>>since some of you think it says "nothing'
>>
>>1. The stories of the characters in Pulp Fiction overlap
>with
>>each other, though they are separate; they are "anchored"
>by
>>the central figure of crime boss Marsallus who's involved in
>>all the stories. Analogous with this, people in America are
>>separated by race/class etc, but their lives still overlap -
>>everyone has pop culture (pulp fiction) as an anchor. Pop
>>culture has all sorts of racial overlaps. It also has
>looming
>>figures like the wealthy godfather/crime-boss that we're all
>>familiar with but few of us ever meet.
>
>So Marsellus = pulp fiction? I don't understand the point of
>this point, or why QT would try to convey this (which I don't
>get from the film).
>

Marsellus is the common reference point for the different stories, and for the audience.

going on a date = basic human experience
going on a date with crime boss's wife = storyline plucked from pulp fiction

boxer killing his opponent = unique story
boxer not taking the dive ordered by crime boss = storyline plucked from pulp fiction

two guys covering up an accidental murder = you know, could go anywhere
crime boss and two hitmen covering up a murder = story plucked from pulp fiction

Marsellus's presence tells the audience what types of stories these are meant to be, framing the debate

AND he holds the stories together which would otherwise be unrelated


>>
>>2. Pop culture gives us sentiments like Scarface's bravura
>>("I'll execute every last motherfucking one of you"),
>>Corleone's ruthlessness in the name of honor ("I will strike
>>down upon thee with great vengence"), contempt for
>authorities
>>("The manager doesn't want to get shot, he knows he's
>>insured"), casual attitude towards drugs, guns (everyone
>who
>>owns a gun in PF ends up worse for it), disregard for the
>law.
>>Most of us are entertained BY these ideas, but for the
>>criminal mind they facilitate evil. Serious wrong doing can
>be
>>brushed off lightly ("Just cops." Any real people?" "Just
>>cops.")
>
>This is obvious. Saying "Pop culture affects our social
>mindset" is like saying "Our government affects the politics
>of our country." This is not nearly exclusive to the work of
>QT. You can see the affects of pop culture everywhere in
>cinema.

the point he's making is that specifically PF examines the way evil functions in modern American society, with all the amorality and narcissism and flippancy that is reflected by its pop culture

this is a good point because it's a good summation of what Pulp Fiction is "about" - something that has been much debated but not satisfactorily answered (for instance some people say it's about nothing, that all the dialogue is just there for the hell of it; others say it as about redemption)

>
>>
>>3. Mia didn't reckon her lifestyle would nearly kill her;
>>diners didn't reckon on getting robbed; amateur robbers
>didn't
>>bragain on coming up against professional hitmen (neither
>did
>>small time fraudsters); their boss (Marsallus) didn't reckon
>>on coming up against sexual perverts/predators; perverts
>>didn't reckon on coming up against torturers. There are
>>different "arenas" of evil in the film, but from the
>>intertwining storylines we can see that no one is that far
>>apart.
>>
>
>That's what great about movies. The unexpected happens to
>characters, creating conflict. THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.


instead of a pair of rapists, why not a pair of greek banjo players with a donkey?
because the film is about how evil functions and the events illustrate the different degrees of evil


>
>>4. The inhabitants of each arena of evil, in their comfort
>>zone, are casual/flippant/callous/narcissistic towards
>crime.
>>Confronted with deeper evil or sheer misfortune, only
>>compassion, loyalty and other positive elements of human
>>spirituality can save them. Bruce Willis rescued Marsallus
>out
>>of pity (he may not have wanted to kill Vince either); Jules
>>spared Pumpkin&HoneyBunny because he wanted to give them the
>>same chance that had been granted him; Pumpkin&HoneyBunny
>let
>>themselves be spared because their concern for each other
>was
>>greater than their concern for a successful robbery; Mia
>>survived because Vince cared about her.
>>
>
>Character persevere only through morality. Again, THIS IS NOT
>EXCLUSIVE TO PULP FICTION.
>

Yes it's common to most great literature
It's quite interesting how it happens in PF though

for instance Jules has to reconstruct his whole moral code in a short time span, and reinterpret his bible passage

Butch acts on compassion and considers morality afterwards ("What about you and me?" "There is no you and me. We're even.")

Vince may have acted out of fear of Marsellus or love for Mia, we're left to ponder that one (or if it was resolved, i've forgotten)

HoneyBunny and Pumpkin have a tender heart under a veneer of disgusting callousness towards society

without these positive reactions Pulp Fiction would be more like a documentary on the seedier side of L.A.

