MUBI

One of the early scenes in “Pulp Fiction” features two hit-men discussing what a Big Mac is called in other countries. Their dialogue is witty and entertaining, and it’s also disarming, because it makes these two thugs seem all too normal. If you didn’t know better, you might assume these were regular guys having chit-chat on their way to work. Other than the comic payoff at the end of the scene, in which they use parts of this conversation to taunt their victims, their talk has no relevance to anything in the film, or to anything else, for that matter. Yet without such scenes, “Pulp Fiction” wouldn’t be “Pulp Fiction.” I get the sense that Tarantino put into the film whatever struck his fancy, and somehow the final product is not only coherent but wonderfully textured.
It’s no wonder that fans spend so much time debating what was in the suitcase, reading far more into the story than Tarantino probably intended. The film is so intricately structured, with so many astonishing details, many of which you won’t pick up on the first viewing, that it seems to cry out for some deeper explanation. But there is no deeper explanation. “Pulp Fiction,” is, as the title indicates, purely an exercise in technique and style, albeit a brilliant and layered one. Containing numerous references to other films, it is like a great work of abstract art, or “art about art.” It has all the characteristics we associate with great movies: fine writing, first-rate acting, unforgettable characters, and one of the most well-constructed narratives I’ve ever seen in a film. But to what end? The self-contained story does not seem to have bearing on anything but itself.
The movie becomes a bit easier to understand once you realize that it’s essentially a black comedy dressed up as a crime drama. Each of the three main story threads begins with a situation that could easily form the subplot of any standard gangster movie. But something always goes wrong, some small unexpected accident that causes the whole situation to come tumbling down, leading the increasingly desperate characters to absurd measures. Tarantino’s originality stems from his ability to focus on small details and follow them where they lead, even if they move the story away from conventional plot developments.
Perhaps no screenplay has ever found a better use for digressions. Indeed, the whole film seems to consist of digressions. No character ever says anything in a simple, straightforward manner. Jules could have simply told Yolanda, “Be cool and no one’s going to get hurt,” which is just the type of line you’d find in a generic, run-of-the-mill action flick. Instead, he goes off on a tangent about what Fonzie is like. Tarantino savors every word of his characters, finding a potential wisecrack in every statement and infusing the dialogue with clever pop culture references. But the lines aren’t just witty; they are full of intelligent observations about human behavior. Think of Mia’s statement to Vincent, “That’s when you know you’ve found somebody special: when you can just shut the f—- up for a minute and comfortably enjoy the silence.”
What is the movie’s purpose exactly? I’m not sure, but it does deal a lot with the theme of power. Marsellus is the sort of character who looms over the entire film while being invisible most of the time. The whole point of the big date sequence, which happens to be my favorite section of the film, is the power that Marsellus has over his men without even being present. This power is what gets Vincent to act in ways you would not ordinarily expect from a dumb, stoned gangster faced with an attractive woman whose husband has gone away. The power theme also helps explain one of the more controversial aspects of the film, its liberal use of the N-word. In this film, the word isn’t just used as an epithet to describe blacks: Jules, for instance, at one point applies the term to Vincent. It has more to do with power than with race. The powerful characters utter the word to express their dominance over weaker characters. Most of these gangsters are not racist in practice. Indeed, they are intermingled racially, and have achieved a level of equality that surpasses the habits of many law-abiding citizens in our society. They resort to racial epithets because it’s a patter that establishes their separateness from the non-criminal world.
There’s a nice moral progression to the stories. We presume that Vincent hesitates to sleep with Mia out of fear rather than loyalty. Later, Butch’s act of heroism could be motivated by honor, but we’re never sure. The film ends, however, with Jules making a clear moral choice. Thus, the movie seems to be exploring whether violent outlaws can act other than for self-preservation.
Still, it’s hard to find much of a larger meaning tying together these eccentric set of stories. None of the stories are really “about” anything. They certainly are not about hit-men pontificating about burgers. Nor is the film really a satire or a farce, although it contains elements of both. At times, it feels like a tale that didn’t need to be told, but for whatever reason this movie tells it and does a better job than most films of its kind, or of any other kind.

A Los Angeles television station, Tribune-owned KTLA, plans to air Quentin Tarantino’s 1994 film Pulp Fiction (1994) tonight (Tuesday), starting at 7 p.m. According to today’s Los Angeles Times, Tarantino supervised the reediting of the film for TV and the film’s stars, John Travolta, Samuel L. Jackson, Ving Rhames, Amanda Plummer and Harvey Keitel, participated in overdubbing the film to eliminate verboten language. The station said that it also made 10-15 “minor” cuts. Program director Virginia Hunt told the Times: “The flavor of the movie is there. Quentin didn’t lose the movie, but he did tone it down.”

