Pulp Fiction
04-25-99, 07:35 PM
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
I like doing movie reviews. I posted this in another thread, but thought it might work better here:
Pulp Fiction was truly underrated. It garnered acclaim for its portrayal of violence, drug culture, and gangster life. It was a hit with the Hollywood elite and it sparked a comeback for Travolta.
But, its deeper meaning was never accentuated. In fact, I dare say it was completely overlooked. What meaning you ask? The plight of African Americans in the good old USA. This is borne out throughout the scenes involving Bruce Willis (Butch) and Ving Rhames (Marcellus).
The entire portion of their time together can easily be dissected as follows.
When Butch runs Marcellus over with his car, we see the African people being stripped from their homeland. But this action had tragic consequences, Bruce wreaked his car and was injured. Much like European American's morality was injured when they introduced slavery to America. Bruce tries to escape, but he has gotten into a situation that is spiralling out of control. Much like the Southern plantation owners who couldn't change the progression from slavery to freedom.
As Bruce is beating Marcellus,prone on the floor, we see slavery's tragic consequences and the fact that white man must use brutal force to keep the black man under control.
Naturally, Uncle Sam (Abe Lincoln) steps in and puts a stop to this. But is Uncle Sam the true savior, no. Is there freedom now for the black man, no. Both he and the slave owners are chained and held against their will by an overbearing government. Is this the end, not quite. The institutions of America start putting it to the black man (literally in the film). There is still no equality, no justice, and very little hope.
But the civil rights era begins, and the liberal white man sees the light. He helps the black man to true freedom in society, sets him on the path equality. The tables are turned and Marcellus holds the trump hand against his abuser, much like the African American man now holds the government and its racist institutions hostage. We see Marcellus preparing his revenge and get a glimpse into how much pain he is going to inflict. Much like Jesse Jackson is holding the United States hostage. As he prepares for his revenge, he forgives Bruce and will no longer hold his previous debts against him, again, much like Jesse does for liberal white Democrats, the group who can do no wrong.
This is truly genius on the part of Tarentino. He could have made the ganster white, the boxer black or any other combination, but he chose his characters very carefully. Consider it.....
The whole movie is full of this type of symbolism and the surface hasn't been scratched as yet. That leads me to believe that it is truly underrated.
[This message has been edited by DemocratsForever (edited 05-06-99).]
Pulp Fiction was truly underrated. It garnered acclaim for its portrayal of violence, drug culture, and gangster life. It was a hit with the Hollywood elite and it sparked a comeback for Travolta.
But, its deeper meaning was never accentuated. In fact, I dare say it was completely overlooked. What meaning you ask? The plight of African Americans in the good old USA. This is borne out throughout the scenes involving Bruce Willis (Butch) and Ving Rhames (Marcellus).
The entire portion of their time together can easily be dissected as follows.
When Butch runs Marcellus over with his car, we see the African people being stripped from their homeland. But this action had tragic consequences, Bruce wreaked his car and was injured. Much like European American's morality was injured when they introduced slavery to America. Bruce tries to escape, but he has gotten into a situation that is spiralling out of control. Much like the Southern plantation owners who couldn't change the progression from slavery to freedom.
As Bruce is beating Marcellus,prone on the floor, we see slavery's tragic consequences and the fact that white man must use brutal force to keep the black man under control.
Naturally, Uncle Sam (Abe Lincoln) steps in and puts a stop to this. But is Uncle Sam the true savior, no. Is there freedom now for the black man, no. Both he and the slave owners are chained and held against their will by an overbearing government. Is this the end, not quite. The institutions of America start putting it to the black man (literally in the film). There is still no equality, no justice, and very little hope.
But the civil rights era begins, and the liberal white man sees the light. He helps the black man to true freedom in society, sets him on the path equality. The tables are turned and Marcellus holds the trump hand against his abuser, much like the African American man now holds the government and its racist institutions hostage. We see Marcellus preparing his revenge and get a glimpse into how much pain he is going to inflict. Much like Jesse Jackson is holding the United States hostage. As he prepares for his revenge, he forgives Bruce and will no longer hold his previous debts against him, again, much like Jesse does for liberal white Democrats, the group who can do no wrong.
This is truly genius on the part of Tarentino. He could have made the ganster white, the boxer black or any other combination, but he chose his characters very carefully. Consider it.....
The whole movie is full of this type of symbolism and the surface hasn't been scratched as yet. That leads me to believe that it is truly underrated.
[This message has been edited by DemocratsForever (edited 05-06-99).]
04-29-99, 01:07 AM
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'll have to watch this movie again. I seem to have missed 99% of what you are talking about the first 10 times I have seen it. Perhaps you ahave a special edition I am not aware of.
The one point I will agree with you is that it is a great movie, though I think the DVD is nothing to get overly excited about.
The one point I will agree with you is that it is a great movie, though I think the DVD is nothing to get overly excited about.
05-06-99, 07:21 PM
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Democrats: Loved you review. Very imaginative. Funniest thing I've seen in a long time. And you obviously took some time to draft this. What a way to spin a story. Bill C. should hire you as a speech writer, he would be proud of your abilities. I had to go back and watch Pulp F. one more time.
I had to congratulate you since it seems some are critical and don't understand cynicism and sarcasm.
But to them, those were certainly well thought out critiques. Keep up the good work.
Education, it's wasted on the dumb.
[This message has been edited by addictedtoDVDs (edited 05-06-99).]
I had to congratulate you since it seems some are critical and don't understand cynicism and sarcasm.
But to them, those were certainly well thought out critiques. Keep up the good work.
Education, it's wasted on the dumb.
[This message has been edited by addictedtoDVDs (edited 05-06-99).]
05-06-99, 07:50 PM
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
This is truly genius on the part of Tarentino. He could have made the ganster white, the boxer black or any other combination, but he chose his characters very carefully.
Interesting comment.
Not that it changes your interpretation, but I heard that most of the Willis segments were added by Tarentino's co-writer after the fact to punch the script up.
Interesting comment.
Not that it changes your interpretation, but I heard that most of the Willis segments were added by Tarentino's co-writer after the fact to punch the script up.
05-07-99, 09:29 AM
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
I agree with this review. Not totally as most of it is kind of generic but he makes some good points. I don't see why so many people had to jump on his head about it (Jakeday). At least he's putting posts on here, most people just wait til some one says something and then kick his ass.
DemocratsForever, personally I think you're looking a little further into the movie than Tarentino was expecting people to (unless you're him). I just think you're looking way too deep into the movie. Sit back and enjoy it for what it is. A great flick (I'm waiting for the SE before I buy). All this stuff makes you think too much, thinking=no fun.
Have a nice day.
DemocratsForever, personally I think you're looking a little further into the movie than Tarentino was expecting people to (unless you're him). I just think you're looking way too deep into the movie. Sit back and enjoy it for what it is. A great flick (I'm waiting for the SE before I buy). All this stuff makes you think too much, thinking=no fun.
Have a nice day.
04-25-00, 09:01 PM
#15
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Kalamazoo, MI, USA
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uh, I don't think Tarantino is that clever. He definitely writes witty scripts (his direction is nothing to get too excited about), but he has certain obsessions that we see again and again throughout his films.
1. Charles Bronson - How many times can he mention this aging action star?
2. Marvin - Marvin the earless cop, meet Marvin the headless corpse.
3. Vega - Vic Vega (Michael Madsen), meet Vincent Vega (John Travolta).
4. Flashback sequences - Interesting at first, but not after three films
5. Excessive Profanity - Need I explain?
Overall, I love Tarantino's films, I just think many of his references and such lack originality from movie to movie.
1. Charles Bronson - How many times can he mention this aging action star?
2. Marvin - Marvin the earless cop, meet Marvin the headless corpse.
3. Vega - Vic Vega (Michael Madsen), meet Vincent Vega (John Travolta).
4. Flashback sequences - Interesting at first, but not after three films
5. Excessive Profanity - Need I explain?
Overall, I love Tarantino's films, I just think many of his references and such lack originality from movie to movie.
04-28-00, 11:15 PM
#18
Moderator
quote:<HR>Originally posted by monkey:
Uh, I don't think Tarantino is that clever. He definitely writes witty scripts (his direction is nothing to get too excited about), but he has certain obsessions that we see again and again throughout his films.
Overall, I love Tarantino's films, I just think many of his references and such lack originality from movie to movie.<HR>
Two things about this. One, as a film student and wannabe screenwriter, I assure you that screenwriters and directors take symbolism in their art VERY seriously - they have two hours to tell a story as many ways as they can. If you see a big tree in the background and it has one apple hanging off its branches, trust me, it means something.
As for his constant references and reusage of names, just think of this as the Tarantino Universe. Similar to Kevin Smith and his New Jersey films, all of the characters are related in some small way, most easily seen between the Vega (supposedly) brothers and Mr. White's relationship with Alabama (was supposed to be) Whoorley from "True Romance." I don't see anything wrong with a director/writer building up his own universe, especially if he's well-respected like Tarantino is.
Last edited by story; 04-04-14 at 12:09 AM. Reason: Redacted my old signature.
04-29-00, 03:26 PM
#19
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Kalamazoo, MI, USA
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quote:<HR>Originally posted by dogmatica:
Two things about this. One, as a film student and wannabe screenwriter, I assure you that screenwriters and directors take symbolism in their art VERY seriously - they have two hours to tell a story as many ways as they can. If you see a big tree in the background and it has one apple hanging off its branches, trust me, it means something.
As for his constant references and reusage of names, just think of this as the Tarantino Universe. Similar to Kevin Smith and his New Jersey films, all of the characters are related in some small way, most easily seen between the Vega (supposedly) brothers and Mr. White's relationship with Alabama (was supposed to be) Whoorley from "True Romance." I don't see anything wrong with a director/writer building up his own universe, especially if he's well-respected like Tarantino is.
<HR>
I never said there was anything wrong with any of it. And while this is definitely not a stab at you, I find it funny that so many people on this forum start their replies by saying "Well, as a film student, I can tell you..." Hey, I've taken film classes in college before, as I'm sure many people have. I was simply commenting on the fact that I feel his characters' names are unoriginal. Once, yes. But the same names in 2 or 3 films? Not in my opinion.
