My brother and I watched Forrest Gump last night…again. And we couldn’t stop analyzing it, in between the laugh out loud moments and utterly depressing tear-jerkers. It is now my intention to write down the lessons we learned so I don’t have to be curious and sit through it again.
There’s a stream of consciousness to the ideas as of now since I have idea about plot, context, characters, lines, arcs, and virtually a million other things.
- Forrest Gump was not an original screenplay. It was based on a book and thus “adapted.” That means that all of the symbolism and character development was already plotted and written. It was then the screenwriters job to keep the important parts. It also meant it was an easier sell to the studios because there’s a built in audience, or at least a marketing gimmick. That said,
- Forrest Gump was an epic. The budget was at “tent-pole” film levels. The special effects and number of filming locations were staggering. Getting this film made must not have been easy even with the built in audience.
- Despite what screenwriting books say, Narration works! Maybe it’s allowed because it’s a book adaptation. But more likely it is because the narration rarely pushed the plot forward. Instead it was done as commentary on the images on screen. Typically poignant philosophical mantras and catch phrases. It should be noted that I didn’t come to this on my own. I heard this idea from the screenwriter of Fight Club (made 5 years after Forrest Gump). Fight Club was also a movie adaptation of a book, and I just so happened to watch it twice this past weekend: once normally and once with audio commentary from the book writer and screenwriter. Fight Club was also a philosophy film but that worked for a whole slew of other reasons, which deserves an article in itself, so one day, I might do that too.
- It felt like Brooks/Zucker comedy (stupid, ridiculous humor) mixed with powerful cinematic drama from the like of Spielberg and classic cinema. In between the deep philosophical moments, there was typically a joke like “I’m sorry I ruined your Black Panther Party”. Right after Forrest is attacked with rocks and breaks free of his leg braces, Forrest has traversed an entire field in the span of a pan. We’re brought from outrage, to empathy, to hope, to on the floor laughter. Why did that scene work?
- Philosophy should be fed to the audience with a healthy balance of laughter, empathetic dramatic moments, and by stereotypical wise characters allows to spit knowledge, like (grand)mothers, and wise mystical characters, like Forrest at the park bench. And sometimes they should be baited by characters who epitomize the dramatic life questions the audience is currently thinking about because of the situation a character is in. The key is really to break down the barriers we’ve built up against being preached to. Laughter helps with that and so does empathy. A lot of Forrest’s most poignant lines come from characters (and audiences) who are confused and searching for an answer to their problems. For example, [Do you know what it feels like to not be able to use your legs?!]. The character is mad about his situation as would many audience members be, but that question opens the door to Forrest’s response: Yes, which reminds us that he wore leg braces for five minute of the film. Another example is when Jenny says, “Forrest, you don’t know what love is.”
- Don’t be preachy for too long. The bigger key is to balance preachiness, levity, and gravity. A movie like Crash becomes painful, because it’s too preachy and dramatic at all times. Some comedies fail because they’re too afraid to say anything in between laughs. Forrest Gump is comedic at most times, until the last half hour, which is mostly depressing. which allows us to swallow the preachy one liners.
- Show don’t tell. In screenwriting that means have your characters do something, not say they did something. It also can mean show your characters acting on their feelings instead of saying their feeling. I see that also as: use your characters and scenarios to discuss a life lesson, don’t just talk about something theoretical. When someone dies, address it; when someone breaks your heart, deal with it then. Don’t worry about things until they happen. Most of the life lessons came from what happened to the characters and how they dealt with it. Never did the narrator or story say, think this way and here’s why, instead they had their characters think a certain way and the “here’s why” was what happened to them afterward.
- The movie took it’s time to remind you of the calm feeling you get when you have nothing to do during a hot summer day/night. The movie had many slow dollies and crane shots, long one-shots, and several master shots. Most of those were filled up with philosophical comments or comedic one-liners, but I can think of two sequences that were deathly silent and slow: (A) when Forrest finds Jenny gone and he’s all alone in his house, right before he starts to run, and (B) when Forrest is talking to his mother’s grave.
- What is the point of Jenny?! Is she supposed to be the foil to Forrest? The will-they/won’t-they love interest? Is she supposed to be the the foil to Forrest? An example of the person not to be? A precautionary tale? More importantly, why does she deserve Forrest at the end of the day? And why would Forrest not give up on her? And why was there never another option in Forrest’s whole life? It’s all fine and dandy to show the dark side of the human condition, but I felt that here change happened off-screen and wasn’t really helpful for anyone going through that situation. There really wasn’t any helpful answer that might get people like her to change their thinking patterns. She clearly didn’t think highly of herself, “Forrest, you don’t want to marry me,” and was ready to commit suicide. But then she’s magically fine again and did it on her own off-screen and raising a child. For the amount of thought put into Forrest as an example of how to look at life, Jenny seems like the needlessly depressing character. And the fact that Forrest ends up losing her to aids and raising a child on his own makes me wonder what the point of the story was.