Growing up in the nineties, it would seem impossible to have not heard of Pulp Fiction. It seemed to turn up on every channel, every magazine rack, and in every conversation. I could count the endless references and spoofs that pertain to this movie through out the rest of the nineties, and up until now. Until I had reached the reasonable age of fourteen, I had actually let this movie slip under my radar for about ten years. After viewing Kill Bill Vol. 1 & 2 and enjoying them immensely, I had decided to see what Tarantino’s other movies had to offer, and that would lead me to what is now my favorite movie of all time. From the opening scene in which Tim Roth and Amanda Plummer’s characters bicker on about not knocking off any more liquor stores which transitions into the opening credits that blare Dick Dale’s version of Misirlou, it immediately sets the tone for the rest of the movie. It became easy to see why this film was talked about so much and became an instant favorite in many people’s eyes. The darkly humorous and realistic dialogue make the film and it’s characters instantly likable; I mean how often do real gangsters talk about fast food and television shows? Probably all the time; it’s the little things like that that make each character human and not some walking cliche of gangsters talking about “who got whacked,” while sharpening their knives. A lot of people talk about how violent this film is, but I must say that it isn’t anymore violent than your average slasher flick, and probably then, it’s less violent than that. I must say, however, the blend of violence and humor in this movie is perfectly balanced to my liking. After multiple viewings, multiple discussions with friends about what’s in the briefcase, imitating Vincent Vega’s dance to Chuck Berry’s You Never Can Tell, and owning my very own Bad Mother Fucker wallet, this film has made quite an impact on me, and on a generation of people. This film has still stood up to it’s standards today and will continue to do so many years from now; it has laid the groundwork of what is hopefully to come in my future of film making.

It’s a completely over-rated film, but it is a fun experience. I feel that the non-linear storytelling was done better in Reservoir Dogs, this just seemed to be doing it for the sake of confusion. Some of the characters are quite interesting, while some are incredibly flat and one noted. There were some great performances from Bruce Willis and Uma Thurman, but others were so-so. The film-making was weaker in this than from Reservoir Dogs, which was such a well composed movie. It is a necessary part of Tarantino’s work and I can see it’s mass appeal.

Once again, I put in my PULP FICTION Collector’s Edition DVD and, once again, I was completely fixated on every frame of this brilliant film. Having seen it so many times, I thought I might just watch my favorite scenes. Turns out, they were all my favorites and I couldn’t skip any of it.

The plot of PULP FICTION is beside the point. It’s about a director so in love with his medium that he has taken the care to make every performance, line of dialogue, and visual setup unique and interesting. In many ways it reminds me of CITIZEN KANE, and not just because of the unconventional story structure. Orson Welles once said something to the effect of filmmaking being the greatest toy train set that a boy ever had. Quentin Tarantino seems to have the same sense of fun and freedom.

How great is it that a movie with a major plotline about a fighter throwing a match has not one scene in the boxing ring. If you had told me that an extended dialogue scene of a couple at a diner on a first date could be as fascinating as the one in this film, I wouldn’t have believed you ($5 milkshakes). Tarantino’s use of dialogue has already revolutionized the movies, so I will not belabor that point.Every character is perfectly cast to the point that I could see an entire movie being made about any of them.

The standout among standouts is Samuel L. Jackson as the hit-man, Jules. At first glance, he seems to be playing the ultimate bad ass, which he is. At the same time he seems to be going over the top, Jackson is subtly building an internal struggle that provides PULP FICTION’S moral center. This is not an exploitation film as its critics contend. All the violence and comedy reveal very moral message about choices and consequences. (Those critics also don’t seem to understand that this movie, like FIGHT CLUB, is a comedy.)

Tarantino’s use of popular music is also justly famous. The opening PULP FICTION logo over the frantic surf tune “Miserlou” send more chills up my spine than any title sequence not beginning with “A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away.” Another sequence has John Travolta’s heroin addict hit-man waiting for Uma Thurman, his boss’s wife, while Dusty Springfield’s “Son of A Preacher Man” plays on the soundtrack. This scene about nothing is so effective that Quentin has said that is if he couldn’t get the rights to the song, he would have cut the whole scene from the movie.

I could go on about every scene (haven’t even mentioned the needle through the heart thing) so I’ll just stop here.

Forced, Contrived, those words alone cannot even explain how unnatural this film is, the film has no flow at all, it comes off as a bunch of junk put together, I agree with Pauline Kael that it is extremely immature, take the scene where john travolta goes to Eric Stoltz house to buy drugs, we are given a cheap low angle of Eric Stoltz ass, while looking up at travlolta to talk, did Mr. Tarantino hand the camera to a 6 year old?
It is rumored that Stanley Kubrick said that the “dead nigger storage scene” was the worst scene in all Cinema History, and if true then i certainly agree, Tarantino using the N word over and over again did nothing but ruin any chance the movie had of being any good. While writing he must have forgot that Jules and Vincent were Hitman, loaded with guns…in their pants.
An Example of how Contrived the film is, We are given a scene where Christopher Walken explains how important his fathers watch is, 2 scenes later, he loses the watch, the film is so set up for itself that its nauseating.
The Great Directors almost always fill up there frame with great information, that resonates with the story and the audience, what does Tarantino fill the frame with? Eric Stoltz ass. 1 star.

