Film Pulp Fiction

[ForEverAfter]

I love this film. (5/5)

Also, whoever gave this movie 1 or 2 stars -- I don't think you understood the movie. Or movies in general. I mean really, even if you didn't care for the movie, how do you give it a 1, implying that 80 - 90% of the movies out there are better? That's absurd.

That's not how the rating system works. People don't assign films star ratings based on a grade curve. It's not a percentile system. That wouldn't make any sense. There are far more bad films than there are good films. I'd say over 95 percent of the films ever produced deserve less than 2 stars and that's being generous. Idiocy is more widespread than genius. It's not split 50/50 at the 2 and a half star mark. If it was, people would have to like or dislike films based - to some extent - on the number of films that had been produced at that point in time, or the number of films that they happen to have seen. Which is insane.

 

[Ms.Martini]

know what they call a quarter pounder with cheese in france? a royale with cheese.
all time favourite movie.

 

[AmorRoark]

It's not true. There's more than one scene that shows a clock set at a different time. Remember when Marcellus called the Wolf? It was 7:22 in the am. I'm almost positive they showed the time in Jimmy's kitchen,too.

That scene always confused me. What the fuck is the Wolf doing at 7am in a tuxedo? It looks like there's an extravagant party already underway outside the bedroom too???

 

[L2R]

with heaps of pacific islanders/polynesians in aus, i remember that line about samoans scoring a crowd lol in the cinema back in 95.

 

[DeathDomokun]

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but I've noticed that Bruce Willis' girlfriend hints at being pregnant, by commenting on her love of pot bellies and I can't remember what he says exactly but it's in the vein of him saying he doesn't want a kid.

 

[L2R]

The pot belly has nothing to do with pregnancy, and butch says no such thing.

 

[ForEverAfter]

In my opinion, the subtext is indeed the prospect of them having a child together. Butch says: "If you had a pot belly, I'd punch you in it," or something, which is probably a reference to the fact that he would opt for abortion. You can watch the scene and conclude that they are talking about nothing - that there is no subtext - but that's just your opinion. More often than not dialogue has at least two meanings. I think Domokun is correct. They are having a serious conversation about the prospect of family, while - at the same time - having a cute conversation about nothing. Tarantino does this a lot; most people fail to pick it up.

 

[felix]

I just saw this infograph the other day, which may be of interest:

Pulp Fiction in chronological order (Full size)

 

[L2R]

In my opinion, the subtext is indeed the prospect of them having a child together. Butch says: "If you had a pot belly, I'd punch you in it," or something, which is probably a reference to the fact that he would opt for abortion. You can watch the scene and conclude that they are talking about nothing - that there is no subtext - but that's just your opinion. More often than not dialogue has at least two meanings. I think Domokun is correct. They are having a serious conversation about the prospect of family, while - at the same time - having a cute conversation about nothing. Tarantino does this a lot; most people fail to pick it up.

got another example?

 

[ForEverAfter]

Tarantino has a habit of using subtext to make "in" comments about film-making and, to an extent, self-satirizing his own films. In Inglourious Basterds, the use of subtitles - in the opening scene - is a wonderful example. Inglourious is a better film than Pulp in many ways. The scene (dialogue-wise) works on at least four different levels. It's chock full of tension; it's funny; it is poking fun at subtitle conventions; and, it is paying homage to an entire genre. I haven't seen the film since it came out; there are most likely more levels than that. They are just the ones off the top of my head.

Pulp Fiction is loaded with a lot of weird and clever examples of subtext. Tarantino is a brilliant dialogue writer because his dialogue is - more often than not - multi-layered. Pulp is a particularly interesting example because it's subtext is about subtext. When they discuss the foot massage, and whether or not it means anything, they are having the same discussion that we are having right now. It's not a co-incidence. Instead of showing us the massage, Tarantino refers to it indirectly and has his characters exploring the subtext of the unseen event. So the subtext of the scene that we see - the discussion about the foot massage - pertains broadly to subtext in narratives. There's another good example of this. Near the beginning of the film, Samuel L. Jackson's character recites a passage of the bible. Towards the end of the film, he explains that he wasn't sure what it meant at the time; being a fictional character, he was unaware of the subtext: he just thought it "sounded cool" (or words to that effect) like people who watch films and fail to pick up on the meaning, absorbing the style and little else. At the end of the film, Jackson's character realizes the meaning of the passage and explains it. The passage/scene is delivered separately as text and subtext.

The pot belly/ pregnant example is less clever. It is stock standard subtext; though, like the other examples I have provided you with, it is not accidental. I'm happy to go deeper, if you like.

 

[captainballs]

i like that interpretation of quentin tarantino's dialogue style, especially that of the inglorious basterds intro.

however, i do think that, while he happens to be the best at the style he created, the dialogue has a tendency to get wrapped up too intensely in its own irony, much like the words coming out of a coke head's mouth. when this happens, he leaves the people who already get it and speeds off in the direction of overkill.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Agreed. He relies too heavily on the Meta shit. But his dialogue is superb without it. It works as meaningful and meaningless.

