>>But these are all things that happen in EVERY good movie.
>>Things unfold, characters react, interact, and change.
>>
>
>and it's completely legitimate to analyse all those things
>think about it like this - painstaking thought goes into every
>line of a movie when it's being written, so the movie should
>be able to generate a great deal of thought in the viewer. of
>course we'll never match the creative process because we don't
>spend six months of our lives doing it

It is legitimate to do so. It's also okay to be legitimately incorrect, or to legitimately like to hear the sound of your own voice, like our friend Mr. Crouch.

>
>some movies are straight forward enough that the changes,
>reactions etc don't really need explaining
>but PF clearly isn't a straight forward film. there's more
>characters, so there's more changes, and theres more dialogue,
>and the dialogue is unconventional, and the events are out of
>order, and the stories are separate
>so it's NATURAL that there's a lot of analysis of PF going
>about

I don't see what's unconventional about the dialogue. Because it's good? That's what's unconventional? They talk a LOT? Is that why? They do some Seinfeldian talking-about-nothing here and there? Is that why?

Also, I don't see what reactions/changes are complicated enough that they are addressed in Crouch's essay.

>
>
>>Not to mention Sin City is different, because I meant
>"world"
>>meaning they were all of basically the same family. Jules,
>>Vince, Bruce Willis, Wolf, they all worked for Marsellus. Of
>>course co-workers/wives of bosses intertwine better than
>>random hit men in a city.
>>
>
>well, weren't the pedophile and the serial killer both being
>protected by the senator? can't remember if the prostitution
>story was tied in at all... the goldie-twin prostitute and the
>really tough guy characters knew each other
>
>but anyway, Pulp Fiction IS intertwined.

Yes. Because characters like a boss, his wife, and his co-workers are ALWAYS interwined.

vince talks with
>jules about all his moral and theological matters, though
>vince has his own story with Mia, in which unlike Jules he
>seemingly doesn't redeem himself, cause he gets capped by
>Butch, who probably wonders if he should really have killed
>him, since he saves Marsellus's ass in the next chapter, who
>of course Vince was only following the orders of. its
>interesting if you look at al the ins and outs

But this is obvious stuff you can get from the film. All of this is front and center, easy to see. To talk about it is just to summarize the film, or to listen to the sound of your own voice and masturbate to it.

>
>
>>>right vs. wrong is a THEME, a UNIVERSAL THEME
>>>what matters is how the writer TREATS a theme
>>>and also that you (the audience) can IDENTIFY the theme and
>>>the way that it's being treated
>>
>>I'm not saying it's QT's fault for doing this. EVERYONE
>takes
>>themes that already exist and put their twist on it. There
>are
>>many movies with the same themes that I love all of. I'm
>>faulting CROUCH for pointing out the obvious. "The movie has
>>good versus evil and morality in it!" No shit.
>
>he points out what the "twist on it" is, and he also details
>how the theme pans out - if there's no point in doing that,
>there's no point in the film having the theme.

Yes, but the twist he points out is bullshit. Marsellus stands for pop culture. Yes, it all makes sense now.

>>>
>>>(young) audiences haven't been very successful at
>>identifying
>>>the central theme of PF, probably because they're so
>>FAMILIAR
>>>with violence and crime through their experience of pop
>>>culture that they take it for granted, which is one of the
>>>main points QT is making, ironically.
>>>
>>
>>I'm still trying to wrap my head around this
>psychoanalytical
>>bullshit point. Explain it for me in smaller words, my Duke
>>education must not be enough to comprehend what you're
>trying
>>to say.
>>
>
>we're so used to watching gangster films, that we've
>practically stopped condemning the actions of criminals (as if
>everyone's a criminal). it's that thing QT does when something
>horrendous is happening or about to happen, and he gets you to
>laugh at it, then slaps you with the reality of it. in this
>respect the ear cutting scene was a bit more successful than
>the marvin scene.
>

But again, this is easy to see. This doesn't require huge essays. Movies BEFORE Pulp Fiction used violence amusingly.

>
>>Or he invents
>>things, like the race arguments.
>>
>
>the race arguments for RD and TR were pretty solid... the fact
>that QT chose a black actor/character for the role of Mr
>Orange's trainer, is good evidence for his point.
>
>In PF it's a bit more confusing, save to say that QT
>deliberately used the N word, and deliberately set up
>interracial couples, and made non racist Vince go to a racist
>drug dealer. After a bit of thought about it I think Crouch's
>saying "Tarantino wrote these things into the script, because
>these are simply the way things are. Integrated, overlapping,
>tolerated, inappropriate, diverse." I think that's what he
>means by "joycean sense of here comes everybody"

Yeah, but he said "joycean sense of here comes everybody." Which means absolutely nothing and is meant to sound more intellectual and more pompous than everyone reading it.

>
>
>>>Take a film like "Dead Poets Society"
>>
>>A movie that sucks.
>>
>
>man

Yep. It sucks.