This was the first movie made by Quentin Tarantino that I watched. I didn’t know anything about the movie, apart from a handful of references I observed from memes.
The story was undoubtedly different from other movies yet in a way still entertaining. However I am unbeknownst to what the actual plot of this movie was supposed to be nor what was special about it to be considered so popular. Does the fact that it deviates from traditional storytelling in itself act as a selling point?
Really good movie quotes were the real-life memes before the memes were memes.
Every scene in this movie has at least one quote that you could say in mixed company and others in-the-know would catch the reference.
If you disagree with me, I will get medieval on your ass.
- Great Dialogue
- Great Characters
- Parts were hilarious
- Parts were intense and thrilling
- Scenes where fun as hell
- It is highly entertaining
I watched it late in life, after supposing that I was immune to hype surrounding movies. The story telling quirks definitely add to its mystique but I think even if it weren’t for that it would still be strong.
The characters are likeable even when they’re being reprehensible, the writing shuns grandiose ideas to celebrate mundane (except for maybe Jules, depends on how much you celebrate hobo-spiritual awakenings), and also it’s often ugly. It provokes and makes you feel things vicariously above all other morals or values. Which is kind the purpose of the book genre it’s named after.
Zed’s dead, baby. Zed’s dead.
I haven’t seen it mentioned, but the title alone tells us so much about what to expect.
“Pulp Fiction” is a type of novel published on the cheapest paper available, marginally better than newsprint - pulp paper.
These were novels that were published cheaply and quickly - so we’re not talking about the novel of the century, but simple entertainment - fast paced, stylized, sensational.
All that also connects to the Noir genre of novels - gritty, dirty, dangerous, hard characters for whom killing is easy. The heyday of Noir is about 1920-1950 and includes authors like Dashiel Hammet (Maltese Falcon) and HP Lovecraft.
I’m sure Tarantino read many of these kinds of novels growing up - you can see the influence: Pulp Fiction is a 90’s take on the Noir genre.
All that said, I haven’t seen it in years. I don’t find it compelling enough to watch again. That’s not a criticism in any way - I saw it in the theatre when it came out and laughed my ass off at parts. We talked about it for days afterward, trying to understand it.
As you already found out, the storytelling is very special.
The way of showing of violence was new.
The very weird behaviour of most characters was special.
The nonstandard ending (without a clear morale or meaning) was very special, at least for a Hollywood movie.
The dialogues were also special: characters were mostly talking about mundane subjects but in a unique and very entertaining way. Who else can make a Hollywood movie scene with John Travolta telling that the most interesting thing about a foreign country where they speak a foreign language is that they use different words for fast food menu items. It was unexpected and hilarious at the time.
The dialog also indicated class - this is straight pulp fiction/noir stuff.
Tarantino understood how to re-imagine noir for a 90’s audience.
The very weird behaviour of most characters was special.
Yes, to expand on this: each of the characters had enough “story” to make a movie of their own, and there were a lot of characters. But it was paced well enough that it didn’t get overwhelming.
Also the casting was very well done. At the time Travolta was a bit of a has-been, and Samuel L Jackson was getting supporting roles but wasn’t as iconic as he is now.
The movie was very influential, so a lot of the innovations it made have been copied, so it seems more “normal” now.
Sam Jackson and nothing else
My take is that it was very successful because it combined ‘art movie’ with grind house action.
Mixing up the time line, the long monologue about the watch, the general conversations, those were all things you’d expect in a art film. The violence was pure Roger Corman/Times Square.
Think of Queen and ‘Bohemian Rhapsody.’ Nobody had combined high opera and rock-and-roll like that before [afaik]
You might want to look up a novel titled “Red Harvest” by Dashiell Hammett.
It’s been a template for almost a century. Hard core action and meditations on violence and corruption.
You have to roll back the clock to having seen Reservoir Dogs first which is also an excellent movie.
Pulp Fiction did what Reservoir Dogs did, but put it in a more commercial wrapper, meaning more people would watch and enjoy it.
I remember watching the Zed scene the first time and flashing back to this scene:
And thinking “Oh, holy hell, here we go!”
But as it turned out, the Zed scene wasn’t anywhere near as… visceral… as the scene from Reservoir Dogs.
Sexy feet.
Ah, a man of culture.
I think it’s how it is a b-movie that is actually good that makes it and other Tarantino movies so compelling. It is low budget fluff (or well, pulp) done on a high budget with more thought put into it than is incidentally apparent.
This question reminded me of how the Swedish movie Slim Susie put it. It begins in a movie theatre where they’re watching Pulp Fiction but the movie stops at the half way point because the theatre had only gotten the first film roll. To placate the audience the theatre owner phones his buddy to ask how Pulp Fiction ends: John Travolta dies, but at least the black guy survives.
It is considered by some, as the first ever Drum & Bass track, the first with a two-step beat.
8]
