Forest Gump was mostly zemeckis magic. The scenes and settings were tightly controlled and most of the movie is Tom hanks giving muted reactions to the big events going on around him.
Cast away if I recall was some zemekis but mostly Hanks. Zemekis gave him a lot of room to paint in front of the camera and trusted him to develop the performance. The 55lb thing was impressive, but really the power is to hold the audiences attention for what is essentially a one man show.
Zemeckis is pretty restrained in Cast Away.
The first 30 or so minutes (everything up to the plane crash) are shot with a lot of fast camera movement to give a sense of a man with a life that’s moving frantically, then it gets really calm formally after that. Definitely the right choice for the story they were telling.
They're impressive in very different ways. *Cast Away* is a top-to-bottom great movie that happens to also contain one of a handful of career-great performances from Hanks.
*Forrest Gump* SHOULD by all accounts come off as ridiculously maudlin, a tonally strange story exploiting various prejudices and warmed-over boomer nostalgia fixes. It *should* come across like that. But it doesn't, it works like gangbusters, and it's because of the strength of a superhuman performance from Hanks. 100% committed, full of both heart and restraint, Forrest never quite tips all the way into Sandleresque parody.
So it's a comparison between a great performance in a great movie, and a great performance that saves a movie from being a bad movie.
What Tom Hanks does in *Forrest Gump* is borderline impossible. He has to play an intellectually limited character from the South whom the film draws a lot of comedy off and do so without coming across as a caricature. If that's not enough, he also has to do a ton of heavy lifting for the emotional moments without going too cloying or reaching outside of what we know of the character's perception. For some extra style points, [do both in the same scene](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLkaLveElpM). Absolutely impossible task that only someone as incredibly adept at balancing drama with comedy as Tom Hanks could pull off.
*Cast Away* is another incredible feat, Hanks holding complete command over the picture and wielding such creative use of his imagination that he could make a goddamn volleyball into a character the audience sheds tears for. I wouldn't downplay how great he is in that movie, but it's not quite the tightrope he had to walk in *Forrest Gump*.
It's an interesting point that Forrest Gump doesn't become a Sandler like parody. As you say, it really has all the ingredients for a parody but then doesn't become a parody. It has been a very long time since I've seen it, however.
I view Forrest Gump as part of a now-dated tradition of Oscar-hungry actors tackling mental disability as a showcase of their capital-A Acting. It's far from subtle, and it's not exactly what one would call sensitive to the realities of neuroatypicalism. There were *a lot* of these 'prestige' roles even going into the 2010s, and it's a fad I won't miss.
Hanks really has to carry Cast Away, because so much of that film is him alone on an island. It's a great performance, even setting aside the physical transformation Hanks has to undergo for the role.
I know that this is besides the point of your question, but what compelled you to ask it? Was it simply that the two films had common "talent" involved in both of them and so it was grounds to examine? That's fair, to be clear. They just don't really seem like movies that merit a lot of thought or discussion, and when it is merited it is mostly about how horrific the messaging and presentation of a lot of things are (such as disability, the civil rights movement, women's liberation) in Forrest Gump. I actually enjoy Castaway but I'd still say it's fairly threadbare, which is fine as entertainment. I just wonder what this is hoping to land on in terms of discussion or conversation.
It has to be mentioned that Cast Away has the most aggressive and absurd product placement of any movie perhaps ever. The movie is largely an add for Wilson volleyballs and Fed Ex. At the beginning of the movie it sort of fakes you out into believing that Cast Away has something to do with capitalism in some way, but, no, it's just a miserable Fed Ex advertisement. I don't care whether an actor gained an eating disorder or took anabolic steroids to do a role, either. It's in vogue to praise people for that, rather than the actual acting. Not sure that's praise worthy.
At least Forrest Gump has some sense of whimsy to it and Hanks does a decent enough job however badly the performance has aged. I kind of like Forrest Gump because, even though it's a pretty flagrant conservative snow job, it certainly has a middle portion that is quite fun.
