Pulp Fiction Hollywood Movie
Pulp Fiction is perhaps his most polarizing film, being both praised and dismissed in way more than most films in recent memory. So let’s take a look at it, and see what it – and Tarantino – are doing. Before we begin, here is your warning that spoilers are ahead. As everyone who’s seen the film knows, Pulp Fiction consists of three stories, each one weaving in and out of the others and also starring the same characters.
Each story could stand on its own, but instead, they are linked together and presented in one two-and-a-half-hour film. This is possible because the stories have one very important aspect in common: their heart. At its heart, Pulp Fiction is a film about redemption. In Vincent Vega and Marcellus Wallace’s wife, Mia is redeemed by restarting her stopped heart. Mia should have died at this moment, but she doesn’t, and as a response, she matures, from a reckless and irresponsible girl. I said Goddamn! Goddamn! to a mature, professional adult. How are you doing? Great. I never thanked you for dinner. This is directly shown with her Fox Force Five joke: like a child, the immature Mia is too embarrassed to tell it, You’d be embarrassed? You’d tell like fifty million people and you can’t tell me? I promise I won’t laugh. That’s what I’m afraid of Vince.
while mature Mia is willing to share it with someone who genuinely is interested. No, you won’t laugh because it’s not funny, but if you still want to hear it I’ll tell it. And if that isn’t evidenced enough, the film literally tells us Mia grows up, through songs. In The Gold Watch, Butch is the one who is redeemed. Like Mia, Butch should have died for doing what he did, not just double-crossing a mob boss, but also for doing it so recklessly. I mean, not only does he go back to the apartment where he knows gangsters are looking for him, but after he gets away with this, instead of driving off, he stops by again! But despite all this, Butch is a good person: staying loyal to his family, being friendly with strangers, and doing his best to control his rage and anger part of his good nature is a code of ethics that cannot be crossed, no matter who is on the receiving end. This code leads Butch to save his would-be killer, and that killer then forgives him. Step aside, Butch.
This forgiveness is Butch’s redemption. You can even argue that, over the course of all three stories, Marcellus himself is redeemed. You can argue this through the fan theory that it is Marcellus’s soul in the briefcase, his soul which he gets back. This fan theory also explains why these kids don’t deserve redemption. I mean, if Jules and Marcellus deserve it, why not them? What could they have done that was so bad? Well, if they were agents for the devil, betraying their associates and delivering souls to him, I think that would do the trick.
Interestingly, the other major characters Butch‘s story, Maynard and Zed, also get no chance at redemption.
But in this case, the film clearly shows why they don’t deserve it. The last story in Pulp Fiction, The Bonnie Situation, actually contains two acts of redemption, the most obvious being this one, DIE YOU MOTHERFUCKERS!!! but there’s also this one here. Do you want to know what I’m buying Ringo?
What? Your life. I’m giving you that money so I don’t have to kill your ass. It is in this story that Pulp Fiction delivers its message most strongly: that redemption is powerful and there is importance in recognizing it. Jules recognizes both moments of redemption, and as a result, he moves on to a new and presumably peaceful life. Vincent, however, denies each instance shown to him. This morning I don’t think qualifies. Jules, you give that fucking nimrod fifteen hundred dollars and I’ll shoot him on general principle. Not only that, but he’s even a jerk to those who help redeem him. If that favor means that I gotta take a shit then he can stick that favor straight up his ass, I don’t care. And the result is: So, accepting that Pulp Fiction is about redemption, the natural follow-up is: what about it? “The power of redemption” and “redemption is important” are pretty unprofound ideas. So where is the power in making these statements? For most films, the power comes from going deeper, getting specific, and uncovering some deep-seated truth. Like The Social Network, which isn’t simply about change, it’s about how for some people. It’s easier to change the world than it is to change themselves. Or Chinatown, which isn’t just about corruption, Go home Jake. I’m doing you a favor. but rather about how some corruption is so large that it cannot be punished, only rewarded. Forget it, Jake, it’s Chinatown. Pulp Fiction, however, does not do this. Far as I can tell, Pulp Fiction is about redemption but it doesn’t get much deeper or more specific than that. It could have, had it for example: explained why cold-blooded killers deserve a shot at redemption, or why Marcellus, a man with the power to redeem and maybe even is redeemed himself, and why also gets raped. Or even the little details, like why Pumpkin and Honey Bunny get to walk off with innocent people’s wallets, who Jimmy and Tony Rocky Horror are, or why this lady gets shot. These are all places where Pulp Fiction could’ve pushed its message deeper and more specifically, but as far as I can tell, it did not. Instead, I think Pulp Fiction’s power comes simply from the fact that it has heart and meaning. I mean, consider what this film is. According to this definition, the pulp is lurid subject matter presented in a simple and unrefined way. It is not high art, and its purpose is not to be deep or profound. Pulp exists to shock, exploit, indulge and entertain. In the movie world, the pulp is B- pictures. Pulp fabrication is not The Social Network or Chinatown, it’s Coffy, TARANTINO Whip a derringer out of her afro. Superbad! frenetic Canine Killer, Sweet Sweetback’s Baadasssss Song TARANTINO Blaxploitation cinema really offered commodity that had not been ahead. I mean, just look at it blaxploitation, inelegant mobsters, cybersurfer music, hillbilly rednecks; Well, bring out the gimp. pictures like this have no business being as powerful as Pulp fabrication is. So, when it comes to the debate about Pulp fabrication being great moviemaking or a silly chat. Do you know what they call a quarter-pounder with rubbish in Paris?
my response is it’s both. Pulp fabrication is arguably the topmost B- movie ever made, so great that it can actually be compared to high art prestige moviemaking. But at the end of the day, Pulp fabrication is not a prestige picture, it’s a B- movie. Pulp fabrication is not as deep and meaningful as a film can be, the hell was that? but it’s way more important than B- pictures should be. In the end, I suppose when it comes to this film, and really Tarantino’s entire career, you’re gon na see what you want to see. Want to see great moviemaking?
It’s there, for Pulp fabrication is a B- movie that’s so good it can actually be compared to prestige filmland.
On the other hand, this B- movie discussion can also be seen as a reason for the film not being deeper than it is.