Andrew McMurtryREVIEW: Pulp Fiction (1994)
November 25th 2008 12:49
“Pulp Fiction” is Quentin Tarantino’s masterpiece. What begins as a relatively confusing movie with two people robbing a diner, eventually unfolds into a clever, functioning film which is just edited to be out of order so that the first scene is also the last scene with disjointed scenes in between which explain the events before and after. By the end, the collective meaning of the story comes together to give the audience the complete story. It is beautifully done and a testiment to Tarantino that this film is still so popular today. It is an absolute classic and a magnificent film.
“Pulp Fiction” is a movie which uses a variety of techniques to portray its goal. Within a scene, Tarantino uses humour but a dark dark humour. The stangest thing is that some of these scenes are laugh out loud scenes, which is weird because the scenes can depict some pretty gruesome killings. In one scene, Vincent Vega (John Travolta) shoots a man in the back seat of a car in the face. He then says to his partner, Jules Winnfield (Samuel L. Jackson) “Oh man, I shot Marvin in the face.” before having an argument on whose fault it was. This brings the humour into the film, even if it is very dark humour. It shows that nothing is predictable or familiar within this bizarre gang world. It is a new and different experience for everyone that sees it.
The journey, which progresses through time as well as through the space of LA and its surrounding areas, is fun and entertaining. There are no moments in this film which are dull and will not keep the audiences attention. “Pulp Fiction” leaves its viewers with a shocking view of destiny, choice and spirituality using humour and unbelievable behaviour to portray this to his audience.
In terms of characterisation, Vincent Vega is the loyal follower of Marcellus Wallace, who is his boss. On the other hand, even though he likes his job, Jules Winnfield has is more involved in religion and sees that he can separate his work and beliefs unlike Vincent. This is shown through their arguments about religion and work. “The miracle you witnessed. I witnessed a freak occurrence.” Jules also sees it as his choice to get out of the business of working for Marcellus Wallace (Ving Rhames); he sees it as a job, whereas Vincent sees it as a binding contract upon which he can never get out. There is another part of the story. Butch Coolidge (Bruce Willis) is the other plot line. These plot lines cross twice, the first almost leading to a fist fight in Marcellus’ hangout and the second leaving Vincent Vega dead. The strange thing about the Vincent Vega death scene is that he is by himself, meaning that either Jules was dead or had successfully resigned from his job. It builds suspense especially leading to the final scene.
Each time the movie returns to a scene it has gone through before, like a scene in an apartment of a group of people who owe money to Marcellus Wallace and the diner scene, you learn more and you learn different perspectives. Tarantino also uses long scenes so that the audience may absorb as much information as possible. This makes the rhythm of the movie, despite it being fast paced, more fluent. It also joins the scenes together like the first time Vincent and Jules enter the apartment to kill the guys who owe Marcellus the money, the scene stops when Jules abruptly with a gun shot. The next time the movie joins from there, it starts with the gunshot before shifting the camera to another man who is hiding in a side room.
Far from confusing his audience with this editing, Tarantino makes the film's time scheme clear, linking episodes with dialogue that may sound casual but sticks in the memory of the viewers. For example, when Ringo yells at a waitress as “Garcon”, the name is not forgotten and when it comes back to the diner scene, the use of the word “Garcon” gives the audience a feeling of time. “A story should have a beginning, a middle, and an end...but not necessarily in that order.” according to Jean-Luc Godard. That is exactly what is right about this film. It does have a beginning, middle and end, but not in that order. If “Pulp Fiction” was made in chronological order, its story wouldn’t make any sense as it would end with the death of Vincent and that is not what the movie is aimed at showing.
"Pulp Fiction" is a true masterpiece of cinema. The editing is phenomenal and deserves recognition as one of the greatest films of all time. It is riveting viewing. It is a 5 out of 5 movie. There is very little wrong with the film. It really is a great movie and I cannot recommend this film any more.
| 61 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by mistersmith
Comment by NoaIzumi
Anime Bottle
Editorial Fact Check
No comment on the gimp.
Comment by Cibbuano
20/20 Filmsight
Science News
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
On later viewings, though, I really appreciated the easy flow of the movie, something that later Tarantino movies struggled to capture..
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
No other movie before or since has had that privilege.
However I saw it a third time several weeks or more later and it lost some of its power.
In the years since its release I've seen it another two or three times, and I definitely love so much about it, but I find myself coming back to the lean, mean fighting machine of Reservoir Dogs.
Dogs was the first Tarantino movie I saw and I think its the best. As fantastic as Pulp Fiction is, I prefer Dogs, it bites harder and barks louder. It just doesn't bark for as long.
Good review though!