Pulp Fiction

Ezekiel 25:17  “The Path of the righteous man…….

In October 1994 I went to the cinema to watch The Specialist with Sylvester Stallone, Sharon Stone and James Woods.  The film was a dreary thriller enlivened only by an atmospheric John Barry score and Woods’ energetic performance.  In the opening sequence there is a scene in which Woods pistol whips Stallone and kicks him a couple of times while he is on the ground.  Test audiences hated seeing Stallone lose a fight so an addendum was added in which Stallone gets up, attacks Woods and beats him up badly.  However the second portion of the fight was shot with each actor in different locations and Stallone has a different haircut.  The use of doubles is obvious and as you would expect the result looks jarring.  I found it appalling that something so sloppy could go into a major release.  I have so much affection for the Rocky character that I always route for even non-Rocky Stallone movies.  Stallone’s two movies from the previous year, Cliffhanger and Demolition Man, had both been fun action films.  Ultimately as The Specialist ended I was quite disappointed even though I wanted to like it.

 A week later I saw Pulp Fiction, Quentin Tarantino’s second film, which he both wrote and directed, a film budgeted less than twenty percent than The Specialist, and left the cinema feeling completely alive.  I had never heard dialogue in a film that sounded so natural, spirited and where the people seemed to listen as much to each other.  The characters, despite being inspired by older films, were presented in an original way.  The frequent pop culture references made the characters seem relatable.  The long scenes, which has become a Tarantino trademark, never bothered me because he used them to either develop the characters or build suspense.  I was surprised at the intensity of the violence, though.  Compared to most of Tarantino’s other films, there is relatively little, but when it appears it is severe and often used comically.  Also, as a fan of time travel movies, I enjoyed how the film’s unusual structure, particularly how the third act takes place about midway through the first.  It forces the audience to work a little but never overwhelmingly.

Spoilers below:

As a film fan, I was familiar with Quentin Tarantino but had not yet seen his only other film to date, Reservoir Dogs.  Pulp Fiction revived the career John Travolta, who was rarely working in big films at the time, and propelled the talented Samuel L. Jackson, who gave the film’s most powerful performance as Jules.  The film has become so iconic that the Ezekiel quote is used for the headstone of Jackson’s character Nick Fury one of the Marvel movies.  Travolta is so associated with this film I am surprised that he has not worked with Tarantino since, especially as Tarantino often casts his films using actors he has worked with before.  Pulp Fiction invigorated the independent film industry and also led to bigger releases for similar themed films like Go and The Usual Suspects.

In each of his films Tarantino builds up his characters’ mythologies, making it is easy to remember everyone’s names.  Most film fans can name Marsellus Wallace even though Ving Rhames only appears in a few scenes of the film.  Jules, Vincent Vega, and Mia Wallace are all part of the lexicon.

The film is a perfect symbiosis of characters, dialogue and structure.  Often a film will have one without the other.  For example, The Butterfly Effect has a very interesting structure but the lead character is quite unmemorable.  Tarantino’s Django Unchained and The Hateful Eight both are full of colorful characters but the final acts in each of those films are so violent (and unimaginative) that it seems like Tarantino could not think of a better way to conclude his stories.  In Pulp Fiction, however, Tarantino actually uses the time structure to develop the character.  When Travolta’s Vincent Vega is killed in Act II we see why after seeing Act III, because like the other characters (Butch, Jules and, Marsellus) he was saved by an act of God, but ultimately disregarded it. 

The structure, of three stories with some characters overlapping, was groundbreaking at the time.  Nowadays with franchises such as the Marvel movies which may star one lead character but the lead of a different film in the same series (aka Iron Man in Spider Man; Homecoming) may show up for a small role is common but in Pulp Fiction it was innovative to establish Butch in the first act and then in the middle of Butch’s story, suddenly show us Vincent, who had been the movie’s lead, suddenly as an antagonist.

Tarantino has an interesting female foot fetish as most of his films contain a plethora of close-ups of female feet.  When Tarantino works it into the plot I think it is fine.  For example in Pulp Fiction Mia Wallace is introduced by her feet after a long debate between Jules and Vincent about whether a foot massage is erotic.  In Inglourious Basterds Landa figures out that Bridget Van Hammersmark is a spy by seeing if her foot fits a discarded shoe from a shoot-out.  In Death Proof, Jackie Brown, From Dusk Till Dawn (directed by Robert Rodriguez but scripted by Tarantino and it is Tarantino himself on camera drinking off of Salma Hayek’s foot) and his most recent Once Upon a Time in Hollywood it seems self-indulgent and is uncomfortable to watch.  The Hateful Eight was refreshingly free of such moments.

