Forrest Gump, comparative review

     Popular, widely-read novels are often adapted for films. Some movies like The Shawshank Redemption are not much different from the original novel, but the movie version of Forrest Gump was a completely different work from the book. Some scenes are omitted and new scenes are added because the movie maker has to effectively convey the theme in about two or three hours. From my perspective, Eric Roth, the screen writer, skillfully made an adaptation despite such restrictions.

     The novel and the movie are two different works with two different themes. What we feel after reading the book and watching the movie are very different. They try to convey different messages; the colder, more cynical novel focuses on the “realism” while the film emphasizes the “accidentality.”

     We can easily find the difference between the two works from the narrator’s, Forrest’s tone. Tom Hanks, the man who played Forrest Gump in the movie, is described as a morally upright and innocent man. But in the novel, we remember that he is dissatisfied with the world around him and curses a lot. Eric Roth, in the film, wants to tell a story of an individual who overcomes whatever he accidentally encounters and becomes successful. The protagonist should be someone who always does his best in any situation, so it was better for Eric to change Forrest' character.

     Watching the movie, we easily find that some scenes from the novel are just cut. It is because the film’s theme is different from the novel’s. Forrest in the novel receives a perfect score in an advanced physics class while his IQ is only less than 80. He shows talents in wrestling and chess as well. But in the movie, such parts are simply omitted. Those who notably lack intelligence compared to normal people show autistic behaviors: they are extremely good at some specific areas like chess or simple calculation. It is a common characteristic of a retarded child to be obsessed with a specific field, so Winston Groom who tried to emphasize the reality included such parts. But in the film, why do we need them?

     Let’s now talk about some elements that are added when the novel is adapted to the film. In the movie, Forrest is always successful. Eric made Forrest crippled while Forrest in the novel was perfectly healthy from the childhood. It was because Eric wanted to include the scene that Forrest breaks apart the braces and overcomes the hardship. Forrest saves Lieutenant Dan’s life and even graduates college in the movie. These new scenes are added because in the movie, Eric wanted to focus on the successful life of an individual who constantly does his best about the things he accidentally faces.

     Also, some dramatic elements are added in the movie. Lieutenant Dan’s legs are suddenly cut, and Jenny dies in the film. These parts make the work more dramatic thereby emphasizes the hardship Forrest accidentally encounters.

     I personally love the movie more than the novel. I like the drama more than the cynical reality. I can easily find the main point in the movie, but I can hardly grasp the theme in the novel. I believe Eric Roth, changing the narrator’s tone, excluding some original parts, and including some new parts, successfully does his job of making a great adaptation. 

Movie review - Everything must go

"Is that it?” I said as the movie ended with Samantha giving Nick a big hug.

The movie itself was interesting from the beginning to the end, but I believe it failed to effectively convey its message to people. So, about the question whether this movie was well directed, I have to say “NO.” The movie does have a theme even though the delivery was not that successful, so let me talk about some ideas that came to my mind while watching the film.

1. Nick, the protagonist, is a very unlucky man. One the same day when he is fired from his well-paid job, his wife left home, leaving all his possessions thrown out on the yard. His car is taken away, and even his bank account gets frozen. When Nick encounters this catastrophe, he seems to have no will left to live on. Just everything was okay with him. He did not expect it to come to him at all. It is totally understandable that Nick almost loses hope to live, drinking beer all day long. But what can he do about this? Does giving up everything and thinking about his glorious past solve the problem? Nick waits for someone who would save him from this disaster. But there is nobody. Nick himself is the only one who could overcome the hardship. Nick, thus, starts garage sale with Kenny and manages to navigate himself out of the catastrophe. With the idea, “everything is not yet lost,” on his mind, he starts all over again.

Nick lost the will to live since he was fired

Many people can’t let their glorious past go away. They chew their past over and over again, embellishing the past even more splendid. People deprive their own happiness, not happiness of the past, of the future, but of the present. One who keeps looking back the past can’t be satisfied with the present. Past could seem more satisfied and happier, but people have to live anyway. Everything must go no matter one wants to go back to past. It is just a matter of how one lives with one’s life.

