SCREEN-L Archives

April 1995, Week 1


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Thu, 6 Apr 1995 15:08:50 CDT
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (25 lines)
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
On March 30, Tony Williams wrote to SCREEN-L:
> PULP FICTION was not much of an  alternative [to Gump] but [at >
> least] it had some complexity and acknowledgement of the dark
>  side of American existence...
With all due respect, professor,
Gump [the movie] didn't have a dark side? Did not deliver complex messages
about wounding, hubris, and greed?  Do we persist in mass denial because Gump
[the character] didn't have a dark side? If he didn't, it's because *he is a
fictional character*, a device, a charicature, a part-object, a tool, a
mouthpiece. This mostly- saccharine simpleton is thus absolved of any
responsibility in delivering the message -- if we *get* the message(s), then
in our proper outrage, at least we won't turn and kill the messanger -- isn't
that what satire is all about?  In real life, even men as develop- mentally
compromised as Forrest *do indeed* have their dark side, the shadow side that
every real person possesses. I bet you felt Gump [the movie] had a happy
ending, too.
Bet MacArthur
Arts Analysis Inst
Cambridge MA