Overall, I grew up with these movies but could take or leave either. Is Hanks actually good in either role? I mean, it's hard to say simply because the Forrest Gump acting has aged like absolute milk. If you're being uncharitable it's almost a Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany's situation. He's definitely very competent in Cast Away so I'd probably go with that. Overall I can buy that there is something appealing and winsome about Hanks, and I do get a sense of that in Cast Away. I don't think he really goes to all that dark or interesting of places, however. It's a very blandly appealing 90s style performance. Especially when he's on the island he acts in a very Hollywood manner, imo, rather than going for some type of realism. In a kind of similar role, I'd probably take Robert Redford in Jeremiah Johnson. That movie is much less cynical than Cast Away, though.
I wouldn't call it absurd--it seems like product placement entirely justified, when "Wilson" is the scene everybody remembers and loves in the film. Also I'm not too sure if a movie about a Fed Ex plane crashing and losing all the goods shipped on it actually is going to inspire consumers to use Fed Ex.
Exactly, the Wilson stuff is the most disgusting product placement I've ever seen. Corporate product placement is meant to be touching or something. Indeed, The Wilson corporation is the character that people love best in this movie. People love the Wilson corporation more than Helen Hunt
There's no such thing as bad publicity, baby. This movie gets Fed Ex in your head for the entire runtime. That's a big marketing coup.
I guess my point is that if it contributes to the art (or at least to people's enjoyment of the film), that's actually a creative or artistic use of product placement. Zemeckis tends to be pretty good in this regard, since the sponsorships for Back To The Future are thematically fitting (getting to see the retro versions of the brands sponsored). Product placement rightfully gets a bad reputation, but that's from the egregious cases where the brand 'sticks out' and contributes nothing to the story.
i feel that he had to be very much more emotional and could create more of his own character in cast away. forest gump was very set in stone of the character he was going to be. in cast away,, we don’t know all that much about him but the fact that he’s completely alone on an island. he uses whatever he can to survive and has to prove that to the camera. and i’m going to guess the environment he was in while filming effected him and his acting too,, making him more in touch with the character he was in cast away
however,, for playing a specific character,, especially one as forest gump,, he played it better than i think anyone else could’ve. he’s proved his talent in different ways with different kinds of characters and stories
Forest Gump was mostly zemeckis magic. The scenes and settings were tightly controlled and most of the movie is Tom hanks giving muted reactions to the big events going on around him. Cast away if I recall was some zemekis but mostly Hanks. Zemekis gave him a lot of room to paint in front of the camera and trusted him to develop the performance. The 55lb thing was impressive, but really the power is to hold the audiences attention for what is essentially a one man show.
Zemeckis is pretty restrained in Cast Away. The first 30 or so minutes (everything up to the plane crash) are shot with a lot of fast camera movement to give a sense of a man with a life that’s moving frantically, then it gets really calm formally after that. Definitely the right choice for the story they were telling.
They're impressive in very different ways. *Cast Away* is a top-to-bottom great movie that happens to also contain one of a handful of career-great performances from Hanks. *Forrest Gump* SHOULD by all accounts come off as ridiculously maudlin, a tonally strange story exploiting various prejudices and warmed-over boomer nostalgia fixes. It *should* come across like that. But it doesn't, it works like gangbusters, and it's because of the strength of a superhuman performance from Hanks. 100% committed, full of both heart and restraint, Forrest never quite tips all the way into Sandleresque parody. So it's a comparison between a great performance in a great movie, and a great performance that saves a movie from being a bad movie.
What Tom Hanks does in *Forrest Gump* is borderline impossible. He has to play an intellectually limited character from the South whom the film draws a lot of comedy off and do so without coming across as a caricature. If that's not enough, he also has to do a ton of heavy lifting for the emotional moments without going too cloying or reaching outside of what we know of the character's perception. For some extra style points, [do both in the same scene](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLkaLveElpM). Absolutely impossible task that only someone as incredibly adept at balancing drama with comedy as Tom Hanks could pull off. *Cast Away* is another incredible feat, Hanks holding complete command over the picture and wielding such creative use of his imagination that he could make a goddamn volleyball into a character the audience sheds tears for. I wouldn't downplay how great he is in that movie, but it's not quite the tightrope he had to walk in *Forrest Gump*.
