“Mike: I haven’t even been defending Gump! :D [not that I hate the film] o_o”
I’m just arguing with the world, not you specifically.
Ah, then you may proceed.
Actually, I never really understood the idea that Forrest Gump is an uncritical celebration of conservatism. It seems quite plain to me that it, following most of Zemeckis’ work, is largely misanthropic.
Attributing conservative ideals to Forrest is likely intended, but he is mentally handicapped and ignorant of the larger forces at play in the world around him, and his “triumphs” mostly take place around events representing some of the lowest points of recent American history, just as the celebrities he “appears” with were ones that suffered ignominious ends or embarrassments either through their own means or through others choices. It seems fairly clear that Forrest represents conservatism, and masculinity, winning through luck, not virtue, other than perhaps faith and blind perseverance.
I felt the films pegs men, other than, perhaps, the cynical half-man Captain Dan as being intellectually challenged and the women as emotionally damaged. Jenny and Forrest’s mother clearly know more about what’s going on and gain our sympathies more than the men, but they are unable to do much of anything about changing the situations of the world short of prostituting themselves. As a critique, it strikes me that this works both as a comment on the potentiality of women’s roles within the culture and as a remark on the relative intellectuality of the left in American culture. The feeling was that the film attacked the right for weak-mindedness and the left for a lack of emotional strength or conviction and belief.
To my mind, the association of Forrest Gump with the right comes more from the people who watched and enjoyed the film rather than the film itself. Perhaps this is a failing of the film in much the same way that Springsteen’s Born in the USA song “failed” in its attempt to provide a critique because he enfolded it within a anthemic rock structure which allowed people to hear it incorrectly as celebrating what it criticized and therefore was taken up by the right as a pro-US tune. Forrest may have misfired by hiding its critique within family friendly epic that normally wouldn’t carry such a message. Compare this to that other big film of the year, Pulp Fiction, that was loved by the hip of the time for its radical style while it, arguably contains much more conservative themes or ideas within its dynamic structural play. After all, if one were to boil down Pulp to a simple theme, it would seem to come from the central speech by Walken, which could be condensed to “Watch your ass”. The character’s lives or deaths could be said to be determined by whether they did or didn’t heed this ideal as much as anything else. Which leads to some uncomfortable moments of homophobia, or something like it, as well as the usual macho nonsense that tends to follow along with the genres Tarantino enjoys.
That said, I don’t really think either Pulp Fiction or Forrest Gump are that exciting, both have enough good qualities to recommend themselves as worth seeing, but both have too many things that irk me for me to get behind either of them as being something better.
“and his “triumphs” mostly take place around events representing some of the lowest points of recent American history”
True, it’s the character arcs I have the most issues with. Captain Dan and Bubba are both seen in a fairly positive light while all of Jenny’s compadre’s are cartoonish. I do wholeheartedly agree than, aside from any political subtext, the film is just trite and shallow and that’s all that really matters.
Don’t get me started on Pulp Fiction:)
Getting back to movies… ; ) I only get defensive when they’re “guilty pleasures” that I should know better than to love as an Auteur. (I’ll actually name names!)
- “Saving Silverman” – So you’re you going to lower your dizzying intellect to attack a film deliberately stupid and low-brow, huh?! Ya know, that’s kind of pathetic?!!
- “Big Trouble in Little China” – It’s multicultural man!!!
- “Faster Pussycat, Kill! Kill!” – G-rated Russ Meyers!! That makes it kinkier than anything he did later – er, I mean, smarter or – oh, you know what I mean!
- “Barry Lyndon” – It’s so beautiful! Yeah, okay it makes you feel life sucks but it does suck doesn’t it, so SHUT UP!!
Bob (defensively trying to decide to watch “The Omega Man” or “Jason and the Argonauts.”)
You mean there are people out there that don’t like Big Trouble in Little China? Heathen. (Well, severe Kim Cattrall aversion might be understandable, but that’s the only good reason…)
And as to your dilemma, Jason and the Argonauts obviously. Skeleton battle!
Greg,
Lets see critics of “Big Trouble..” shake the pillars of Hell, huh?
I haven’t gotten to the skeleton scene yet but yeah – HARRYHAUSEN RULES!!!
Bob
@Ralch, re: “I especially hate when people reduce films I love to basic ideas or premises.”
I’m really a bad person for doing that, often. But sometimes it’s just the only way to express why, despite all of the fine details and beautifully imagery of such and such story, I still just don’t care about such and such topic. Example: Neil Gaiman is a good writer. Doesn’t change the fact that his is the same escapist fantasy over and over again, a lonely boy or girl going to a parallel fantasy world to grow up and get a pair.
I’m pretty willing to discuss most things with most people—it’s gotten to the point where reading/watching/listening to stuff isn’t even half the fun, but talking about it afterward is. With movies I always try and talk more about what the other person is interested and then bring my interests INTO that conversation than spend all of the time on defense. It does get tiresome sometimes and you do have those moments where it’s like, “Yes, I know what you mean, There Will Be Blood IS just talking, but y’know, if you actually listened to the dialog being said then maybe we wouldn’t be having this conversation.” Nevertheless, I find defending movies to reinstate my love for them, not destroy them, even when contrary opinions are stated logically. Sometimes it makes me understand that “in spite of…”, the movie still works. Example: in spite of the fact that David Lynch does just pull a lot of stuff from his ass, he still makes it work into something compelling and visceral, and in a sense that just makes it all the more admirable.
—PolarisDiB
Well, there was a long period during which I loved to talk and talk and get ideas across and exchange them and what not.
