Zizek says that in the past ideology had to be disguised, no one came out
and said directly that ideology depends on the stupidity, the cretinism of
the subject, but this film goes right ahead and says that. Gump obeys
orders uncritically and becomes a millionaire. His girlfriend joins in
antiwar protests and dies of AIDS. It is just that simple. Gump doesn´t
come back from ´Nam in a bodybag or a wheelchair. When he goes to China he
wops them at ping pong. Its all as simple as that, Gump practises strict
monogamy and has a happy family life, his girlfriend practises free loves,
she gets a terrible wasting sexually transmitted illness. I think Zizek is
right, who would have dared be so moronic in their approach to history or
any subject in the past? FG´s charm is that it states with absolute
baldness things that no sane person could believe. I can just imagine the
film-makers doing the fingers at the audiences as the credits roll, daring
themselves to believe their own lies, PM
>From: Stuart Ross <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: Poetryetc provides a venue for a dialogue relating to poetry and
> poetics <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: forrest gump!
>Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 17:19:14 -0800
>
>Paul M wrote:
>
>>Another thing, I read a savaging of Forrest Gump by Slavoj Zizek,
>>any thoughts on this article or film? PM
>
>I haven't read the Zizek article, but I *tried* to watch the film.
>Now, I can usually sit through even the worst dreck, but I couldn't
>get more than halfway through Forrest Gump, I found it so
>excruciatingly jingoistic. I though it was unbearable, trite,
>simplistic, insulting... Argh.
>
>Um, I didn't like it.
>
>Stuart
>
>
>
>--
_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
|