Did Forrest Gump and his son both have AIDS??

Forrest's low I.Q. didn't cause any problems for him, other than the way callous people treated him because of their own assumptions and bigotry. So after Gump's long and improbable journey the thing he's taken away from it is that the best way to get around the ugliness of the world is to be "smart"? This is the message of the film? Stupid isn't as stupid does, rather it is how you're made to feel by the worst people you encounter, so if you know what's good for you don't be something they can ridicule out of cruelty and ignorance: be "normal"...whatever in the fart THAT is.


You're usually a much better arguer than that. So you are comparing military service and a World War to the way somebody is born and has zero control over from the instant they emerge from the womb? How do these things equate? It would be more like if Forrest Gump were an American Black man in the South asking with hopeful tears in his eyes if his son could pass for White, because hey, wouldn't it just be an easier road if he were caucasian? It's unrealistic to expect society and bigotry to change, so the best defense is to blend in with them so they don't see you coming and then maybe you'll get through life without being picked on? THAT is the sentiment I get from that scene at the end.

Forrest Gump treats every single person he encountered on his journey the same open and honest way, it didn't matter if they were poor or rich or famous or what race or creed they were or if he knew them his whole life or met them as strangers on a bench waiting for a bus. Because of this attitude the universe rewards him time and time again, no matter how stupid and cruel the other people around him are. But when it comes to his own son...oh, I hope he's not a retard. Terrific. Lesson learned.

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

I'm normally not one to read into movies past what is put in front of us. It is a possibility that she had HIV, but it's also quite possible she had fill in the blank with any possible disease.

Simply because a person is shown as having a "wild" lifestyle for a time, doesn't entirely mean they've contracted the HIV virus.

For Forrest Sr. to want his son to be smart was probably more him wanting him to succeed and do well rather than struggling the way he had to. That's purely speculation, I could be totally wrong. It has been about 5 years since I've watched the film.

__________________
"I was walking down the street with my friend and he said, "I hear music", as if there is any other way you can take it in. You're not special, that's how I receive it too. I tried to taste it but it did not work." - Mitch Hedberg

This is the line about Jenny's terminal illness...



So it's not just "fill in the blank with any disease", we know it's a virus that in the early 1980s the doctors couldn't identify and could not stop from killing her. We know it's the early '80s at that point in the narrative because just before Forrest gets the letter from Jenny telling him to come see her he is watching the news of Hinkley's attempted assassination of President Reagan on the television (late March of 1981).

I think the clear implication is the insidious, deadly, difficult to identify virus of the early 1980s was HIV/AIDS, that Jenny who we know was promiscuous and shared drug needles, contracted it along her dark journey. That's how I understood it the first time I saw the flick in 1994, still makes the most sense today. And to place it more in actual history, the CDC recorded the first clusters of what would eventually be AIDS in June of 1981, which matches up almost perfectly with the fictional goings on in Gump. It wasn't until September of 1982 that the CDC started using the name AIDS. There's a good 1993 made-for-HBO docudrama about the discovery of AIDS called "And the Band Played On" starring Matthew Modine and an all-star cast if you want a fairly casual starting place to learn more about how the mysterious deadly virus and epidemic was identified.

But going back to the original question, again even if Jenny died of AIDS it does not automatically follow that Forrest Jr. or Sr. would also be infected with HIV or that it would lead to AIDS.

True, but again, it's been a while since I've seen it. As far as the disease transferring over, there is that possibility, as it can be passed via fluid transfer.

Yeah! And in the movie Titanic, the boat sinks!

Oh, and yeah--it was AIDS. C'mon guys...if you have trouble figuring that out, consider the whole thing an 80's metaphor. If you don't know what a metaphor is see Transformers 2!

__________________
I have been formatted to fit this screen.

r66-The member who always asks WHY?

That's why I quoted this statistic in my original post: that a baby becoming infected in the womb or via breastfeeding from an infected mother is around 20-45%, according to one medical site I Googled. Another says that before treatment with AZT, about one in four or five babies born to HIV-infected women became infected. Not good odds that you'd ever want to play with in your own life, but also not automatic, and there's plenty of margin there for a fictional situation to result in a happy virus-free ending. Now if it was four out of every five babies that became infected, then perhaps you're pushing the bounds of credibility that Forrest Jr. would be the lucky one to make it and not in the 80% that don't. But since the facts seem to point to more likely than not he wouldn't have HIV, then for the sake of a fictional fantasy...why in the Hell not just go with the happy ending the film is clearly going for?

You said it yourself, didn't you? Some people treated him callously because they were bigoted and insensitive. And, let's be honest, he dodged a few bullets, figuratively and otherwise. The fact that he got past it all doesn't really change the fact that it caused him hardships. Isn't that reason enough to be happy for his son?

Neither the film nor the character suggests that being smart is the "best" way to live a good life, but I'd say it helps in a number of important ways. The fact that he overcame his own disability with honesty and (forgive me, please...) gumption is wonderful, but it doesn't change the natural reaction of a parent to want the best for their child in all things. Indifference or perfect contentment with a mental diability would be bizarre, to my mind.

Let's use another analogy: if an immigrant comes to America and pulls themself up by their own bootstraps, goes into business and becomes a success with no formal education...can they be proud of that fact and still want their children to get a degree? Happens all the time, and it strikes me as pretty reasonable. We're all okay with personal struggle when it's our own, or when it's in the rearview mirror and has helped us build a little character, but when thinking of a loved one's future, caution tends to prevail.