Now that we’ve grown accustomed to his style, Tarantino has been derided by some as a hack who is more of a mash-up artist, stealing imagery, tone and plot details from other sources, than a true filmmaker. That view misses the point; what he is is the first of a new type of filmmaker, and he’s still the most bold. With its non-linear storyline, shocking violence and dialogue that allows characters to reveal everything while talking about nothing, it’s important to remember how completely original and fresh Pulp Fiction seemed. It was simultaneously a punch in the gut and a breath of fresh air to audiences, making it perhaps the most innovative and influential film of its generation.

Throughout film history, there have been directors that have become staples in time; holding up a standard of filmmaking for their successors to attempt to achieve. Whether it is Akira Kurosawa’s Seven Samurai or Martin Scorsese’s Taxi Driver, one may wonder how these old classics have lasted the test of time. The answer lies within the heart, passion, and meaning behind these films, combined with the director’s own blood, sweat, and tears. In today’s modern Hollywood cinema, it is rare to find a film that is unique – that stands out among the others.
There was, however, a staple that penetrated the cinematic world in 1994, and that staple was Quentin Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction. Tarantino (Reservoir Dogs, Kill Bill) used his God given ability to write witty and humorous dialogue, and flawlessly blended it with a collage of intricate stories, overlapping and entwining, to form his most critically acclaimed work to date. Though it was quite controversial at the time, it was loved by audiences around the world, winning the Golden Palm Award at the 1994 Cannes Film Festival…
…Pulp Fiction is my favorite American film of all time. It has everything I could ask for: comedy, drama, witty dialogue, controversial behavior, disturbing imagery, creativity, emotion, and solid characters. I truly believe this film will last the test of time, like its goal setting predecessors. And even if people eventually lose interest, they will always come back to try and find out what is in that damn briefcase.

-Austin
Stereosubversion.com

“Zed’s dead, baby, Zed’s dead.”

Death comes at you from weird angles. Humor, too. Time is jumbled wonderfully which makes you realize how literal most films are about it. Walken and the hidden watch. A gun moll draws a cartoon square on the front of the screen. “Smoking cigarettes and watching Captain KANG Kangaroo.” Samuel Jackson & Travolta debate loyalty, cunnilingus and god. A survivor has his head blown off by accident. Harvey Kietel in a tux asks politely for some coffee, then hoses down the bloody stars. And the world’s best dance sequence is a twist (!!) to Chuck Berry’s “You never can tell.” Indeed.

More Baddaboom Reviews:
http://web.me.com/paddybon/Site/My_favorite_flicks.html

I would love to know what draws me to this movie every chance I get to see it. I don’t like Tarantino’s love of torture (Reservoir Dogs) is a very long torture. I don’t like his gratuitous violence (Kill Bill as opposed to True Romance in which the violence advances the plot nicely). Was he victimized as a child? Is this his payback to those who dominated him so painfully? Payback is a major theme of his……but why to I accept it so well in Pulp Fiction? Maybe because the strong ultimately do survive in that one.

Quite possibily the best crime film ever made. it is basically a crime film inside a crime film. Tarantino examines a legandary subgenre in such a unique way. The subject matter is shocking at first, but upon viewing the film half way it seems the subject matter is nesassary because the dialogue compliments the violence and drug abuse so well. the true brilliance of Pulp Fiction is in it’s simplicity, but strangely enough the film is in actuality very complex.

I love that people dislike this movie because of the disjointed chronology, like it is so hard to follow. So many favorite moments and scenes: “punchy”; Walken’s speech; honey bunny; hash bars; foot massage; and, of course, the literary interpretation of the Bible quote. Band-aid on Marcellus Wallace and never seen “dirty laundry” is awesome. I use hash bar and honey bunny dialogue in writing classes to show structure…that Tarantino can write.

I thougth it waa thqt fate thing where parts of people in my life resemble ones in Pulp fiction. I wenty into the Army on September 11, 1977 and one of my sdrill sergaents reminded me of Samuel L. Jackson. the hitman with Ezekiel. He does not quote Ezekiel however., But when the movie came out my personqal Bible study was at that chapter of Ezekiel.
Like Bruce Willis beatinng a man to death in the ring when he was supposed to throw th fight. We used to have a neighbor whowas a friend of my dad who was a boxer and he had also beat a man to death in a bar fight in Seatlle over a woman. All in al, it was a fun movie for me. Of course, I had heard a formrer friend complain in the Army of some German whore woman having crabs (crab lice), too.