Forrest Gump

I've loved the film Forrest Gump ever since I was a kid growing up in the Nineties. Some of its scenes are among my most vivid early memories. It was my crash course in 20th century history; it was where I first learned about Elvis, JFK, John Lennon, Vietnam, Watergate… the list goes on. It's where I first understood heartbreak (Jenny), wanderlust ("I just felt like runnin'") and melancholy (Lieutenant Dan in the bar as everyone sings 'Auld Lang Syne').

It's a film that uncovers its layers over time (as a kid, I somehow overlooked Forrest's mama's grunting episode with the teacher, or the reason Jenny threw rocks at her childhood home) and I can rewatch it again and again as comfort, as nostalgia, as storytelling. It's also a damn good show more film besides, and I can watch it as a fine piece of filmmaking. All in all, it's fair to say I enjoy Forrest Gump. But I've never been more convinced that it deserved its Oscar for best adapted screenplay than I am now, having read its source book by Winston Groom.

It's so different, it's startling. I won't list all the differences between book and film – we'd be here for hours – but I have to say, without hyperbole, that Eric Roth, the screenwriter, must be responsible for about 90% of the film's content. All of those famous lines and scenes – none of which are in the book. It's an odd feeling. It's not the usual feeling where you feel a film dominate your impressions of its source book, or vice versa. Rather, it's like peering into an alternate universe, one in which the film Forrest Gump never existed – like trying to imagine a world in which the Beatles never formed. Groom's Gump is so far removed from Tom Hanks' character that you see the familiar names on the page but they don't seem right – like you've been told 'up' is 'down' now, or like driving on the other side of the road in a foreign country.

Once I overcame this disappointment – and, to be honest, I had fair warning from all the other reviews of this book – I still found myself in the position of not rating Groom's novel. His Gump is different from the one we're used to, yes, but it also becomes rapidly clear that his Gump is also lesser. His narrative voice is less well-rounded and more dislikeable. His motivations are less endearing, or consistent. His character arc is bumpy, and the story's message is limp. Gump's experiences are less resonant (both for himself and his audience), including – in the book's two plummeting nadirs – a stint as a wrestler known as 'the Dunce', fighting another wrestler known as 'the Turd', and a spell as an astronaut who crash-lands in the jungle, where he plays chess with 'bongo-bongo'-style cannibal tribes.

The book as a whole is throwaway, short-changing on character and structure. I know some people don't like the film, seeing it as a saccharine Boomer fever-dream, but I don't think anyone can deny it's a tight piece of filmmaking, rewatchable, accessible to all ages, with great acting and direction and some truly thoughtful moments. The book, on the other hand, is petty, cynical, juvenile – and glib. It's not a coincidence that I find myself referring to the film's character as 'Forrest', but to the book's as the more impersonal 'Gump'. There's none of the film's heart in evidence here.

Rather than bringing it all home with Forrest, Jenny, Lieutenant Dan and Forrest Junior, as Zemeckis and co. do in the second half of their film, Groom writes the second half of his novel into the ground. The main companion for Gump in this turgid, leaden limp to the finish line is not Jenny or Dan or his own inner monologue, but a male ape called Sue. Winston Groom might have provided him with a few basic cues, but Eric Roth earned that golden statue (and let's not forget he was up against Frank Darabont for The Shawshank Redemption that year). Under our noses, he seemed to have performed a feat of pure alchemy. show less

Having read this many years ago, I decided to revisit it if for no other reason than laughs. What I'd forgotten was that Gump was an 'idiot savant', something left out entirely in the film. Capable of high level math and good with the harmonica, Forrest was higher functioning that Hank's character would have us think; he was also a rather large fellow and didn't run across the country. His adventures included others not shown in the movie, though its not unusual at all. A good laugh when he meets Nixon who pulls him aside, rolls up his sleeve and asks, "wanna buy a watch?"... Not a Pulitzer winner but fun just the same!

Be advised, this book is nothing like the movie. That's not the book's fault. But you will likely dislike the book if, like me, you've loved the movie ever since you saw it in theaters and have loved it even more upon every subsequent viewing. But you won't hate the book, because hate would require more emotion than you're prepared to give a book that barely even moves you, emotionally.