I also think there's perhaps a degree to which one must be a parent to fully "get" this scene. I'm not a parent, of course, though I am the oldest of seven children and am technically old enough to have fathered my youngest sibling, so I sometimes feel like I have a very tiny inkling of what it must be like. Presumptuous of me, maybe, but I think this is a discussion that would only take place very often among non-parents. I don't mean to suggest this in lieu of an argument, of course, or to undercut someone's opinion based on this alone, but I do think it factors in.

Thanks...I think?

They don't equate; it's simply an analogy for something a person can be glad happened, or even proud of, but still not wish on their loved ones. We've all been through some tough things and many of us would say that they made us who we are and are, in a way, glad they happened. But when faced with a choice for someone we care about, nearly all of us would choose the easiest existence for them.

I think there's a difference between actively hoping he isn't mentally handicapped and simply being happy when he learns he isn't.

I think it's pretty clear that the movie's core message is not that Forrest treats people openly and honestly merely because he's simple, but because he's a good person. The movie isn't suggesting that lack of intelligence equates to goodness, or that intelligence equates to badness; just that there's more to life than how smart you are, and that you don't have to be smart to understand how to treat people. Intelligence is still a good thing, just not the only thing.

Looked at this way, Forrest's happiness near the end would seem to fit just fine. His son's intelligence doesn't undercut the film's message, because the film's message isn't lowering the value of intelligence as much as it's elevating basic decency.

Of course the book on which the movie is based, is different than the movie--dare I say alot different?

For instance:

"Jenny does die from unstated causes in the sequel—the book simply states that she and her husband got sick and both ended up dying..."

Also despite the sweet ending in the film, Forrest Jr does not have a wonderful relationship with his father, in fact his son resents him for not being there--but again that's in the book. Hollywood loves the happy closure ending though.

I don't think this is what the movie implied at all. Only what you inferred from what you choose to read into it. You could just as easily surmise that Jenny got aids from Forrest which Tom Hanks brought over from the set of Philadelphia. However, since Jenny never looked anything like Tom Hanks in Philadelphia, I don't believe she had aids at all. She mighta had diabetes. She mighta had bone cancer. Mighta had the same disease as Lisa Minelli's imaginary friend (Elsa?) that she sang about in Cabaret, the one who "rented by the hour" yet died young and left a beautiful corpse.
Personally, I think she was carried off by the infamous Hollywood heroine disease, where with each of her final breaths the dying woman takes on a beautiful glow, like in Love Story and Miracle of the Bells and hundreds of other films.

I think that would be a more convincing argument if HIV were the only unknown virus around in the 1980s, rather than the "best known" at some point. Basically the cause of Jenny's death is just a plot hole that the director leaves for us to fill in--or ignore--at will. The only point important to the film is that she dies. Just like it doesn't really matter what caused Forrest's retardation, only that he's somewhat retarded. Doesn't matter either that the medical profession should have locked him away for analysis and study for the fastest recovery in history from polio or whatever crippling disease he supposedly had--one minute he's hobbling along in braces and the next minute he's running like a deer as the incredibly shoddy braces fall apart.

What's really funny about this discussion is that you guys usually pelt me for being picky about realism and historic accuracy!!!

I find comfort and hope in the above statement.
I know life isn't that simple, and people need to be careful etc., but I wish it was like that.

I thought Forrest was cool.
I'm pretty sure I would have been his friend.
He didn't seem that slow to me.

Forrest has many of the same qualities as Gomer Pyle.
I would have been friends with Gomer too.

I don't think I would have been friends with Dan Fielding from Nightcourt. He was mean, and a buttface.

__________________
"If you can't be funny be interesting."
Harold Ross

I blame this film for Bush's election in 2000. It told voters that any idiot could succeed in America and, apparently, the voters decided to take that as a challenge.

I too started wondering about the same thing after watching it recently. How coincidence it is?

But Jenny could have died after ten years. She can only die by committing suicide immediately, as she did not do so, it may be a different disease or an iniaccurate depiction in the movie.

I know you're joking but it still irritates me. Particularly in light of the new president who claims to have been in . I would guess that perhaps his teleprompter wasn't working that day?

Bush scored a 1206 on the old SAT test which roughly equates to someone who might have a 130 or so IQ. That's most definitely above the norm.

That Bush was 'stupid' was a media contrivance based solely in his lack of eloquence at the microphone. I often wonder about people who will believe anything the media tells them as truth and where they might happen to be with regard to intelligence.

For the record, I'm not a Bush 'supporter' because he turned my party inside out but I don't think he earned the title of 'stupid' either.

[/hijack]

57 States? Maybe he was including panic, confusion, etc.

Being There has a much more uplifting message,

It is the next President of the United States could be a retard.

As long as he is white.

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

I don't believe for a second that kid is really his. Just because Jenny said so when she knew she was dying and wanted Forrest to take care of him because he had money? She knew Forrest was too dumb to insist on a DNA test, which is what any other man would have insisted on. The kid looks nothing like him.

Nobody cares about Forrest Gump anymore unless he turns evil and tries to kill Batman.

I think there is actually a novel that is a sequel, but i don't care what happened to Forrest Gump when the movie ended. That cripple guy probably killed him if he didn't die from AIDS.

Or maybe he never was stupid. He was just play acting.

Forrest Gump's real invention was himself.

Jenny didn't die from AIDS.

She found out Gump's secret, that his demeanor was really a facade and he was a brilliant ruthless conniving marketing genius.

She had to die to keep the illusion, the lie, of Forrest Gump alive.