Week 25 : Pulp Fiction
-Divine Intervention
pulp /’pɘlp/ n. 1. A soft, moist, shapeless mass of
matter.
2. A magazine or book containing lurid subject matter
and being characteristically printed on rough,
unfinished paper.
American Heritage Dictionary
New College Edition
PREFACE: If you have not yet seen Pulp Fiction, stop reading now. I would hate to spoil the surprises in store for you.
Now here is a movie. Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction is so wild, energetic, and fun that its nearly three hour running time flies by. One minute you are listening to a casual conversation about cultural differences, the next you are seeing brains splatter all over a backseat window. Rarely has a movie been so audacious.
Pulp Fiction tells several interconnecting stories set during a 48 hour period in Los Angeles. We follow two hit men on a job and accompany one of them on a night on the town. We also have the opportunity to meet a boxer and his girlfriend, a mob boss and his wife, a strange police officer, a hillbilly, a cab driver, a drug dealer and his wife, a couple in love that rob for a living, a fixer, an Army Colonial, and Jimmy from Toluca Lake. All of these characters will, in one way or another, interact in a series of segments that are not entirely in order. It is as if you have picked up one of the old pulp magazines of the 40's and started reading in the middle of the magazine. It doesn't really matter where you begin; the story is just as enjoyable.
Notice I use the word "meet" when discussing the characters. One of Pulp Fiction's masterstrokes is the fact that every single character, large or small, is completely realized and interesting. These are not broad archetypes, but detailed, complicated human beings. It is all a testament to Tarantino's ability to write a film that is always bursting at the seams- truly larger than life. We expect a complex mythology when watching the latest science fiction epic. Tarantino gives it to us in a quirky film about-- well, everything.
In his film, Tarantino has woven a vast tapestry with not only a great screenplay (written by himself and Lawrence Bender) but outstanding performances all around. This is certainly one of the most impressive casts in this history of cinema. When the opening credits roll across the screen we read the names flash across the screen and are stunned at the amount of talent Tarantino has piled into an indie picture. John Travolta, Samuel L. Jackson, Uma Thurman, Ving Rhames, Tarantino, Christopher Walken, Eric Stoltz, Rosanna Arquette, Tim Roth, Amanda Plummer, Harvey Keitel and Bruce Willis. Every single one of these actors has been in great films along with horrible ones- but they all have personality. This film pretty much resurrected Travolta’s career. It rebooted Willis’s and launched Samuel L. Jackson and Uma Thurman into superstardom. I mention the opening credits in passing because, honestly, that is the only time you really think about how star studded the picture is. The actors transform themselves into their characters. When I watch Jules Winfield, I am not watching Samuel L. Jackson- but Jules Winfield. The same goes with Vincent Vega (Travolta), Mia Wallace (Thurman) and Butch the boxer (Willis). Even Tarantino’s cameo at the end of the picture doesn’t break the spell. We are as immersed in the world as we would be with a fantasy film.
-The ultimate plot twist
Much has been said about the film's circular, self-referential structure. Tarantino would end up filming most of his films this way, specifically his Kill Bill saga and Inglorious Basterds. There are some movies where that alone would be the hook (Memento), but not here. This narrative device itself is as old as Citizen Kane, but has never been done better.
The brilliance here is not that the movie doubles back on itself, but that the plot is out of order while the dialogue is not. It sets up what comes later. For example, there is a scene where Vincent Vega is freaking out because Mia Wallace has overdosed on heroin. This scene only works because we know what happened when someone had that audacity to massage Mia's feet. Or think of the "climax" of the film, where Jules confronts the two robbers, Honey-Bunny (Plummer) and Ringo (Roth), at the restaurant. Jules gives one of the great movie monologues. It is about redemption, righteousness, and making the choices we all make. In many ways at the end of the film we are learning about the plight of the human race. If the scene were played chronologically it would be in the first 30 minutes of the movie. Instead it’s at the end so we can reflect on what has come before in context with Jules speech. Tarantino knows what he is doing- that scene can't be played chronologically due to function- it has to be played at the end for emotion. When Jules and Vincent leave the restaurant, shoving their guns into their volleyball shorts, we feel sort like we have just experienced something kind of profound.