So, don't read this book if, like me, you enjoy leaking a few tears when, at the end, Big Forrest gets all verklemmpt upon learning that Little Forrest ain't stupid. If, like me, you prefer your Jenny to die only after she repents of her sins and gets a sensible haircut and a full-time job. If, like me, you wait breathlessly, as if for Christmas morning, show more for the scene where Forrest goes to war in a chopper screaming over a foreign field of long, green grass set to CCR's "Fortunate Son"; because you've never heard the song the same since. Who knew that the "Fortunate Son's" intro bass and drum would sync so perfectly with a chopper's rotors' thumping beat. And who knew that experiencing this effect for the first time in a crowded movie theater would stir your soul the way it did. And who knew that you would spend the rest of your life chasing that thrill, found here or there, but never experienced quite exactly as you did that first time, but you still have to keep chasing. Don't read the book if any of that (highly personal) stuff is important to you because none of it's in the book.

I realize that this review isn't fair to the book. But life ain't fair, and books aren't sentient, but, actually, their authors are. So let me just say that the book is competently written and likely also a bit of a gem. In fact, I probably would have liked the book a lot more if the reading of it hadn't done such violence to the movie's imago in my heart and mind.

Put differently, if the world of movies and the books some of them are made from were a big box of chocolates, this book would be a plain good-old American Hershey chocolate piece that would satisfy you entirely if, and only if, you hadn't already been feasting on gourmet Swiss chocolates hand-fed to you by luscious Swiss-chocolate chocolate models whose own limbs and bodies are made of delectable pure-Swiss-milk-chocolate chocolate, and, and, and. You get the picture. In this latter case, you'd spit out the Hersey chocolate piece and claim that it tastes like wax. But it wouldn't taste like wax if you stopped your Swiss-chocolate chocolate orgies, is the point. Hershey chocolates taste perfectly fine once you deprive your palate and -self of more refined chocolates. Likewise, this book will likely, probably, possibly satisfy your readerly gullet if you've never seen the movie it so wonderfully inspired. show less

MUCH different than the interpretation by the film. I remember reading this (And the sequel, Gump & Co.) in my senior year at college. Loved the cargo cult cannibals and Sue the Orangutan. Gruffer, darker and much coarser than the film. Perfect for curmudgeons and Cynics and those who thought the film was total Glurge. (*I* liked the film on it's own merits, though, so take that as you will.)

This book swings from profound to utterly ridiculous so fast and back again, that I have mental whiplash. I can't tell if this book has aged terribly or exceptionally when it comes to how offensive some statements are, since it's meant to offend, and society has become a lot more sensitive towards some of these things since the 80s.

Either way the first 5 or 6 chapters and the last 3 or 4 chapters are worth thinking about when it comes to how society sees and treats people with deficiencies, and also how a person can have everything they could ever want, without actually having what they want - and only someone who thinks simply, would choose to leave it behind to pursue a life that he enjoys. Everything in between though, is a comedy of show more errors that, in my opinion, go way too far for the sake of a cheap laugh. show less

I first read this book back when it came out back in 1986 and have re-read it several times since. I always said they should make a movie out of it, and when they did I was very excited...until I saw it. Movie adaptations are almost always inferior to their source material, so I won't belabor the "book vs. movie" argument. So, moving on...Like Mark Twain via Voltaire, the book is essentially a very funny satirical adventure, borrowing the structure of Candide, lampooning the modern world as seen through the eyes of an "idiot." It's politically incorrect and laugh-out-loud funny. My first-edition copy is still a prized possession.

First - as you can gather from the other reviews. The book is not the movie... the characters are the same (more or less) but the movie takes a bit of the gist of the book and spins it in a whole 'nother direction and one that pleasingly incorporates all those iconic images from each era.
The book plays out as a series of vignettes that are thinly strung together. Forrest bounces from situation to situation (some you'll recognize from the movie). The vignettes are sometimes satirical, sometimes social commentary, and sometimes just plain silly. The language is at times a little difficult to stomach - but Forrest is a character that comes from the pre-civil rights south, and an idiot savant to boot - so, the language is part of the show more character and the era.
It was a quick read. I enjoyed this, for the most part - I did laugh out loud several times while reading it. It's enjoyable - but won't be shelves among the favorites that I re-read. I gave it 4 stars - because it's not quite a 3. I'd give it a 3 1/2 stars if I could.
Now I'm going to go pop some popcorn and watch the movie (which IS one of my favorites). show less