Pulp Fiction (1994)
English, motherf**ker! Do you speak it?!
THE SUMMARY: A pair of philosophically pondering hitmen and a backstabbing boxer collide in their interactions with a crime boss who gets strangely violated in the basement of a Dixie-themed pawnshop. On paper, it makes no sense and has no meaning - in practice, somehow it does. An unconventional but still followable weave of intersecting stories has me still thinking about it days later. It’s complex but not confusing, and entertaining throughout.
FROM MOVIE-PICKER MATT P: This is the movie that made Quentin Tarantino. Great dialogue and very different from any other movie at the time. The sequencing is odd until the end of the movie.
THE BEST:
Samuel L.’s best performance: I’m not surprised to learn that Tarantino literally wrote the role of Jules Winnfield for Sam Jackson, at least according to a Jackson biography. But apparently there were still audition formalities, and so Laurence Fishburne auditioned as well. When Jackson showed up for his audition, he was mistaken for Laurence, and it pissed him off, which helped him crush the performance.
It’s unclear to me how serious the producers were about giving Fishburne the role, but it’s a good thing they didn’t, because no performance in this movie is better than Sam Jackson as Jules. I haven’t seen every Sam Jackson movie, but I’ve never seen him in a better, more compelling role than this one, and I love him as Mace Windu in Star Wars.
It wasn’t Jackson’s first role, but it is the one that made him, and in retrospect, it seems like every other role he’s done is merely an adaptation of this one. The piercing glares, the sternly delivered elaborate lines, the ‘cold-blooded motherfucker’ of it all - perfection.
Pulp Fiction in chronological order (click to expand)
Interesting, complex weave of stories and timelines: Often I’m critical of non-linear story models because they can just create unnecessary confusion. They come off as attempts at just obscure ‘artsiness’ rather than presentation for a purpose, and only serve to complicate and not enhance. Not the case in this movie - even though it’s three stories in one, and even though the presentation is non-chronological, I wasn’t confused. Instead I was noticing small plot pieces that the writers and director want you to notice, so you connect the pieces later.
The way the movie ties up the opening scene with the end is excellent - at first, the diner robbery plotting doesn’t seem to have any connection to the rest of the movie, until it does. The weird outfits Vincent and Jules are wearing at Marsellus’ club early in the movie are an unexplained contrast with their prior black suits, until that’s explained later as well. The hostile talk between Vincent and Butch at the bar foreshadows Butch killing Vincent later.
It’s hard to pull off these non-linear or fractured timelines in a followable, non-confusing way, but this movie does it as well as any I’ve ever seen. To visualize just how complex the story is, consider the graphic at right (click to expand). That many overlapping elements presented as anything other than a chaotic mess is an achievement.
The metaphor of the bathroom: The movie is full of seemingly mundane elements that are actually meaningful given later plot pieces or just recurring metaphorical value. The gold watch is a symbol for family loyalty and love, breakfast is a meal of great contemplation and revelation throughout, etcetera - there are many examples.
The one metaphor I can’t fully figure out is the bathroom, but it’s had me thinking about it for days after. Every time someone is in the bathroom, a major development happens. Vincent is in the bathroom when Mia overdoses. Vincent is in the bathroom when the diner robbery starts. Vincent is in the bathroom when he is killed. At Brett’s apartment, an armed man is hiding in the bathroom and nearly kills Jules and Vincent.
Some say the bathroom is simply a symbol for bad luck, which is plausible - every time a bathroom is involved, there’s a bad event for somebody. But I’m not fully satisfied with that theory, because the bathroom also presents good luck for Vincent and other characters, situation depending. When Vincent is in the bathroom during the diner robbery, it actually gives him an advantage when he returns, because he’s able to hold Honey Bunny at gunpoint. The bathroom shooter at Brett’s apartment misses Vincent and Jules, good luck Jules describes as ‘divine intervention.’ Even at Vincent’s death, the bathroom is good luck for Butch, who only survives and successfully kills Vincent because of Vincent’s bathroom break.
And even if I accept the symbol of bad luck, why is the bathroom necessarily bad luck? What is the meaning of that symbol? Are we supposed to be careful in the bathroom? Quick and efficient? Avoid the bathroom, and if so, how exactly?
Perhaps it’s the ultimate metaphor, a metaphor that mocks you for doing what I’m doing and over-thinking it. Some theorize the bathroom symbolizes the futility of trying to turn shit into gold - whenever we try to do that, bad things happen, so maybe I should stop.
But as I always say, my mark of a good movie is getting me to think about it afterward, and I still am. Ironically, I’ll be thinking about this one in the bathroom.
The moral of Jules Winnfield’s Bible verse: The obvious memorable moments of the movie are Jules’ recitations of Ezekiel 25:17 before he kills Brett, and when he holds up Ringo. In the closing scene, he offers more about his thinking on its meaning.
The movie’s version of the verse is in fact expanded - something Tarantino wrote, though it is based on a real Bible verse of much shorter length but similar theme. Discussing its meaning with Ringo, Jules ponders who plays the various roles in the verse: the evil man of tyranny, the righteous shepherd, and the weak. Jules concludes that he himself is the evil man of tyranny, trying very hard to be the shepherd, and Ringo is the weak.
There is a serious lesson of philosophical wisdom here. Life is a morally complex battle between shepherds and tyrants, and the distinction between them is blurred by people trying to achieve good ends while considering or using questionable tactics to achieve them. And while of course we all should aim for shepherd-hood, good intentions unconstrained often lead to tyranny.
However, the tyrant isn’t actually the worst, least desirable role here. The weak is - the person who is either led by the shepherd, or dominated by the tyrant. That’s a person under the total control of others no matter what, a universally bad condition.
Do your best to be good, but whatever you do, don’t become weak - that’s the Jules Winnfield wisdom to remember.
THE WORST:
It’s just too long, even if it is for a philosophical reason: At over two and a half hours, the movie is just too long, and several scenes linger or drag without much good reason for it. Mia and Vincent’s ‘date’ at the restaurant is full of long shots admiring the set, and a dance competition that doesn’t serve much plot purpose, Butch’s taxi ride after the fight is entirely unnecessary, and even the closing breakfast scene at the diner, while ultimately excellent, moves very slowly to start. Plus of course we have to get the obligatory cameo of Tarantino sitting around in his pajamas saying the N word.
As I thought about this later, I realize there may be some philosophical or metaphorical reason for it - at the restaurant, Mia wonders why we need to fill silence with talk about bullshit in order to feel comfortable. Perhaps the movie is exhibiting or exploring this question throughout, showing either the pointlessness of dumb banter, or, perhaps, its value. Often characters are discussing philosophy and deeper meaning in mundane things, so maybe the discussion isn’t as worthless as Mia thinks.
Either way, the movie could probably be accomplished just as well in something closer to two hours, and I think it’d be a better product if it was.
What the hell is Travolta’s accent?: I gather Vincent is supposed to be some sort of southern man, but Travolta’s accent is awful and fades in and out. Sometimes he has a stronger drawl, sometimes none at all. The accent has no relevance to the character anyway, and should have just been scrapped.
THE RATING: 4/5 Wickies. Days after watching, I’ve nearly talked myself into a coveted Five Wicky™ award, because the things I love about this movie are so much deeper than the things I don’t, but the movie just lingers too long for me to give it perfection. Still very very good - one I would happily watch again and catch details I missed the first time.
YOUR RATING: Vote here ⬇
NEXT WEEK: Black Hawk Down (2001)
AFTER THAT? YOU PICK - VOTE! April’s movie nominations are from listener Amanda.
Want to be the movie nominator for the month? Here’s how - fill out the form below.