It's probably true to say that most people don't think that Forrest Gump is a better film that either Pulp Fiction or The Shawshank Redemption, both of which it beat to to Academy Award for Best Picture back in 1995. But just because a movie beats out another at the Oscars doesn't mean it's necessarily better - it just means that that's how the Academy - a select group of people - voted. But this victory (and it was a victory) has only really served to cast a shadow over Forrest Gump, one that continues to grow as people get to grips with the idea that it beat out Shawshank. So what? Robert Zemeckis' film, which stars Tom Hanks as the eponymous hero, plays out as a kind of candid history of the United States between 1950 and 1981, encompassing a wide spectrum of subjects, including civil rights, the Vietnam war, and the AIDS crisis. It's not a perfect picture by any means - it's far too glib and freewheeling to make any real points about the subjects it chews up and spits out before moving onto the next, but did we really change our minds about this one to such an extent? Let's not forget that everyone ignored Shawshank in '94 - not just the Academy.
