>>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
>

Most of the dialogue breaks your rule #1, because it is comical in many people's opinion. I find much of the dialogue amusing.

>
>>
>>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
>

You said very little in a lot of words.

>>>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?

I know her family, yes. Not to mention in most mafia/mob movies, characters know the big boss's wife.

how many of
>us even know our coworkers outside work?

Many of my best friends are coworkers.

either way, waltzing
>into scenes at CRUCIAL moments is a little bit more than
>inevitable contact

Yes, but there's ONE moment of that.

>
>>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)

I said it's not intertwined because that implies a level of complication/coincidence to the stories tying together, when it's not terribly complicated. They didn't list this movie at the beginning of Magnolia.

>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>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

Give me one instance of Marsellus being pop culture.

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

*yawn*

>
>>>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?

Horror movies do it often. We are shocked, but the main characters are less appealing than the violent evil. If Milton had had a video camera...


>
>>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"
>

You're saying the easiest, clearest way to convey his point is through that statement?

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

Jesus also hates that movie.