I have not seen Pulp Fiction since about 2002 so I am writing this portion before re-watching it for its 25^th anniversary.  I wonder where it will sit for me on the Tarantino oeuvre.  For me Kill Bill; Vol.2 and Inglourious Basterds are masterpieces.  Jackie Brown, Hateful Eight, Kill Bill Vol. 1 and Reservoir Dogs are entertaining but lesser films.  Django Unchained is good but not great for the first two acts and has a tasteless third act.  Death Proof, released as part of a dual feature with a film by Robert Rodriguez (which I have not seen) is silly but harmless fun.  Will I like it as much or more, as the masterpieces?  We shall see….

I have now seen it and have savored it as much as ever.  One of the first questions at the time of the release is what is Pulp Fiction, which has no obvious goal throughout the film about?  There is a freeform to the story telling but the film focuses on the lives of several people over the course of a few days.  These people each do something bad, get an opportunity for redemption and those who take it seem to be headed for sunnier futures.  The film treats its characters seriously and is overall realistic but is full of surreal touches. 

Tim Roth as Pumpkin has a nervous aggressive energy (also used well in The Incredible Hulk and Rob Roy).  The waitress who gets a close up in the opening scene looks like Melissa Sue Anderson who played Mary Ingalls in Little House on the Prairie.  When the two thieves take on their personas (Tarantino characters are often performers) Amanda Plummer’s transformation is particularly shocking as it is so different from the smiling character we just spent five minutes with.

The changing of the music in the credits may have been Jules changing the station on his car radio.  Since we hear it during the credit it also foreshadows that anything can come in the story to come and Tarantino will have some fun surprising us.

Vincent’s observations about Amsterdam, focused on McDonald’s and the intricacies of the legality of pot indicate he is intelligent but uninterested in any kind of higher culture.  Tarantino himself worked on the script in Amsterdam so this may be Tarantino’s way of telling us about his trip to Amsterdam. 

Travolta is as good as ever as Vincent, who is alert but flaky presumably in part due to his heroin habit.  Travolta lets all vanity go with a stringy haircut and is a little bloated which feels right for a character who does not care what people think of him.  Vincent much less bothered than Jules when he has to switch to the t-shirt and shorts at the end of the film.  Vincent (said to be the brother of Michael Madsen’s far scarier character in Reservoir Dogs) can be ruthless and is always interesting but is also clumsy and careless which leads to both his own death and Marvin’s when he is stupidly waving his gun while talking to him (which is one of the films black comic highlights).  Vincent’s has a complete lack of remorse over Marvin’s death and even gets defensive when Jules puts him in his place about it, as a young child who spilled sugar might.

Vincent and Mia’s date is my favorite sequence in the film.  It is like a Russian dollhouse as we in the audience think that the story will be about Vincent trying to resist Marsellus Wallace’s tempting wife, failing and trying to stay alive afterwards.  The beginning with Vincent finding Mia’s note (which is read aloud in another comic touch, as if he is so high he would need it read to him) and his high from the uncut heroin leaves him in a jaded state.  Another film would have had the date be in a less distinctive place (like the bar in Death Proof) and every line would have been loaded with sexual tension.  The conversation before Mia goes to the bathroom is interesting (especially Vincent’s reaction to the five-dollar shake) but the highlight is when Vincent asks Mia about the foot massage.  Vincent never looks her into the eye until the end.

The dance scene in the club shows Travolta dancing again on screen to a different type of music than we have before but his command of the stage effortlessly twisting while staying in character (with Thurman fully engaged across from him) gives the film another great moment.   When Vincent discovers Mia has overdosed, which is partially his fault since he took so long in the bathroom trying to talk himself down, his desperation to save her is much more driven out of self-preservation than concern for Mia, which is perhaps part of the reason as Vincent is the one who later dies.  The framing of the shot in which Vincent drives his beloved Malibu across Lance’s yard is hilarious (we see the car on the grass just as Lance hangs up on Vincent and then hear but not see the crash). 