Most resonant is the film’s dialogue. I could copy the movie onto my computer and just convert the audio track to an MP3 and listen to it in my car. Most pictures, even good ones, have functional dialogue only. I was recently watching James Cameron’s Avatar (a great film in its own right) and I caught myself thinking about how obvious parts of it are. Formula pictures (yes, Avatar is formula) have characters that stand around and tell the audience what they need to hear. Scenes advance the story, and at most- may have a little joke just to keep the audience laughing. The genius of Pulp Fiction- what makes the film so… much, are the scenes that are not necessary at all.
Take the scene that most people remember when thinking of the movie. I am talking, of course, about where Vincent Vega and Mia Wallace are trying to win Jack Rabbit Slim’s Twist contest. It involves John Travolta and Uma Thurman dancing in what has to be the oddest dance sequence in the history of the movies. Think about it- is it necessary? Why is Tarantino showing this to us? It doesn’t advance the plot. It has no real point. He shows us the scene because it is a joy to watch; this is all that matters. If only other filmmakers were as brave.
Pulp Fiction is often referred to as the most influential movie of the 1990’s. I would claim it’s the most influential movie of the last 30 years. It launched (and relaunched) careers. It made the independent film movement a serious business; to this day it is the medium for brave, intelligent cinema. Most importantly, Pulp Fiction had an immediate cultural impact on the country more than almost any other film. Churches forbade their congregations from seeing it. Film critics at the time knew it was brilliant- a true piece of art- but certainly the message is not altogether wholesome. The film was nominated for seven Academy Awards, including Best Picture. It was up against Forrest Gump- another great film, but one with polar opposite values. In the end Tarantino only won for best original screenplay, while Gump took home the grand trophy. Time has rendered a different verdict. Pulp Fiction is currently listed as the fifth greatest film of all time on the Internet Movie Database’s user poll of the top 250 greatest films. I don’t know what that says about us as a society, other than we like our entertainment rough and raw. Art is not always about challenging values, but showing the world how it may be- at least in the mind of the artist. If anything, Tarantino's film may go down in history as one of the most utterly bizarre pieces of popular entertainment. This film has everything- murder, revenge, lust, anger, redemption, comedy, drama, rape, inside jokes, recurring dialogue, biblical resonance, celebrity cameos, BDSM, and even John Travolta dancing. What more could you want?
Let’s face it. Pulp Fiction is a hard movie to review. What can I say that hasn’t been said before- probably more eloquently? The direction is flawless- the camera constantly knowing precisely where it needs to be to achieve the best effect. The music is contagious, the acting and editing superb. I could spend hundreds of words talking about each of these factors. I could just write about my favorite scenes (the dance sequence, “The Bonnie Situation,” the end of Maynard and Zed, the glorious tale of the gold watch, how Fabienne wants a pot belly)but it still wouldn’t do the film justice- it has to be seen, felt, and experienced.
I love this movie. Love, Love, Love, Love it. There are scenes that make me cackle with delight when I see them. I can almost recite every scene from memory. It is burned into my subconscious. It is profane, violent, dirty, and undeniably brilliant. I have come to realize that in many of my reviews I discuss the smile I get on my face when I am watching a great film. A smile really is a great litmus test, isn't it? When we see great scenes of wonder and awe we smile in amazement. We smile when we laugh. If we are watching a tense or scary scene we are quiet- our mouths closed, until the payoff, when we normally jump or scream only to smile and laugh afterwards. If you can't smile while watching Pulp Fiction you should probably just stop watching movies. It doesn't get much better than this.
Review and Analysis by Shaun Henisey
Cast and Credits:
Vincent Vega: John Travolta
Jules Winnfield: Samuel L. Jackson
Mia Wallace: Uma Thurman
Marsellus Wallace: Ving Rhames
Butch: Bruce Willis
Ringo/Pumpkin: Tim Roth
Yolanda/Honey Bunney: Amanda Plummer
Mr. Wolf: Harvey Keitel
Miramax Picutres and A Band Apart present a film by Quentin Tarantino.
Screenplay by Quentin Tarantino and Roger Avary. Produced by Bob and Harvey Weinstein.
Running Time: 154 minutes. Rated R: For Strong Graphic Violence And Drug Use, Pervasive Strong Language And Some Sexuality.