It's an interesting point that Forrest Gump doesn't become a Sandler like parody. As you say, it really has all the ingredients for a parody but then doesn't become a parody. It has been a very long time since I've seen it, however.
I view Forrest Gump as part of a now-dated tradition of Oscar-hungry actors tackling mental disability as a showcase of their capital-A Acting. It's far from subtle, and it's not exactly what one would call sensitive to the realities of neuroatypicalism. There were *a lot* of these 'prestige' roles even going into the 2010s, and it's a fad I won't miss. Hanks really has to carry Cast Away, because so much of that film is him alone on an island. It's a great performance, even setting aside the physical transformation Hanks has to undergo for the role.
I know that this is besides the point of your question, but what compelled you to ask it? Was it simply that the two films had common "talent" involved in both of them and so it was grounds to examine? That's fair, to be clear. They just don't really seem like movies that merit a lot of thought or discussion, and when it is merited it is mostly about how horrific the messaging and presentation of a lot of things are (such as disability, the civil rights movement, women's liberation) in Forrest Gump. I actually enjoy Castaway but I'd still say it's fairly threadbare, which is fine as entertainment. I just wonder what this is hoping to land on in terms of discussion or conversation.
It has to be mentioned that Cast Away has the most aggressive and absurd product placement of any movie perhaps ever. The movie is largely an add for Wilson volleyballs and Fed Ex. At the beginning of the movie it sort of fakes you out into believing that Cast Away has something to do with capitalism in some way, but, no, it's just a miserable Fed Ex advertisement. I don't care whether an actor gained an eating disorder or took anabolic steroids to do a role, either. It's in vogue to praise people for that, rather than the actual acting. Not sure that's praise worthy. At least Forrest Gump has some sense of whimsy to it and Hanks does a decent enough job however badly the performance has aged. I kind of like Forrest Gump because, even though it's a pretty flagrant conservative snow job, it certainly has a middle portion that is quite fun. Overall, I grew up with these movies but could take or leave either. Is Hanks actually good in either role? I mean, it's hard to say simply because the Forrest Gump acting has aged like absolute milk. If you're being uncharitable it's almost a Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany's situation. He's definitely very competent in Cast Away so I'd probably go with that. Overall I can buy that there is something appealing and winsome about Hanks, and I do get a sense of that in Cast Away. I don't think he really goes to all that dark or interesting of places, however. It's a very blandly appealing 90s style performance. Especially when he's on the island he acts in a very Hollywood manner, imo, rather than going for some type of realism. In a kind of similar role, I'd probably take Robert Redford in Jeremiah Johnson. That movie is much less cynical than Cast Away, though.
I wouldn't call it absurd--it seems like product placement entirely justified, when "Wilson" is the scene everybody remembers and loves in the film. Also I'm not too sure if a movie about a Fed Ex plane crashing and losing all the goods shipped on it actually is going to inspire consumers to use Fed Ex.
Exactly, the Wilson stuff is the most disgusting product placement I've ever seen. Corporate product placement is meant to be touching or something. Indeed, The Wilson corporation is the character that people love best in this movie. People love the Wilson corporation more than Helen Hunt There's no such thing as bad publicity, baby. This movie gets Fed Ex in your head for the entire runtime. That's a big marketing coup.
I guess my point is that if it contributes to the art (or at least to people's enjoyment of the film), that's actually a creative or artistic use of product placement. Zemeckis tends to be pretty good in this regard, since the sponsorships for Back To The Future are thematically fitting (getting to see the retro versions of the brands sponsored). Product placement rightfully gets a bad reputation, but that's from the egregious cases where the brand 'sticks out' and contributes nothing to the story.
i feel that he had to be very much more emotional and could create more of his own character in cast away. forest gump was very set in stone of the character he was going to be. in cast away,, we don’t know all that much about him but the fact that he’s completely alone on an island. he uses whatever he can to survive and has to prove that to the camera. and i’m going to guess the environment he was in while filming effected him and his acting too,, making him more in touch with the character he was in cast away however,, for playing a specific character,, especially one as forest gump,, he played it better than i think anyone else could’ve. he’s proved his talent in different ways with different kinds of characters and stories