Eric Stolz as Lance is cheerfully disdainful of society.  Lance seems to be a nerd who tried drugs and got hooked on the lifestyle.  Stolz and Rosanna Arquette as Lance’s wife Jody have fun squabbling which gets particularly heated during the tension of the adrenaline scene.

Uma Thurman is mesmerizing as Mia.  I wonder how does Mia spend her days?  She seems to be starved for intelligent conversion and wants to get that more than anything else out of Vincent.

Years later Travolta and Thurman worked together again in Be Cool.  Audiences were disappointed the scenes did not have the same edge.

One of the few elements that worked a little against the film for me at the time of release is Bruce Willis’ casting.  Willis was such a big star in the 90s that I found it difficult to accept him a club level boxer in this smaller production.  When Butch speaks of not wanting to see a war scene my immediate response was to note the irony given this was coming from the lead of so many action movies.  However looking at the film in 2019 Willis is perfectly cast and it is easier to see the character for his dilemma.  

The Butch story is tonally quite different.  The watch makes for a strong MacGuffin as it is Butch’s sole connection to his heritage and since there was not a major military operation at the time of Pulp Fiction’s release Butch’s war with Marsellus is something he will be able to pass down to any kids he has.  The scene in which Butch throws the television when he finds out Fabienne does not have the watch seems to be the start of an abusive cycle.  For her sake I almost hoped Fabienne would not be waiting in the hotel when Butch got back.  I hope in the future Butch as part of his redemption that Butch becomes more decent.  Butch seems to have turned a corner when he saved Marsellus and quickly stops himself when he snaps at Fabienne afterwards but it is the kind of thing a later Tarantino female character would never stand for.

Tarantino is in full command of both the realistic suspense when Butch is approaching and in the apartment and the dynamic of him holding the gun (which Vincent foolishly left in the kitchen) as well as Butch’s overconfidence.  When Butch, after now killing two men, is about to shoot Marsellus in the face his soul is on a dangerous path and is strangely redeemed by the two rednecks.  I wonder what exactly the Gimp’s purpose is since his warning is completely unheard.  When Butch decides to save Marsellus Willis truly sells the moment as Butch not leaving because he was saved but because he just cannot allow someone to be treated like this.  Tarantino then has some fun showing Butch picking his weapon and the audience I saw it with cheered when he picked up the chainsaw.  Even though Butch kills yet another man at this moment as the man is a rapist the audience can enjoy the moment.  Marsellus then keeps his dignity when he forgives Butch without ever looking at him (where in their earlier scene even though we never saw his face he clearly was staring right down at him).

The final act is memorable for Jules’ redemption and for Vincent (who we now know is not the hero) consistently being wrong and making all the bad decisions (apart from the Marvin shooting Vincent nearly ruins Jules’ attempts to defuse the diner robbery).  In the diner scene Jackson manages to show how strong not using violence can be to solve a problem. However despite the high entertainment value of the entire sequence there are a couple of areas in which Tarantino could have sold his message more thoroughly. 

For starters in the apartment, after Jules and Vincent are not hit they both shoot down the now defenseless young man and then Jules starts to repent.  Tarantino is trying to have his cake and eat it too since he frames a badass shot of Jules and Vincent lifting their guns together.  I think if Jules had hesitated and Vincent had fired alone himself it would have been better.  Also when Marvin is shot Jules is annoyed at the situation but does not seem to care at all about Marvin.  Lastly in the diner if Jules is redeemed why does he let Honey Bunny and Pumpkin leave with the other stolen wallets and not just his own? 

The Wolf is clearly a take on Harvey Keitel’s “The Cleaner” from The Point of No Return but Keitel plays The Wolf as far more personable than The Cleaner who was just a cold assassin.  The Cleaner would actually be a better name for the character as he essentially instructs Vincent and Jules to clean up the car (and they waste a lot of time waiting for him to show up when they should have known to do it themselves).

Unanswered questions:

What business did Marsellus have in Amsterdam that required Vincent to go?

After Vincent caused such a mess with Marvin why does Marsellus trust Vincent to take care of his wife for a few hours?

What happened with the young men and the case?  I can only surmise that the young men must have found it and tried to blackmail Marsellus for it.  They do not seem to be hiding.  The point of the scene is how Jules treats them to set up his redemption later but it seems this plot detail could be tied down.

Pulp Fiction holds up extremely well 25 years later and I think it will be remembered and loved for as long as film exists. *****