In that case, I'll buy it.
Posted on 05/24/2005 2:27:36 PM PDT by wagglebee
I understand that the Robert Zemeckis film of 'Forrest Gump' considerably softened up the book.
You've got to see this to believe it!
I've never read the book, truthfully I never saw what all the hype about the movie was for.
In that case, I'll buy it.
Praise from the Atlanta Urinal & Constipation -- shocked.
Patricia Cohen's qualifications in this area are exactly what?
Did any of you see today's review of the book "1776" in USA Today? I'm not good at finding the article to post but the reviewer, Bob MMinzesheimer, strongly infers that anyone reading the book will draw a parallel - that today's American soldiers are the imperial Hessians and Redcoats, and the Iraqi terrorists are the patriots. Frightening.
Sounds like a great endorsement to me!!!
It merely seemed to be a touchstone for nostalgia for the sixties marketed at aging boomers.
I also detested the strained facade of reaching for "evenness" as far as their take on Viet Nam went.
Still, as a piece of anthropological evidence it had its merits. But as a film, I quite agree.
What do you mean, the book was harder, as in more conservative? (please clarify, I'm "iggnerant")
PATRICIA C. COHEN
HISTORY OF AMERICAN WOMEN, SOCIAL HISTORY
Ph.D. Berkeley
Prof. U.C. Santa Barbara
Another feminist historian. Not qualified to review real history.
"1942: The Year That Tried Men’s Souls” because it’s simply too pro-American."
My folks were both alive and kicking during WWII, and had a mouthful to say about it. Being too pro-American wasn't anywhere in the ball park.
There was the victory garden and the endless canning.
There were the coupons, and the shoes that went bad on my mother as she walked home from the store right after buying them. She didn't go back to that store for 25 years.
There were the buddies lost at Pearl and in Europe. My dad was lucky.
WWII, hard on the Depression, shaped people and carved them down to the bone. No one, absolutely no one, has any call to say that these people living then were not completely aware that they could lose their lives, and, their country.
We still could. Too bad the NYT doesn't know this.
There was more, too, but I don't want to go into it.
And even after that, during the Oscars that year, the Hollyweird crowd went to the microphone (I am not making this up) and shouted:
"Forrest Gump is NOT, NOT, NOT a Conservative movie!!"
Face it Hollywood, the movie ridiculed the drug culture, the Black Panthers, 1960's Marxists, the anti-war movement, and the hedonistic lifestyle of the 1970's.
The MS media have chosen to openly ally themselves with Islamic terrorists, Communist tyrants, homosexual deviants, activist judges, atheists, revisionist 'historians', and any other thing that tends to hate truth and goodness. I'd love to have a crystal ball so I could look into the future to see what's going to be done about these scumbags.
the WSJ had a good review of it. David Cullough is a talented historian.
Athough I was pretty young when I read it, and it has been some time since I read it all I remember is that some events were changed. Forrest running the country is not in the book, instead he becomes a chess champion and goes into space.
Who shouted that? Or are you being figurative?
plus it had all those special effects--bringing people back from the dead, like JFK...
Please don't throw athiests into that bunch. I wager there are quite a few right here that are good Conservatives.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.