Bogus or Genuine
In the film “Finding Forrester”, a relationship between William Forrester and Jamal Wallace is built in a unique way. The movie displays Forrester as a grumpy old legend who has been hiding away for decades. Jamal is a smart, talented basketball player who is secretly a great writer. Forrester and Jamal are brought together in an unexpected way to later become close friends. Forrester helps Jamal to advance in his writing skills. After Jamal humiliates Professor Crawford (Hough 1), his English teacher, Crawford wants to cause Jamal to fail. Crawford has suspected him of plagiarism since his first writing assignment and finally is able to accuse him of it. Since Crawford accused Jamal of using Forrester’s work, Forrester comes out of hiding and is able to help Jamal clear his name. The film shows the story of a great relationship formed between a young talented high school student and a hidden legend of the past. In the article Finding Forrester (2000) of The New York Times, the author, Stephen Holden, goes forth to call the film bogus. Holden thinks it is a tacky film that is atrocious. “Finding Forrester” is not bogus, but genuine in displaying the special relationship between William Forrester and Jamal Wallace. Stephen Holden’s article Finding Forrester (2000) belittles the film “Finding Forrester” in as many ways possible. Holden begins by stating what he thinks is the only decent part about the film. He states, “First the good news, “Finding Forrester”, the latest in a rising tide of shameless male weepies, does not star that leaky human bucket of crocodile tears, Robin Williams, who helped pioneer the genre.” (Hough 2). Holden’s point is basically that there is not really any good to this film. He gives Sean Connery, who played as William Forrester, a bit of credit for playing the role as Forrester decently. But William Forrester is played very sufficiently by Connery because his character shows how distant yet talented...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document