and beliefs that led to the formation of the Confederacy then are still prevalent today. I didn’t like it or agree with it in my history books and I sure as hell don’t like it or agree with it in my nightly news now. Just not in a mood to laugh, I suppose.

Man, between this and my Movie Club review of Murmur of the Heart, I suddenly feel like such a sensitive fuddy duddy. Though I did just watch a movie where a woman gets paid to piss on dudes and was ok with that sooooooo....

 

[Shareefruck]

Personally, I find whether or not the creators of Forrest Gump are diehard lefties or actively speak out against the ideas that the movie is criticised for to be entirely irrelevent. Whether they intended it or not, they created a movie that either directly or inadvertently communicates really disgustingly bad values and ideas (that happen to match the bad values and principles that conservatism can have, and under the same disingenuously shlocky, manipulative, and sentimental guise that you frequently see too) and that paints a grossly unfair and one-sided picture in a heavy-handed and on-the-nose way. I mean, it's not even like these things feel all that subtle or ambiguous-- That seems like a pretty clear, reasonable, and unshakeable reading of it to me (I'm not even the type who swims in politics-- it just reeks of it). Once something has been created, it's entirely out the creator's hand-- They can't micromanage what the meaning is, and what was intended becomes largely irrelevant to what it actually says.

My best interpretation of it is that it's misguided, irresponsible, and unfortunately written/messaged to all hell, to a degree that makes it one of the movies that I have the greatest distaste for. Conceding that it's well intentioned would really only transform what would be immoral propaganda into laughably wrong-headed cringe, which isn't much better.

 

[kihei]

Planet of the Humans (2020) Directed by Jeff Gibbs 3A (documentary)

Planet of the Humans is being hailed as a new Michael Moore project, but actually as executive producer, Moore is only sponsoring the work of one his protegees, Jeff Gibbs, a kindred spirit to Moore in all but talent. Gibbs takes a depressingly gloomy look at the green energy movement and all that has gone wrong with it. The underlying theme is that green energy, both solar and wind, and the organizations that support it, like the Sierra Club, have been taken over by rapacious capitalists like the Koch brothers and that green energy often actually leaves a bigger carbon footprint than the fossil fuels, like natural gas and coal, that it is meant to replace. With friends like this, Green Energy doesn't need enemies. A question that I had in the middle of the doc was, "Well, how do you create things like wind turbines if you don't use the already available sources of energy and technology to construct them?" That question is not addressed. In fact, Gibbs is good at pointing fingers but not good at suggesting how we can change some of these unwanted outcomes. The response to this documentary has been decidedly mixed, with several critics pointing out that many of Gibbs examples and images are years out of date. Certainly the corporate takeover of green energy should be a subject of concern, and there are other allegations in the documentary worth investigating as well. But the extent that Planet of the Humans represents an accurate look at what is going on right now with the Green Energy movement is certainly open for debate, too.

--available on You Tube