The film sends us the message that we need to focus on the present, but at the same time it warns the danger of alcoholism. The scene that Nick begs a beer from a store really points out that alcohol is one of the factors that bring about such disaster. It is probably because Raymond Carver, the author of “Why don’t you dance,” was a serious alcoholic.

2. Kenny, the black kid who works as a business partner of Nick, plays a significant role in the plot. Kenny, who is always left out from friends and has nothing much to do except riding a bike, is just like Nick. Kenny who finds his talent in marketing enables Nick to get over the hardship, giving Nick a hope that Nick could also start all over again and embarks on a new career.

Kenny plays a significant role in the plot

3. I believe the main difference from “Why don’t you dance?” is that in “Everything must go,” Nick gradually manages to overcome his difficulty. In the short story, the man tries to escape from the reality by watching two young couple dancing in his yard.

To sum up, the film was interesting but not well directed. I could find a theme that people need to find happiness from the present, but the conveyance was not effective. What role does Samantha or Delilah play in the plot should be more explicitly described. It is relief that Samantha is pretty.

Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption

The prisoners are easily controlled by an immoral power

     As I read the book, I was reminded of the harsh truth that I never wanted to admit: the employment of strength and duplicity is the very fundamental and the most effective in treating people. People are often mistaken, believing that the leaders should be virtuous and honorable. However, in reality, people are more likely to be controlled when the leader actively uses unjustifiable, immoral power.

     Machiavelli, the author of The Prince, stated that ruthless and tyrannical princes are more successful in keeping and acquiring their political power. Yes, people believe that they are likely to admire righteous ones who deserve to receive such respect. Nevertheless, in fact, people with authority commonly use the method of being harsh in controlling the masses, and Shawshank State Penitentiary effectively employs such technique to deal with the prisoners. When the criminals (they claim that they are innocent) firstly come to Shawshank, they are startled by the inhumane treatment of the prison. There is no such concept as “human rights,” and the prisoners are never treated as human beings. Cursing tyrannical guards like Hadley, the prisoners complain about the brutal treatment. However, they unconsciously, gradually begin to adapt themselves to such environment. Using the term referred in the novel, I can say that they are “institutionalized.” They come to regard such treatment is natural. This method of dealing with others is immoral and cruel in my perspective. Taking advantage of the human psychology, those with power work hard to create an environment that the masses are more obedient. Such manipulation should not be forgiven, but it is very effective, what can you say? Such tendency of people to adapt themselves to an environment is lucidly shown in “the roof incident.” The prisoners had been normally hostile to guards including Hadley. When they were given beers, however, they were gratified by the favor. Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption explicitly shows that people are very vulnerable to the strategy of “constant harshness and unexpected kindness.”

     

Andy finally achieves freedom

     However, this cunning strategy was not effective to everyone. There was one prisoner who was never docile and eventually escaped from Shawshank proving that he did not belong there at the first place: Andy Dufresne. Andy was a respectful banker who had been convicted of murdering his wife and her secret lover. When he firstly came to Shawshank, he was a cold fish that never compromises with the environment. Others believed that Andy would someday adjust himself to the environment and become one of them who live without any ambition or hope. However, Andy never let the hope fly away from him. When he was about to be rape by the Sisters, when he was thrown into solitary confinement, and even when Tommy Williams was murdered, he kept a hope deep inside in his heart. Why do you think Andy gave the advice to Hadley in exchange for three bottles of beer for each? Love for the coworkers? Desire to drink a cool drink under the warm spring sunshine? I believe that Andy did so because he wanted to "use his ability" just like the time when he had not been locked up in Shawshank. Working as a banker again, Andy gave himself a pride and kept telling himself that he never belongs to such society. From the very beginning to the very end, Andy never gives up hope. Red, the narrator, was institutionalized just like other prisoners. He was not ready to be free until the very end. However, Andy had been perfectly ready to achieve freedom from the time when he made the first step in Shawshank.

     After reading about Andy eventually achieving the freedom that he had longed so bad, I asked myself, “Is hope a significant element in my life? Didn’t I just throw away the glimmer of hope?” As I said above, people are vulnerable to the strategy of “constant harshness and unexpected kindness.” However, if people are highly enlightened and have a firm idea about their lives like Andy, they will never be controlled by such inhumane, cunning strategy. Andy’s impressive escape from Shawshank accentuates the importance of being awaken and having hope no matter what.