Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 6 Apr 1995 15:08:50 CDT |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
----------------------------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.
Regards,
Bet MacArthur
Arts Analysis Inst
Cambridge MA
|
|
|