PULP FICTION
5/5 stars
Part of John Ulmer's Favorite Movies List
(http://www.wiredonmovies.com/favorites.html)
REVIEW BY JOHN ULMER (Copyright, 2004)
Quentin Tarantino's "Pulp Fiction" is the quintessential example of
great movie making, assorted using various constructive techniques
that elevate the film to the highest possible level, stretching the
boundaries and pushing upwards. Like all great directors, Q.T. lets
the film and its subsidiaries stand on their own. A lesser director
might employ cheap gimmicks and plot devices to move the story onwards
at a brisk pace, but "Pulp Fiction" is a dark action, comedy, and/or
drama that clocks in at two hours and thirty-four minutes. And not a
single minute is wasted on material we think could have been shortened
or cut. It's one of those rare motion pictures that leaves you wanting
more, which only welcomes another immediate viewing to let everything
sink in a second, third, or even fourth time.
Quentin is lucky. He would not have been able to pull off such a movie
ten years earlier. Indeed, Sergio Leone tried this with "Once Upon a
Time in America" (1984), but back then the studios were cautious of
apparently slow-moving movies filmed out of chronological order. So
the frail Leone soon found his movie brutally chopped by the film's
editor, who was commanded by Warner Bros. to assort the movie in order
of events and to remove pointless chit-chat. It ruined the movie,
ranking in as one of the worst of 1984. Leone was ruined, and
complained to James Coburn that the studios had ruined his dream
project. Leone died before the techniques used in "Pulp Fiction"
became popular. Now, ten years later, the only available DVD of "Once
Upon a Time in America" is the extended cut, re-edited in agreement
with Leone's original ideas. And one critic who named it the worst
film of 1984 now says it is the best film of the decade.
Indeed, "Pulp Fiction" is a movie that would not be comprehensible if
assorted in chronological order. Future films have copied (or at least
learned from) its technique of narrative storytelling, which is
clearly evident in projects ranging from "The Usual Suspects" to
"Memento" or even "Identity." It offers an intriguing notion, and a
limitless possibility of effect. It makes one wonder how many
different films could be improved using this technique, or how many
scenes could even be switched around in "Pulp Fiction" to make it even
more effective. (Although one would be hard-pressed to fit the scenes
together in any better way than Quentin has.) It almost seems random
at first, as if Quentin tore apart the screenplay's different scenes,
threw them in a hat, drew them out and assembled them in order of how
they were plucked. But our own satisfaction with the movie denies this
possibility and regards it as a silly notion. The scenes, although
seemingly haphazard, are in this order for a reason. And when the
movie ends, everything clicks.
A lesser director than Tarantino might also force his characters into
saying things they would not normally say, or into actions they would
not normally act out in real life. Instead, Tarantino does something
brilliant and seldom executed: He actually lets his characters evolve
on-screen, and actually engage in every day conversations. Most
critics interpret this as Quentin stopping to insert unnecessary
(albeit entertaining) dialogue segments. They're wrong. The dialogue
is strong, but it's there for a purpose. The difference is that
dialogue in a movie such as "The Presidio" isn't real at all. The
characters enter, move the plot forwards through speaking or acting,
then proceed to repeat this in following instances, as if they're
following the back of a mouth wash bottle ("rinse, spit, repeat").
Quentin does something else, by eavesdropping on his characters when
their dialogue does mean something. No doubt Jules and Vincent have
much to say about many things, but most of the time it is not relevant
to the story. One must keep in mind that we actually hear little about
Jules and Vincent, and even less talk between them. But when we do
hear these things, it's strikingly true and purposeful. And this is
what so many people miss when viewing "Pulp Fiction" -- the witty
dialogue has become universally regarded as the strongest ever
written, and while that may very well be correct, the idea that it is
pointless is absurd. Quentin is subtle in the way he introduces his
speeches; when Jules (Samuel L. Jackson) and Vincent (John Travolta)
spend some two or three minutes discussing how the French translate
the term "Quarter Pounder with Cheese" due to the metric system, it is
amazingly deliberate: Quentin later uses this same reference for Jules
before he and Vincent assassinate a group of young crooks who have
stolen a briefcase from Marsellus Wallace (Ving Rhames), one of the
town's major kingpins.
There are essentially three stories in "Pulp Fiction," intertwined
between one another. It opens with Honey Bunny (Amanda Plummer) and
her boyfriend (Tim Roth) hatching a plan to rob a restaurant. By their
reasoning, no one ever bothers with restaurants, just banks, so why
not take advantage of them "with their pants down"? The stick-up
proceeds, which is when the famous titles roar forward and we find
ourselves following Jules and Vincent, who work for Marsellus, who has
paid championship boxer Butch (Bruce Willis) to fall in his upcoming
match. But Butch has a better plan: Bet loads of money on himself,
beat the other guy to a bloody pulp, and run away with his money. He
almost gets away with it when he accidentally crosses paths with
Marsellus once more, resulting in a rape scene to rival that in
"Deliverance."
Back to the dialogue. It is the driving force of the film,
complementing the plot and allowing its characters to grow on us in
ways we never imagined they would. It's the way in which the dialogue
is deliberated that varies from most other examples of deliberation.
For example, is it coincidence that we just so happen to overhear
Jules and Vincent discussing the Big Mac and Quarter Pounder with
Cheese? No. But our instincts tell us that it seems very real, as if
Tarantino went around filming real people, then edited together scenes
where the dialogue could bear some sort of importance to the plot.
There are different levels of dialogue -- plot-driven, and realistic
-- but all dialogue is in service of its plot, just as all of what we
say to our friends or family has a deeper meaning and will no doubt
relate to the matter at hand. All dialogue relates to a larger scheme,
and so does the dialogue in "Pulp Fiction." It's just more casual and
subtle than most movies. It's not pointless, but it's not deliberate,
which is a fine line to try and balance on. Quentin does so
successfully, crossing the finish line with enthusiasm, which is no
doubt part of what elevates "Pulp Fiction" above so many other motion
pictures of its genre.
- John Ulmer
http://www.wiredonmovies.com
e-mail: johnulmer2003@msn.com
========== X-RAMR-ID: 37494 X-Language: en X-RT-ReviewID: 1269457 X-RT-TitleID: 1060462 X-RT-SourceID: 1382 X-RT-AuthorID: 6769 X-RT-RatingText: 5/5
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews