*** (out of ****)
Two hitmen are in the middle of finishing a job when an undetected person comes charging out of a bathroom, gun a blazing, aimed at the both of them. Every bullet misses them. The hitmen, stunned and bewildered, fire back. They don't miss. To one of the men this was an act of God, a miracle. How could they have survived that?
In the next scene, as they continue to discuss their experience, a gun accidentally goes off, killing a third person in a car. If it truly was an act of God that spared the hitmen their lives, why did God allow the innocent passenger to be killed in the car? This is Quentin Tarantino's "Pulp Fiction" (1994), a story of random chaos and chance encounters.
Celebrating its 30th anniversary, "Pulp Fiction" could arguably rank among the most popular and influential films of the 1990s. Striking movie audiences and "movie critics" alike with the force of a thunderbolt, "Pulp Fiction" was viewed as a fresh and exciting film with a frenetic energy. The questions to ask all of these years later is how well does it hold up and what impact did it have on our film culture?
When "Pulp Fiction" was released, Quentin Tarantino's biography was as much a part of the story as the film itself was. It was widely reported in movie reviews that Tarantino had no formal film education. He was a video store clerk with a passion for watching films. That became part of the marketing for "Pulp Fiction" and its success, the rise of a new voice in cinema representing a generation that would come to be known as the "VHS generation" in some circles. Or as "movie critic" Godfrey Cheshire put it in his New York Press review, "Ever since Reservoir Dogs, Tarantino has been intuited as not just a filmmaker but something larger, a phenomenon of the sort the medium periodically calls forth to announce a change in generations".
But how revolutionary was "Pulp Fiction"? And what specifically in its film techniques suggested an expansion of the medium? In other words, what did it do differently? How did it change storytelling in cinema? For some, they believed the way the movie played around with time structure was innovative. It wasn't though. The greatest prior example might be Orson Welles and "Citizen Kane" (1941). In Armond White's (God forgive me for quoting the Rush Limbaugh of film criticism) review of Stanley Kubrick's "The Killing" (1956), White draws comparison to Kubrick's use of plot structure and characters and Tarantino's as such, "He also fit them into a devious, startling plot structure that jumbles and repeats the time and sequencing of the robbery." He goes on to add, "This innovation is what Quentin Tarantino imitated in Pulp Fiction and even less well in Jackie Brown. Apparently all of the '90s film critic fraternity overlooked Tarantino's theft." Jeffrey Lyons, on the post Siskel & Ebert version of PBS' Sneak Previews, declared he "hated every frame" of "Pulp Fiction" and shrugged off Tarantino's wide-spread acclaim as a case of The Emperors New Clothes. Thirty years ago that was a shocking statement. Heck, a couple of months ago I would have felt Lyons really missed the mark. But now, during the year of Was I Right? on this blog - a year long re-examination of previous top ten choices over the years - sentiments like this aren't so outrageous.
This is not to say "Pulp Fiction" is a bad movie or Tarantino is a talentless hack. If anything it speaks to the film culture of the time and the mob mentality of "movie critics" (AKA sheep) who created a ginned up enthusiastic frenzy. It might be understandable if there was a consensus in the 90s that Hollywood was going stale. That great films weren't being made. But that's not the case. The previous movie year, 1993, was cited as a breakthrough year. For example, in his Chicago Tribune article, celebrating the best movies of 1993, Gene Siskel wrote, "It was a great year for movies, the best since the '70s, the last golden era of world filmmaking." In his famed partner's Chicago Sun-Times recap, Roger Ebert echoed the '70s comparison - "The movies seemed alive, in 1993, to their possibilities. The best ones weren't just marking time by doing a good job of the same old things; they were experimenting, taking chances in a way that reminded me of the golden age of the early 1970s."
And speaking of the 1970s and 1993 specifically, a movie that in some ways is comparable to "Pulp Fiction" is Robert Altman's (a '70s filmmaking maverick) "Short Cuts" (1993) - another movie I recently rewatched for "Was I Right?". "Short Cuts" was a story about the choices we make and the lasting impact of those decisions. Both movies featured interconnecting stories set in L.A. about random acts that define us and dealt with death, violence, and sex. However, Altman's film was an examination into American morality and humanity. "Pulp Fiction" makes no such statements. For me, that's what, on second look, prevents "Pulp Fiction" from being something greater. Ultimately, what does "Pulp Fiction" have to say?
In a contrasting opinion, Gene Siskel felt "Pulp Fiction" did contain humor and humanity, a humanity he says that was missing from Tarantino's first directorial effort, "Reservoir Dogs" (1992). But I see no humanity present in Tarantino's work. I see no commentary on society and / or our social interactions. Is Tarantino using excessive violence as a way to critique American culture? The great filmmaker Sam Peckinpah was a controversial filmmaker in the 1960s and 70s, often accused of glamorizing violence. His technique was to show these acts in slow motion, something John Woo would do later on. But Peckinpah's violence in films such as "The Wild Bunch" (1969) and "Straw Dogs" (1971) did serve as a commentary on the culture and masculinity. Not so in Tarantino's hands.
What defines Tarantino's work in "Pulp Fiction" is not a social or political commentary but a combination of fast energy, shock value, and urban black culture. This is almost perfectly captured in the movie's opening title sequence, where we the song Misirlou, performed by Dick Dale (fast energy) transition, in a not so smooth fashion, to a recording of Kool & the Gang's "Jungle Boogie" (black culture).
Tarantino and "Pulp Fiction" are a lot like that recording by Dale however. This version of Misirlou is a cover. Song recordings of it actually date back to the 1920s. The version I am most familiar with was done by Jan August in the 1940s. This shouldn't come as a surprise to long time readers of this blog, who will know my father is a musician and the music I was most acquainted with growing up was jazz and all that falls under its umbrella - swing, dance bands, New Orleans jazz, ragtime..etc. This recording of Misirlou is radically different than previous versions, picking up the tempo and creating a rock sound to it. While it sounds different, its melody is rooted in the past. Tarantino, in similar fashion, is taking something pre-existing and putting his own spin on it. Armond White, as hyperbolic as ever, calls it "theft" but it is Tarantino drawing "inspiration" from the great works of cinema's past, paying homage.
I hadn't watched "Pulp Fiction" in many years but certain things stuck out in my memory - the non-linear structure, the conversation about what they call a quarter-pounder with cheese in France, the dance sequence between Travolta and Uma Thurman, and the bondage / rape scene. But more importantly what I remembered was the feeling I had watching the movie. It was exhilarating. My teenager self thought it lived up to expectations. But in my old age of 106 (forty-one actually, but I feel 106) I couldn't recall what the movie was about. What did it have to say? What were the themes of "Pulp Fiction"? The memorable sequences in my mind didn't tell a full story. When you added them all up, what did it tell us? And so, as I prepared of this review, I was going to take a closer look at the film. I was determined to figure out what was going on.
"Pulp Fiction" is a story about bizarre circumstances that are somehow linked together. A hitman kills a man that comes out of a bathroom and yet the same hitman is killed when he walks out of one. A character buys heroine that he brings with him on a date. The date secretly finds it and overdoses. A gangster wants to have a man killed but that same man ends up saving the gangster's life. One of the hitmen asks a potential victim if he thinks their boss is a bitch because, metaphorically, he is fucking him like one. Naturally there will be a scene where the boss is in fact fucked like a bitch. And on and on it goes. Life is a seemingly random set experiences and yet there is a pattern. Somehow it all connects. The great New York Times movie critic, Janet Maslin, described the "Pulp Fiction" experience as it "leaves its viewers with a stunning vision of destiny, choice, and spiritual possibility."
It is a little difficult to neatly lay out the plot for you without revealing too many of its twists. The cast of characters include two hitmen; Vincent (John Travolta) and Jules (Samuel L. Jackson) who work for a kingpin named Marsellus (Ving Rhames). Then there is Marsellus's wife, Mia (Uma Thurman), a pro boxer named Butch (Bruce Willis), a drug dealer (Eric Stoltz), a fixer named The Wolf (Harvey Keitel) and a couple of small time robbers (Tim Roth and Amanda Plummer). Their paths will cross throughout the course of the film.
Another aspect of Tarantino's film that received a lot of praise was the screenplay. In his Great Movies review Roger Ebert wrote, "Dialogue drives Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction - dialogue of such high quality it deserves comparison with other masters of spare, hard-boiled prose, from Raymond Chandler to Elmore Leonard." I can't agree with the assessment of "high quality" any longer. Tarantino's screenplay and his approach to dialogue, walks a fine line, trying to create a balance between movie geek hipness and dark humor. Tarantino's dialogue is chock-full of pop culture references, dragged out "movie logic", to an extreme, countered by acts of violence. Why would two hitmen on their way to murder a group of people be talking about McDonalds menu items? You see they are so hip and cool, killing is second nature to them. They can have casual conversations just like you and I.
Given these characters, unfortunately, what the dialogue lacks is grittiness, in the sense of street smarts, and a naturalistic quality, like what can be found in Martin Scorsese's films such as "Mean Streets" (1973) and "GoodFellas" (1990). But that's not Tarantino objective. This isn't meant to be realistic dialogue. Tarantino wants to shock us with his offensive language and "humor". How else do you describe his own character's appearance in the film, throwing around the "n" word? He doesn't say it once but repeatedly, completely out of left field. Is it meant to give the film edge? Is it supposed to sound natural, as if this is how the character would speak in front of a black man? He stands opposite Samuel L. Jackson in the scene. Is it funny? I won't go as far as some, at the time, and say Tarantino is a racist. The use of the word within itself doesn't bother me however. I didn't mind it when Tarantino did it again in "Django Unchained" (2012) or when Mel Brooks did it in "Blazing Saddles" (1974). In those instances it was a reflection of the time period the films were taking place in. In "Pulp Fiction" though, in this particular scene, I fail to see its necessity.
And that's the problem when I look back on "Pulp Fiction". I fail to see why I am supposed to think this is a remarkable film. Why did the American Film Institute (AFI) place it on its list of the 100 Greatest American Films? Why was it nominated for seven Academy Awards? Why did Tarantino and co-writer Roger Avary win the Oscar for best screenplay? Why did so many critics - Siskel & Ebert, Michael Wilmington, Janet Maslin, Andrew Sarris - rank it among the best films of 1994? To my own amazement, I don't believe "Pulp Fiction" holds up after multiple viewings. It was a "you had to be there" moment, to fully appreciate its significance on pop culture. But once the dust has settled, does it really seem so revolutionary now?
I suppose I shouldn't have been astonished by my reaction to the film all these years later. Without the need of "Was I Right?", in contemporaneous time I've noticed my appreciation of Tarantino's films slipping. The last film he released I placed on my top ten list was "Kill Bill Vol. 1" (2003). The last movie I awarded four stars to was "Kill Bill Vol. 2" (2004). But every movie thereafter - "Inglourious Basterds" (2009), "Django Unchained", "The Hateful Eight" (2015) - they all thrilled me less and less. I initially told myself, the problem is Tarantino is a contemporary filmmaker. These period pieces don't suit his style. He needs to make movies about thugs and low-lives. But maybe I was just growing tired of his style. The techniques used in "Pulp Fiction" have been duplicated in his other films. Proving this technique wasn't intricate to "Pulp Fiction" but just Tarantino's way of storytelling. Nothing he directed since has ever really captured the movie world the same way "Pulp Fiction" did.
"Pulp Fiction" has a certain value as "popcorn entertainment" but shouldn't be viewed as a great artistic effort. And that's the problem and the impact "Pulp Fiction" has had on film culture. Young "artists" or money hungry hacks that were influenced by "Pulp Fiction" misread whatever its appeal was. It has resulted in movies with no brains and heavy violence. The ante has constantly been raised to the point "Pulp Fiction" seems quaint. I didn't find its images disturbing. But Tarantino and "Pulp Fiction" are responsible for recent movies such as "Gunpowder Milkshake" (2021), "The Villainess" (2017), and "Kate" (2021).
We see the Tarantino touch surprisingly most prominent in children's animation with dialogue peppered with pop culture reference, that often go above the target audience's heads, aiming for their parents, and sometimes filled with double entendres not appropriate for the youngsters. This is also seen in comic book adaptations as well.
Some will say I'm not being fair. Tarantino has been the inspiration for good movies like "Memento" (2000), "Run, Lola, Run" (1999) and "Amores Perros" (2000). Why? Because they played around with linear structure? Tarantino didn't invent that. I guess I never fully appreciated how many people associate Tarantino with this technique. Is Tarantino also responsible for society not having a knowledge of film history?
When I was growing up I didn't like Steven Spielberg because I thought he was nothing more than a hit-maker. He wasn't a director that told personal stories instead duplicating moments from other films to create emotion in his. If I thought Spielberg had no depth, no soul than Tarantino has no heart. It would be interesting to rewatch all of Tarantino's films and see if that opinion remains.
Was I right about "Pulp Fiction"? I don't believe so. I shouldn't have placed it on my list of the best films of 1994 or my list of the best films of 1990s. "Pulp Fiction" isn't a bad movie. Tarantino has a visual eye. But this isn't a quality movie, deserving of so much admiration. Luckily I think 1994 was an excellent movie year so I will have plenty of options to replace "Pulp Fiction" on my list.
Posts
