FORREST GUMP
A film review by Mark R. Leeper
Copyright 1994 Mark R. Leeper
Capsule review: What would you get if John Irving
tried to write a Horatio Alger story based on the life of
Gomer Pyle? Robert Zemeckis attempts to make a cult
film, but the result is vague and ambiguous. Most
viewers should find their own philosophy somewhere in
this cinematic inkblot so will be deeply moved. But it
did not do a whole lot for me. Rating: 0 (-4 to +4).
Some opinions will vary greatly.
There is more to FORREST GUMP--both the character and the film-- than what is happening on the surface, but I am not clear just what it is. This is Robert Zemeckis's symbolic exercise that belongs beside films like BIRDY, CATCH-22, HAROLD AND MAUDE, THE WORLD ACCORDING TO GARP, and especially BEING THERE. I think if I could figure out what BEING THERE was *really* all about, I would have a big clue on FORREST GUMP is about beneath the surface, and vice versa. My problem is that I can see many possible meanings, and none is particularly profound. You could see FORREST GUMP as being an allegory implying God or angels look out for the simple and the pure of heart. (Personal note: to me that is the self-congratulatory philosophy of the fortunate, and it has a sinister touch of victim-blaming for many good people who suffer through what I think is no fault of their own.) At least on some level this is the story of a man with an IQ of 75, the victim of a lot of cruelty from his peers, who overcomes his problems with a natural talent for running at super-human speeds, for playing ping-pong at super-human speeds, for assembling guns at the same speeds, and for just being a nice person. He overcomes his disability to the degree that he becomes a winner of the Congressional Medal of Honor, one of the most successful businessmen in the country, and the center of a sort of runners' cult, all by just being a really, really nice man with just a few minor super-powers and having friends who guess well about what stocks are going to take off. He also is unknowingly the catalyst for many events of American history from the 50s to the 80s.
The film is told with the same peculiar structure as MAVERICK. That is the first three-quarters of the film is told in flashback and from there it proceeds without flashback, but it is not clear why the starting point is what it is. Most of the story is told by Gump (Tom Hanks) on a bus stop bench to anyone who will listen. His captive audiences, at first indifferent, become more and more engrossed and inspired by his story.
Gump is born with a bad spine in addition to his below-average IQ. The local school children in Greenbow, Alabama, ostracize and torment young Forrest and this somehow causes his back problems to go away in one mysterious moment and for him to become a super-runner able to out- pace bicycles and pickup trucks. His high-speed running and his nice guy attitude make him first a football hero, then a war hero, and continues throughout his spectacular life. He prospers tremendously, then goes on to look for meaning in his life. In fact he gets everything material anybody could want but the one thing Gump really does want. He never seems to be able to hold on to his childhood sweetheart, Jenny. With a talent for making wrong decisions, Jenny walks a self-destructive path through the same world as Forrest, but without the benefit of his simple good ways or his super-powers. Along the way we see a lot of American history and here a lot of popular music whose lyrics often echo the plot twists in the film. (And along the way there is also some sloppy writing. One personal bugaboo: an event we are told takes place on a Saturday morning is later given the date March 22, 1982. That was a Monday.)
Tom Hanks is decent in his role as far as I can tell, but can one really say he was believable in so unbelievable a role? In a way he is the wise foole. But one cannot say people like him behave the way he does, since there just is nobody like he is in this film. About the best one can say is that he maintained his accent fairly uniformly. Robin Wright as Jenny gets a little chance to act, but only sufficiently to prove herself competent. This role was more demanding than her title role in THE PRINCESS BRIDE, but still did not provide her the emotional range to prove whether she can actually act, or just read lines. My big complaint concerning the acting is with Gary Sinese. He has spent too much time on the stage when it was clear that films are desperately in need of his talents. I hope we will be seeing more of him in future films because he is one talented actor. This is a soft, soft film in need of more of the intensity only he provides it. Sally Field at one time could not turn in a bad performance either, but as Forrest's mother she is recreating the same characterization she has played all too often in the past. In her sleep she can do sweet, homey, folksy, women with a small stubborn streak. This is just one more.
Somehow this is not what you would think of as a special effects film, yet in fact some of the visual effects are quite impressive. What most people would pick up on are the scenes of Hanks shaking the hands of Presidents. They are not actually executed as well as might be expected in spite of the praise they have gotten. The scenes that impressed me concern an actor who loses limbs in the course of the film. There are standard ways to create this effect that involve body doubles or binding back the limb so the camera cannot see it. At least one scene in the film cannot be explained using either technique. All I can think of is that digital technology might have been employed but it genuinely looks like this actor had legs amputated for the role. Scenes in which Forrest moves at high speed also are very impressively done. Generally undercranking a camera leaves tell-tale signs in other parts of the scene, perhaps branches wave much too fast in the wind. Here again the techniques are not obvious but they are convincing. Of course Robert Zemeckis's films are often very heavy on special effects, so he is no stranger to special effects wizards.
FORREST GUMP is certainly supposed to be an enigmatic film, hopefully no less than I found it to be. If it was supposed to be inspiring in some way, it missed my wavelength. It was competently made but overlong and occasionally infuriating. I would give it a 0 on the -4 to +4 scale. But, being fair, I will point out that your mileage will possibly vary. The film received an ovation at the end in the theater where I saw it, so it is pleasing some audiences.
Mark R. Leeper
mark.leeper@att.com
.
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews