I finally read the book and Forrest is not mentally deficient at all in the book.
In the book, he’s a very aware, intelligent person who’s good at focusing on and solving problems but has a speech impediment.
Maybe the movie tried to do that, but I don’t think they tried to do that.
He also goes to space with a chimpanzee.
The book is pretty crazy.
You’re not wrong they literally have a scene talking about his test scores showing his mentally deficiency on a written test.
In the film he’s a diagnosed retard.
I mean he is from alabama.
Why are you just repeating him?
Which you could charitably read as them not understanding that a speech impediment doesn’t translate to lower intelligence, but reading the book is very jarring because it’s basically narrated by this almost hyper self-aware character who became famous for being portrayed as unthinking, literally mentally challenged and falling into all of these events.
Sounds like the movie made a change for the better.
It’s been some time since I’ve read the book, but I always say, Forrest Gump is an example of the movie being better than the book.
Another example of this is Fight Club. The movie has the big twist, which isn’t even hidden in the book.
The opposite of Marathon Man, where the book has a twist that the movie doesn’t hide at all.
I agree, usually this isn’t the case. IMO the other example of this is with Jurassic Park.
I recently read Jurassic Park for the first time and I thought the same thing. The movie provided a more engaging plot, had more emotional punch, and developed stronger characterization. Going back and reading Chrichton’s work has been a rewarding exercise to me as a budding writer. He had some great ideas but also surprisingly had a lot of flaws in his work.
The best part of the book was making Hammond the villain, that should have been kept.
How do you mean?
I found the book much more compelling.
After I read it, I thought that maybe I would’ve cared about the movie if he had a scoche of relatability or development.
Movie gump seemed like a trope rather than a character as soon as the previews were being shown.
I think we read different comments… Space with monkeys?!
Really makes you think
It’s been a long time since I read the book, but that’s not how I remember it at all. He was gifted mathematically, but deficient in general. He caused trouble a number of times by misreading situations and not doing what was expected of him.
He was smarter than people assumed, but I got the impression he was still impaired overall. Maybe that was the movie affecting my perception of the character.
I think it’s the movie, but also the way the book is written as a commentary on what intelligence is.
Forrest accepts he’s an idiot because people tell him he’s an idiot, even though on the inside, all of his thoughts are very logical, self-aware and clear, he just has trouble expressing his thoughts.
“Now I’m slow—I’ll grant you that, but I’m probly a lot brighter than folks think, cause what goes on in my mind is a sight different than what folks see. For instance, I can think things pretty good, but when I got to try sayin or writin them, it kinda come out like jello or somethin.”
Over and over throughout the book, he’s taken advantage of because he is honest and helpful, but not because he’s intellectually deficient.
He obviously has excellent coordination, he becomes an astronaut, he can learn and do pretty much any task, simple or complicated, often better than anyone else, which I think indicates his actual intelligence, along with his very clear, slef-aware and insightful internal monologues.
His trouble is with expressing himself and refusing to view the world cynically.
The rest of the world thinks being open and honest is a sign of low intelligence, but I think that’s a commentary on the rest of the world, not on Forrest.
Hm, he still does “dumb” things though. Trying to strain a canned peach through a sweaty sock to make a drink. Getting lost in China. Not understanding the political implications of rescuing Chairman Mao. Calling the Vietnam war “a bunch of shit” while representing the US military (it’d be one thing if it was intentional, but he didn’t seem to understand what the consequences would be.) Telling Jenny that Lieutenant Dan could use the bathroom without help rather than asking her for a container that’s not his hat. Kidnapping Raquel Welch.
I guess a lot of those things could be explained away one way or another. Your take on the character is definitely an interesting one, but I thought of him as more of a savant type who was capable of learning specific things extremely well, but was generally unintelligent. Though more intelligent than some give him credit for.
Yea, for me all the “dumb” things he does are only dumb in the context of the culturally popular limited idea of intelligence as assumed by characters in and out of the book and the reflected behaviors of “dumb” or “smart” people.
I don’t think measured intelligence is all that important.
I know too many dumb smart people and smart dumb people.
Being “smart” doesn’t help Lt. Dan keep his legs or his home, Jenny from being arrested or institutionalized, Bubba from dying, or anyone else any more than Forrest’s being an “idiot” stops him from becoming an astronaut, a business tycoon or an excellent soldier.
I don’t know if this is the writer’s original intention, but the focus on “intelligence” in Forrest gump seems like a red herring to the point of the story.
It’s an interesting interpretation for sure. I could believe it more easily if he was shown to not care about the consequences of his actions rather than being ignorant of them.
Maybe you’re right, except that in addition to having trouble communicating, he also has trouble reading social situations and understanding what others want from him. He is, as you say, very capable of solving problems that don’t involve people.
That’s a good point about his concern for consequences.
I definitely think forrest has trouble reading people and social situations, which ties into his candor, or perceived “idiocy”.
Gump can usually understand and describe his own thought processes and surrounding environment clearly, even consequences, future events and what people want, like during the war when he can understand the fairly complex notion that his company will quietly last in ambush since the VC are going to come back on their search patrol if they can’t find Charlie company, but what he has difficulty perceiving, and more importantly little care or use for, is when people around him have ulterior motives.
When he shows up at Jenny’s anti-war rally, he didn’t understand what they want or the consequences because nobody, not even Jenny, tells him why they want him to wear chains around his uniform at their rally, he questions her motives and she says
“I axed why again, but she say, “Just do it, you will find out later. You want to make me happy, doesn’t you?””
And he accepts that answer.
Forrest understands abstract concepts. He understands personal humiliation, like in the wrestling ring, but has no interest in and so understanding of, figuring out the purposeful deceit or manipulation by others.
It’s important to note that while Forrest is the “idiot”, everyone around him speaks the same way he does, is surprised by consequences they don’t foresee, are very similar to gump himself in the way their lives unfold, with the exception that they don’t say what they mean.
In fact, the “smartest” people in the book are the nasa scientists, who immediately realize that gump is much better at math and healthier than most people, and exclaim “your mind is jus like a computer—only better. If we can program it with the right stuff, you will be extremely useful”.
Since the scientists are judging gump’s raw abilities rather than his interest in social savvy, they can see how intelligent he is, but of course want to use him for their own ends, like everyone else.
Imagine interacting with strangers beyond “did the bus I need already stop here?”.
Signed, the Netherlands.
I can’t imagine interacting with strangers at all under any circumstances (as long as it’s on a bus).
Signed, Sweden
It’s so inconsiderate to interact with strangers in an environment they cannot escape.
Greetings from Norway
I assume the Finns are not even commenting here as that would be too much interaction
You can’t escape outside? That’s like the least restrictive place ever.
I can’t imagine interacting with strangers.
Signed, me.
Hello there.
general kenobi
Hey, that’s not fair. We have a plethora of "ushekta"s to employ in various transit-related scenarios:
- I want to sit here, please jump in/remove your backpack/whatever
- I need to get off here, please allow me to exit my seat
- I bumped into you, sorry about that
- The bus is getting full and you need to move back to make space for more people
We live in a society after all
You use words for I need to get off here, please allow me to exit my seat?? Barbaric. A good rustling of your belongings, maybe a shift in the position your sitting and, if all fails, judgemental but thankful eye contact should be absolutely sufficient. Maybe MAYBE paired with a mumbled excuse me.
Verbal communication is naturally a last resort if your fellow passenger does not pick up on your non-verbal cues.
This naturally also comes with the responsibility of not accidentally showing non-verbal cues and making someone think you need to get off and as such leave their seat.
Ah yes, the dread all too sudden move in the seat. In such a case the only reasonable thing is to get up and stand for the rest of the ride. Worst case you might just have to walk home. The damage is already done.
I remember crying all the way to the next stop as a kid because I was too awkward to let my seat neighbour know that I needed to get up to press the stop button. In defence of the bus and its inhabitants everyone was very supportive. Good times!
Point 2 and 3 are valid points (btw I love the phonetic spelling of ursäkta)
I would’ve thought the bus world be displaying the sorry I’m full sign when there’s a passenger on board in those parts of Europe 😜
Thats what the digital displays are for. only reason to talk to someone is to bitch about a certain bus always being late, which they then agree with and the conversation ends.
you don’t do a puppet show and encourage everyone to sing along?
This always blows my mind as an American. Considering how our country is… How are we so much more friendly and talkative than the rest of you people?
I read some study about it a few years back… in summary, americans are doing the fake friendliness thing where they ask everyone and their mother how they are doing, if they want to grab coffee sometime, and so on while actually meaning nothing of it. Meanwhile Europeans don’t do that. They are only really friendly to people they are familiar with, and immediately sceptical of the American kind of fake friendliness. Basically, we wouldn’t ask someone how they do unless we are actually interested in that.
Peaches vs Coconuts.
Another interesting thing I once read is that there are apparently subconscious cultural norms for things like eye contact.
Many Americans visiting Europe report that they often feel stared at, which is caused by a minuscule difference in how long it is appropriate to meet someone’s gaze, for example when walking in public and looking at a stranger. Apparently Americans look somewhere else a fraction of a second earlier, and this tiny difference makes them feel stared at.
We can be friendly and talkative, but not at a bus stop.
Well yeah, of course I mean I’m not saying you aren’t in general. But with strangers like that, how Americans can be. I’m constantly having random conversations with strangers and it completely blows my foreign friend’s minds when I talk about stuff like that.
I run a B&B around the Himalayan range and see a lot of foreign tourists. Most Europeans people seem to be much more reserved especially the Finnish, a few are notable exceptions like the Germans & English.
I run a B&B around the Himalayan range
Pretty sure you’re winning an award for most interesting job on Lemmy.
Not bothering strangers with inane conversation is more friendly to me. Forcing strangers into conversations is rude. But I live in Vancouver, we have similar transit culture to Europe.
deleted by creator
You mean annoying?
This thread is now officially part of the yuropean continent.
Must be a lonely country
What?
The movie starts with Forrest introducing himself to a black woman as being named after, and descended from, Nathan Bedford Forrest, slave catcher, Civil War general, and KKK founder. Who, btw, racists keep trying to rehabilitate with revisionism.
It’s kind of brushed off because Forrest is clearly off, mentally, but it gets a little more suspicious considering all of the whitewashing in the movie.