- Forrest doesn’t change! He grows a little and learns a lot, but he never has to make a choice to change the way most character-arcs are written in screenplays. Lt Dan is forced to appreciate his life, Jenny is forced to learn to love Forrest, but Forrest is a perfect character from beginning to end. Like Superman or Goku, he’s always doing the right things and be a great example of a human being. He’s loving, he fights for the ones he loves, he saves and values his friends, and always thinks positively. He was like a wise-old man from a young age. Screenwriters and studio execs hate these “flat” characters, but somehow it worked in this film. I think it worked because of two reasons: (1) The deuteragonist and tritagonist (Jenny and Lt Dan) demonstrated character arcs, and (2)
- Forrest is a Yes Man. Whenever a question is asked of Forrest, what does he say? Okay. Why does he not say yes? My guess is because it implies a dichotomy and right-wrong, whereas okay, suggests and attitude of “Sure, why not?” Successful people think positively and try new things. Forrest was extremely successful because he said Okay to Bubba’s question of becoming a shrimping captain.
- Forrest never smiles! I can think of one or two scenes where Forrest smiles authentically. He usually looks like he’s floating through life. (1) Forrest giggling after touching Jenny’s boobs, (2) something on the shrimping boat, and (3) something on the bench. And some examples of him not smiling: (1) “Forrest, will you marry me?” (2) “Lt Dan, ice cream!”
- I like/hate Forrest Gump. I like it because it can be on the floor funny, but hate it because it’s a tragedy and needlessly depressing at point. I use the word needlessly because I go under the assumption that depressing thought are unhealthy unless you do something to help yourself or others.
- “Good” Fiction is a only reflection of life, it’s never an example of how to live life. Sure there are elements in Forrest Gump that tend to support an argument that thinking simply, lovingly, and positively will lead to a successful life, but it really doesn’t help with the how. It can get away with presenting depressing and burdensome characters and offer no solutions but magical changes on-screen.
- I’m tired of “good” movies and dramas/tragedies and vow to avoid them at all costs. If anyone asks me why, I’ll refer them to this article. It’s because “good” drama is a depressing reflection of life, intended to make you feel sad, then return you to your life with no intention to improve the world or the viewer. Often times, they foster negative and confusing thoughts. They are intended to make the audience cry. I have no interest in that. It is an unhealthy habit to get into, it’s self-loathing, self-pity. It accustoms you to ugly situations and desensitizes you. It let’s you walk away from conflict with an attitude that nothing gets resolved positively and/or that’s the way life is. Maybe the redeeming grace is to tell others that they’re not alone. Maybe that’s why people tell others to watch depressing movies. Not to spread depression but to say, I’ve felt the sadness you felt. Again, all unhealthy thinking. Nothing gets solved in two to three hours in these tragedies. Nothing is learned that couldn’t be learned faster in a book.
- I’m sticking to fun entertainment because they show positive go-getters who make light of situations and spread joy, happiness, morals, and examples of how to make the world a better place. Tragedies and dramas do the exact opposite. They show unsavory characters in tense inter-personal conflict and show examples of the worst outcomes. They let people bask in sadness and drama and show the world for how bad it can be. Is it so horrible to say that “good” movies are bad for me?
- Maybe people like sad movies because they’re able to see the positive and hope in any situation and want to challenge themselves on thinking positively. Maybe there are people out there who have it so put together that they need to be reminded of what depression and tears feel like? Or maybe there are people out there who are depressed and want to spread their pain to others, and, in the word of South Park creators, “that’s a shitty thing to do.” But I’d like to think that some filmmakers and fans want others to know that there are people out there who are going through the same shitty things you are and someone felt it was worth spending millions of dollars to tell you you’re not alone. Maybe people can’t cry about their own situations, so they need a way to relieve the stress and pain they’re already in. What ever the reason is, I’m choosing not to watch depressing movies, tragedies, dramas because I don’t need any of that. I’m aware that millions of others are going through what I’m going through, went through what I went through, and don’t need to go back to those things. I know how shitty the world can be, I know what it feels like to cry, and I’m trying to handle my self-pity, stress, and pain in more productive ways. I don’t need to spend two more hours in darkness when I could be spending those hours in lightness. And if you’re a filmmaker who feels that a depressing movie is the only way to be respected as an actor or suddenly lost sight of what it means to live life, fuck you. If you built your career on making people laugh, you had it right the first time. You were serving a role in many peoples’ lives to make their day brighter, if only for 90 minutes. Don’t cancel that affect by catering to a small minority who want to see their day grow darker if only for 120 minutes or longer. Go solve your existential questions, give to charity, be a volunteer, make a difference on an inter-personal level. Don’t go appealing to people who weren’t a fan of you in the first place.