Now I get a visceral aversion to this analytical kind of discussion most of the times. I have wondered whether it’s laziness, because I can be lazy if I let myself… but that’s not it. More than anything it’s the realization that this exchange of ideas is mostly based on ego-trip (not trying to be insulting here, btw), of a sense of ownership of the art “outside” by the mind “inside”, adorned frequently by an apparent need to stand out from other participants of the discussion. Whenever I write reviews, I keep them short for that reason, and they are mostly descriptive.
What I like more about art is the intuitiveness that gives form to something using ideas or around ideas, but not necessarily living off these ideas. Ideas and opinions are ok, but they are usually overrated and advertised as the ultimate revelation when, in reality, we are recycling the same concepts and dressing them up differently. This “overrating” is more apparent when one doesn’t like a film, and is thus easier to dismantle it intellectually.
This is just me, though. I don’t condemn others who like to analyze. Am I digressing?
But the talk needn’t be analytical, keep in mind. Often I find it’s actually not, that people are more interested in ideas or reactions than in meaning or form. That’s why most discussions of movies can be really frustrating, because one could be saying “But he’s dealing with this and this is how he does it and it’s brilliantly conceived like this and so on” and the reaction could be, “But I just didn’t like it.” I believe that is more the frustration people have about it. What I like doing is saying, “Well, WHY don’t you like it?” and going from there. Again, at that point the conversation seldom turns analytical, and usually ends up just being about somebody’s bad day at worst, often simply a conversation about tastes and interests in general.
—PolarisDiB
i can never discuss about films I love anyway, 96% of my friends have never seen a film from outside the US or before 1979…
Heh, I don’t want to go into that tangent again, but it’s all about how you present it… invite your friends over to beer and pizza and movie night, and then show Bonnie and Clyde.
:)
—PolarisDiB
Yes, I guess there are some cool people with whom to talk in such a refreshing manner… In my case, they left for lands ashore a while ago. Most of the cinema aficionados with whom I relate nowadays don’t share my tastes. Hollywood is reeeaaally dominant here.
bonnie and clyde? hmmm…..i havent even seen that one myself :P but i will
It’s the eternal social conflict of this site. I’m thinking of selling my services as a marketer for at least semi-decent art and independent cinema, as I’m getting better and better at using one movie as a gateway to other, better ones. “Oh you like Transformers 2, y’say? Well I’ve not seen it but have you seen Big Man Japan? Big monsters fighting over a city, guy transforms? Yeah it’s great, mockumentary style. ‘Mockumentary?’ OH you’ve GOT to see Man Bites Dog. No seriously, watch Man Bites Dog. No really, you like Transformers 2, you’ll love Man Bites Dog.”
—PolarisDiB
^ haha
but Man Bites Dog is not something I would recommend to everyone though…especially the T2 crowd ;)
I think people are a bit too harsh about Forrest. It’s a well-made and pretty original hollywood movie that I enjoy every time its on TV.
As for the question of th topic, I think nowadays I cannot handle any more people that will tell me that Mulholland Drive is not a work of genius, but only a stupid mind-fuck. I wouldnt even start to discuss.
I have a hard time dealing with people who say Citizen Kane is “not that great” especially since I’ve never met someone of this opinion who can tell me why it’s not that great. I respect anyone’s opinion as long as they can back it up.
Forrest Gump haters are rare and elusive? That’s news to me. I think serious movie fans tend to abhor Hollywood movies, and since Forrest Gump personifies manipulative, big budget Oscar bait it gets a lot of flack that should be distributed equally to all the garbage that comes out of Hollywood.
I fell in love with Breathless ever since I saw it, but disagreed with a friend (also a film buff who had issues with it) on why I did like it etc….it was interesting to hear another point of view… but now its a point where I refuse to argue with him about the French New Wave. But I think, if I was stoked again, I would!
I also like this one minute, one take version of Forrest Gump – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOvgJ0TxdfI
@ Henry
Maybe among a certain crowd of “serious movie fans”, but not a lot of the ones I know. Then again, sometimes I feel like people will hate any big budget, Hollywood movie because it’s a big budget, Hollywood movie…despite any qualities it may have.
@Henry. Yeah but the people who doesn’t back it up his or her opinions doesn’t really care about what they saying. This applys for cinephiles or no cinephiles. That’s frustrating for you of course but it’s a respectable position anyway. Sometimes I don’t want to find out the analitical reasons I don’t like certain film: it just didn’t work for me and now I want to see other movies. I don’t care. Bye.
You have to meet really interested people to discuss. If they aren’t just change the conversation. It’s ok.
In relation to “the eternal social conflict of this site”, the people is in general “not open minded about the multiples aspects of the films”. Especially the mainstream films. Ok Transformers is garbage but Josh Duhamel and Megan Fox are hot aren’t they?. Talking more seriously… cliche ideas like “Forrest Gump personifies manipulative, big budget Oscar bait it gets a lot of flack that should be distributed equally to all the garbage that comes out of Hollywood” are the beginning of a frustrating conversation.
Forrest Gump is the critique of America that Lars von Trier should have made.
That said, how can you hold a conversation with people who dislike “Jules and Jim”?night of the hunter
bully
gummo
horse feathers
anything with jimmy durante
night of the hunter
bully
gummo
horse feathers
anything with jimmy durante
I like the title of this thread.
I love the title of this thread too. I’m liking the Bully mention. Such a great, stupidly underrated film.
Anyways, a film that applies to this topic for me is Revolutionary Road.
The Assassination of Jesse James
The Beach
Sunshine (2007)
Revolutionary Road
Moon
and anything with Steve McQueen
Bully is not even here in the Auteurs!!!! I find that insulting. Dont know if it was already submitted.
Black Irish
Mike: I haven’t even been defending Gump! :D [not that I hate the film] o_o