>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?

because
1. it's not dedicated to the plot or the comedy
2. there relatively lots of it. more to analyse
3. it appears to be about random subjects quite often

this is not NORMAL for a film
dialogue in general had been marginalized by the time PF came out, so they say


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

Vincent
a man with some values (you can tell by the way he self importantly says "I don't watch television")
he miraculously escapes death in the hotel room
while Jules has a moment of epiphany, Vince remains cynical and doesn't adjust his values to something like believing in God, or making a new start in life with this miraculous chance
however, he does engage with Jules in debate about what happened
ends it with the words "To be continued"
and he's reading some book (can't remember what it is. maybe something to do with philosophy)
he goes on a date with Mia and saves her life... though we don't know if this is out of concern for Mia or for himself, since if giving her a footmessage gets one flung from a 4 story building
but he continues in his job after Jules quits, seemingly not learned anything, and so dies on his next assignment
BUT you wonder about
1. Vince surely wouldn't be so stupid as to leave his gun in the kitchen while he went to the bathroom, if he REALLY thought Butch was coming back (which he wouldn't have if it wasn't for the unlikely story about the watch). Was he really commited to killing Butch?
2. Butch probably wouldn't have killed Vince if the toaster hadn't popped up and jolted him. In which case Vince's death isn't so much what he deserves, as it is accidental (bit of a karma thing going on there, with Marvin's accidental death, perhaps)

And Butch's character... is not taking the dive a move of integrity or greed? he kills two people in a similar way, but still has "the good guy" thing going on. finally he proves it by rescuing Marsellus... uses the samurai sword as a symbol of honour, common enemy over personal enemy. Samurai is a fitting description for him actually, since he's a modern day professional fighter


>>but anyway, Pulp Fiction IS intertwined.
>
>Yes. Because characters like a boss, his wife, and his
>co-workers are ALWAYS interwined.
>

no they're not. do you know you're bosses wife? how many of us even know our coworkers outside work? either way, waltzing into scenes at CRUCIAL moments is a little bit more than inevitable contact

>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.
>

dude, you're bending over backwards... you're the one that insisted the film "IS NOT INTERTWINED" and I replied explaining that it was. Crouch doesn't make that big a deal of it because yes it IS pretty obvoius

(though if they're intertwined, summarizing it is also "unraveling" it, which is useful)


>>
>>
>>>>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.
>

how evil functions in a modern society whose amorality, flipancy, narcissism and callousness are reflected/enforced in its pop culture

Marsellus, who is undeniably the "anchor" of all the stories, is the EPITOME of that pop culture

(if you choose that interpretation at least. you could also argue that he's the devil)


>>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.

it's not easy to see anymore... that's the point. we're numbed to it. i bet you could look back at those archived PF posts and find people talking all sorts of things about PF before they even mention the basics.

>Movies BEFORE Pulp Fiction used violence amusingly.

they used the same technique of undermining violence, deliberately? of catching the audience out for enjoying it? example?

>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.
>

Well, have you read Finnegan's Wake?
if you're familiar with Joyce presumably it's not more cryptic than saying something like "P.E.'s sense of militancy"

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

jesus