Of Bald Men and Bears

Andrew--
Although I agree with you about Finding Neverland, I think that you are somewhat off with your high praise of I am Sam. Granted, much of this deals with personal taste, but I was not as impressed as I felt I could have been with I am Sam. I liked Michelle Pfeiffer and Dakota Fanning (the little girl), but I was not overly impressed with Sean Penn. Furthermore, the movie had a bizarre ending (I believe--it's been a while since I've seen it) that ruined the emotion built up during the bulk of the movie.

I vehemently disagree with the idea that Sean Penn was better than Tom Hanks. They were obviously playing different sorts of characters, and the movies themselves had different purposes, but there was something magical and winsome about Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump. Penn was good, but I thought that there was just something missing from his performance as a whole (again, it's been a while since I've seen it, so this may have been just my overall perceptions of the movie). Besides, the almighty movie raters at IMDB gave Forrest Gump a 8.1 and only gave I am Sam a 7.2.

Finally, I think you yourself may wish to amend your statment that "...it's ridiculous that Penn didn't receive the Oscar." What was ridiculous was that Denzel Washington won the Oscar for his role in Training Day. What was really ridiculous, though, was that Russell Crowe didn't win the award for his role in A Beautiful Mind--a movie we watched I can't tell you how many times our freshman year. "The prodigal roommate returns!"

Jacob,

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'll admit that Forrest Gump was a better movie, because, like you said, there were several elements to I Am Sam that were lacking (including the ending.) But in performance, I still think Penn was much better than Hanks. Hanks may have been "magical and winsome," but Penn was much more realistic and believable. There are several moments where Penn's eyes alone reveal a mind trying hard to understand what's going on. My favorite scene was between Pfeiffer and Penn, when he's building the wall of paper cranes or whatever. It's an incredible depiciton of the commonality between a mentally retarded person and a "normal" person. It managed to rise above "oh that's too bad that he's retarded" to an actual understanding of him (and her) as equally human.

Plus, you have an admitted bias toward Hanks. (Not that there's anything wrong with that, just something to be aware of.)

And, while Crowe's performance was brilliant, every now and then he needs a reminder that he's merely mortal.

Andrew--
Here's a logic question for you: what if I disagree to agree to disagree? Does that give us any less of an agreement? Is there some interesting meta-agreement paradox here that our readership and I might find amusing? Or perhaps I'm just too tired to write anything lucid?

Well, seeing as it IS past 9:00, you probably are lacking any semblence of lucidity.

Methinks the gentleman doth AVOID THE QUESTION!

I think not. Your question was in the form of a disjunction. "Does my disagreement to agree hummna hummna blada blada .... OR am I no longer lucid?" I opted for the second option, and therefore had no need to address the first.

I see. Well, now, at the peak of my lucidity (the morning), I pose the same question: What happens if I disagree to agree to disagree? I'm seriously in the mood for a paradox here.

Well let us think this through. To agree to disagree is to disagree and allow the disagreement. To disagree to agree to disagree could be to disagree and not allow the disagreement. That is, we disagree, and then you refuse to allow me to hold my disagreeing position. Or, I suppose it could simply mean we agree. That is, you could disagree to agree to disagree by changing your opinion to match mine, thereby eliminating the disagreement.