>>5. We needn't think that Pulp Fiction isn't true to life...
>>the simultaneous stories make it seem remarkable, but it's
>not
>>surreal, it's real.
>
>Unless a movie is sci-fi or fantasy, I always view it as if
>it's real. Who goes to a drama or comedy, murmuring to
>themselves over and over, "This movie isn't real, this movie
>isn't real..."? Not to mention Pulp Fiction doesn't have many
>remarkable "coincidences", except that Bruce Willis and
>Marsellus run into each other.
>

But so little of it is real. The Godfather - not real, we know the author just made up all the honor stuff and feudal stuff from his imagination. And in general, the art of writing is the art of paraphrasing. We watch a film where a marriage breaks up, there's usually a scene where the wife wants to share something with her husband, or go somewhere, or whatever, and the husband clearly isn't interested... then a few scenes later the marriage breaks down. We don't think the marriage collapsed just cause the husband ignored his wife ONE evening - we take it as symptomatic, an example of what happens a lot. And comedies, characters don't react naturally, because if they did the jokes would stop and they'd have a serious discussion about what someone had said ("what do you mean by that?" "are you making fun of me?" "you're behaving like an idiot" etc); they always have the FAINTEST excuse to keep the scene moving.

Now in Pulp Fiction the dialogue is different from most films, it's pretty funny, and the number of stories, shown in strange sequences, might give the impression of the whole thing being rather fantastic and unlikely.

But arguably, it's very realistic for a film, because the dialogue is free from having to paraphrase the plot (the characters just have conversations). the jokes are all within the realm of normal everyday life conversational jokes, and the events as you say are not really coincidental at all.

>>
>>6. The paragraph about "black and white form the central
>>motif" and the "Jocyean sense of here-comes-everybody"... i
>>THINK it's reinforcing the idea of everything being
>>intertwined ("reality tumbles into reality, race into
>race"),
>>even contrasting elements. Underclass couple with an upper
>>class lifestyle, black man with white wife, and vice versa,
>>white man working alongside black man, employed by black
>boss,
>>jewish man arriving to solve the problems.
>>
>
>This is a babbling brook of bullshit. The issue of race is
>never brought up in Pulp Fiction. Ever. QT says the N-word,
>but no one talks about it.

I'm not sure about it personally
maybe Crouch felt obliged to force the point since his book was about race and he had picked up good racial themes in the previous films
or maybe there is something there, since all his other points were good

And NOTHING is intertwined in Pulp
>Fiction! It's ONE story, with a couple of stories about the
>characters IN the main story tacked on in order to flesh them
>out.

it's three standard "pulp fiction" stories (in fact the script has the alternate title "Three Stories" written on it)
held together because QT made the standard crime boss character in each story the same individual
and each story unfolds a bit more into the realm of QT's own imagination (the whole clean-up operation with Marvin's corpse; the dungeon scene; the taxi scene; Vince talking to Jules...)
it's intertwined because, for instance, Vince has not made his mind up how the event with Mia is going to change him, is Jules going to convince him to change his ways? would Butch have shot him if the toaster hadn't gone off? was he really EXPECTING Butch to come back to his apartment so he could kill him?


see it's actually IMO an adaption of Hemingway's The Killers, which takes a pulp fiction premise (boxer doesn't take a dive, hitmen sent to kill him) and draws it out a bit, putting in dialogue that examines subjective morality and existentialism, then leaves the rest to your imagination, as was Hemingway's method (just giving you the essentials)

unlike the two other films of The Killers which simply join the dots and pad out the background story you could have guessed, QT combines The Killers story with some similar stories to create a longer work, the different stories reinforcing each other

>
>
>>7. The characters have depth because they all love to talk.
>>None of them are cartoons with just a few stereotypical
>lines
>>
>
>I don't even know what this means. Talking gives a character
>depth? What the FUCK?
>

uh, of course it does
The plastic surgeon dodgy doctor guy in the simpsons - 2D character, given a few one liners, nothing to give him any depth

not that you can't give depth with economic word use
but the point is the characters in PF love to talk, and to express their views of the world

Jules and Vince have that big discussion about the different values of europe, about the do's and don'ts of another man's woman, and by the end of the film they're debating God and the path of the righteous

Marsellus shows his understanding of human psychology with his pep talk to Butch

and so on