 

[freddy47]

however, i do think that, while he happens to be the best at the style he created, the dialogue has a tendency to get wrapped up too intensely in its own irony, much like the words coming out of a coke head's mouth. when this happens, he leaves the people who already get it and speeds off in the direction of overkill.

I felt that way about Death Proof. But it kind of works for that movie IMO.

Then again I haven't seen it since it came out.

 

[freddy47]

That scene always confused me. What the fuck is the Wolf doing at 7am in a tuxedo? It looks like there's an extravagant party already underway outside the bedroom too???

You know I always wondered that myself. Perhaps it was an all night party that lasted well into the morning? lol

First time I saw the movie I thought it was a wedding or something like that, but then this post made me think. Who gets married or throws an extravagant party that early in the morning?

Maybe The Wolf just goes around all day wearing a tux?

 

[captainballs]

I felt that way about Death Proof. But it kind of works for that movie IMO.

Then again I haven't seen it since it came out.

i disagree. death proof, while a movie i get enjoyment out of, is exhausting when the girls go off on those forced tangents.

 

[freddy47]

^Yeah I need to see it again. I don't totally remember all the dialogue in that movie. Most of it seemed to be about smoking weed and guys. I just thought it was interesting to see the female version of the Reservoir Dogs breakfast scene. But again I don't remember what specifically they talked about.

All I remember is the car talk and the stunt girls talking about the stunts they wanted to do.

 

[L2R]

FEA, thanks for that post. Just a couple of thoughts.

while it is a great scene, the opening of IB is not a good example of subtext. Those four points are self consciously written, but they don't reveal any deeper meaning in the world of the story. The subtitle thing was a wink at the audience from the writer, the characters weren't gaining anything from it. The same can be said of the foot massage and bible passage parts of pulp fiction. clever self conscious writing, delightful to watch, but not like the pregnancy example at all, which is about the characters themselves.

i am incredulous about added meaning in dialogue when it appears to be inexplicable or unique. until i see another example like the pregnancy one, i'll continue to consider it as unintentional.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Who ever said subtext has to be directly related to the plot?

sub•text/ˈsəbˌtekst/

Noun: An underlying and often distinct theme in a piece of writing or conversation.

Sometimes subtext reveals stuff about characters; sometimes - more often than not with Tarantino - it is used to comment about things outside of the narrative. But Pulp Fiction is full of subtext. The pot belly pregnancy example is the most obvious use of direct character revealing subtext. There are a couple of others, if I remember correctly.

John Travolta's character, after accidentally shooting that kid in the head when they go over a speed bump, makes a reference to Lady Macbeth. He says it's hard to get the blood off his hands, an allusion to the fact that he feels guilty about the murder on a non-surface level. Again, this is multi-layered.

Another one that comes to mind is when Travolta and Jackson are talking about filthy animals. There is a sodomy reference. Pigs fuck in shit, or something like that. Jackson's character doesn't eat pork because pigs are filthy animals. This is a reference to: religious practices (the preacher aspect of his character), his apathetic attitude towards murder, homophobia/the scene in the basement with Zed, and (possibly) the pot belly reference. "Pot belly [pigs] are cute" (pregnancy is a beautiful thing) but "pigs are filthy animals" (parenthood is hard) and the only way Jackson's character would consider being a father (eating pork) is if the pig (the prospective mother of his children) "had an amazing personality".

This might not be exactly what Tarantino was going for, I may be over-analysing it, but the filthy animal conversation is unquestionably laden with subtext. Pulp Fiction is full of seemingly ordinary conversations that have a number of layered meanings. When Domokun suggested the subtext of the pot belly scene and you shot him down, I think you were being somewhat counter-productive in terms of generating an interesting discussion. Regardless of whether or not my analysis (or his) is correct, we are looking at dialogue on a deeper level.

What I find interesting about art is it's potential for interpretation. I don’t really care if I convince you that there is more going on under the surface in Pulp Fiction than you were previously aware. But, I do think it’s important to encourage discussion rather than stubbornly insisting that you know what the film means, full stop, and everybody else is wrong. Domokun brought up an interesting point in an otherwise relatively uninteresting thread.

 

[L2R]

It's cool, and i really do appreciate your analysis, although i do think you're overdoing it somewhat. I shot down domokun because i never considered that conversation as a pregnancy reference before, and found it absurd. If i was stifling of conversation, i apologise. Now that you've explained it, I like the idea, however i just don't buy it.

I totally agree on your point about the interpretive quality of art. I have this notion, from my own experience in creative writing, that meaning can evolve in stories completely without the intention of the author. When i completely zone into writing, it's often like I'm running blindly.

 

[panic in paradise]

That is the one Quentin Tarantino movie I will still rent or would buy, besides True Romance.

"That's just pride fucking with your head."

Love it