Forrest Gump made $708M adjusted back in 1994; Never would a movie like that be able to make that much money today. Nope, a movie like Forrest Gump wouldn't even make 1/4 of that today. Disney has monopolized movie culture and tastes at the box-office. Simple as that. There is no room for original drama.

Despite winning Best Picture and gaining a reputation as a classic, IndieWire’s Eric Kohn wants to hear none of that. His Forrest Gump takedown basically pisses on the legacy of this Robert Zemeckis-Tom Hanks film by implying a direct connection to conservatism and all but saying that ‘Gumpism,’ well, it’s actually another form of ‘Trump-ism.’

However, the entire Kohn write-up feels like further proof of intolerance stemming from a “progressive mindset” than really a credible dissection of the movie’s intolerance — if anything, ‘Gump’ is a film which promotes the idea of “getting along” and compromise. The film itself doesn’t preach hate, it’s fine as it goes, a feel-good movie with built-in values (which I don’t necessarily find to be conservative as much as just “satirical”). Even though I cannot, for the life of me, see the values being preached in Gump as anything but what I described back in the day as “dimwit whimsy” and not anything to do with conservatism, what Kohn is basically calling for is the existence of only one discourse at the movies, a dangerous thing.

I enjoy Kohn’s writing, plus he’s just a nice guy, but he lost me here with this article. It seems as though there is barely any room for “mind expansion” in today’s age of PC groupthink. Rather than acceptance and respect for each other’s beliefs, social media has aligned millions of Americans into a kind of authoritarian language belief. So, what we are left with, is people now attacking “Forrest Gump” as a Trump-ian statement because it refuses to be militant in its stances and, actually, rather neutral.

No, what made ‘Gump’ a decently appealing flick was its view of what it truly means to be ‘smart’ in America: “Stupid is as stupid does”. If Forrest being guided by principle instead of opportunism is a conservative thing, then you’ve lost me in what your definition might be of one’s own values. Also, the irony in ‘Gump’ is unmistakable — an idiot becomes a war hero. An idiot has, by pure coincidence, a big influence on US history.

Zemeckis has always argued that the film was neutral and apolitical. “My film is a party to which everyone can bring a bottle,” he said. Producer Steve Tish one-upped him by saying: “‘Forrest Gump’ isn’t about politics or conservative values. It’s about humanity.” Hanks added to that Tish’s comments “The film is nonpolitical,” he said, “and thus nonjudgemental.”

Excerpts from the Kohn piece titled ‘Forrest Gump,’ 25 Years Later: A Bad Movie That Gets Worse With Age’:

“There’s a reason Forrest Gump became a beacon to an antiquated Republican Party when it came out in the run-up to the 1994 midterm elections: it preaches conservatism in its bones, whether its creators intended it that way or not.

“Through the lens of Hanks’ lovable naif, who somehow stumbles through every monumental moment in American history and emerges unscathed, Forrest Gump reads as a repudiation to any nuanced assessment of the country. It celebrates family values and obedience to the system over anyone who clashes with it. Every whiff of rebellion is suspect.

“This no-nothing white man becomes a war hero and a wealthy man simply by chugging along, participating in a country that dictates his every move. He never comprehends racism or the complexities of Vietnam; the movie portrays political activism and hippy culture as a giant cartoon beyond Forrest’s understanding, while presenting his apolitical stance as the height of all virtue.

“Viewed in retrospect, Forrest Gump whitewashes and dumbs down American history at every turn.”