The bulk of the story is strange then, because it shows his journey. Why not just show him as a very wealthy simpleton who longs for something more? Also, he is kind of proud at his accomplishments. He carries around a magazine of himself. I think this is a bit more than just simple "luuk wat i deed" childish pride. He's not portrayed as being THAT oblivious. You've led me on to yet another aspect of the film that I dislike.
My god, is this not the ultimate pro-millionaire propaganda? Is this not the ultimate conservative-message theme film? It's meant to show that millionaires, like the executive of BP, are just regular guys like you and me and Forrest. They only want simple happiness, but have been caught up in the big world they are in. This is exactly what millionaires aren't, so why portray one as such unless there is some kind of reason. Remember, this is a multi-million dollar film. Zemeckis is probably a multi-millionaire.
What is important is that Jenny is not the fully sympathetic tragic hero. She is to be loved for her womanly flaws, her selfishness and gold-digging. Forrest, our simpleton hero, is the object of our sympathy. We sympathize with him precisely because he should have loved someone else who was better for him, someone who wasn't such a slutty beotch. I'm being tongue-in-cheek here, but as a feminist, there isn't much room to play with negative female stereotypes in family films when they are already embedded so deeply into our culture.
Alright, I've got to log off now. I've been on all morning.