Some people think Tarantino's films are all style, no substance. Some peopel might be sufficiently impressed with the style and wit not to bother about the substance. And by substance I mean morals, messages, comments, ideas, philosophies, themes, realized characters, tragedies and other things which we expect in a story that is considered great/profound/a work of art. But in my opinion the substance of is films (pre-Kill Bill) is no less impressive than the style. In fact it's the substance that will see these films endure for decades.

Anyway, I've never seen his work analysed better than in this essay by Stanley Crouch

"Eggplant blues: the miscegenated cinema of Quentin Tarantino."

The article can be found on disk 2 of the Jackie Brown DVD, btw. It deals with True Romance, Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. I'll post it in 3 parts to facilitate discussion, but remember it's all one essay.

glossary (lol):
miscegenation - Practice of interracial marriage or sexual contact; found in virtually all colonial ventures.

--------------------
Why do you choose to mimic these wack MCs?
Why do you choose to listen to R&B?

"There are obviously many things which we do not understand, and may never be able to." Leela

*puts emceeing in a box*

(few introductory paragraphs first)

The recent opening of writer-director Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction is a high point in a low age. Already slobbered over at Cannes and genuflected before by the New York press, it is, perhaps, more than anything else, a continuation of Tarantino themes thus far missed and another startling aesthetic victory for a small, undeclared American film movement. By looking full face into the ethnic quirks and racial complexities of our identity, Pulp Fiction addresses issues most effectively pushed into the ambiguity, humour, and tragedy of art by such different works as City of Hope, Mississippi Masala, One False Move, Driving Miss Daisy, A Bronx Tale, and Six Degrees of Separation. In that respect, no matter his present focus on the underworld milieu, Tarantino is bringing a large and subtle talent to subjects that have eluded even the most consistently celebrated and publicized American directors of the last few decades.

Tarantino is deeply intrigued by the artistic challenges of the many miscegenations that shape the goulash of American culture and by how powerfully the influence of the Negro helps define even those whites who freely assert their racism. Pulp Fiction presents his most recent variations on Carl Jung's observation that white Americans walked, talked, and laughed like Negroes and that the black American was one of the two figures appearing most often in their dreams.

Drawing deftly imposing performances from an ensemble featuring John Travolta, Samuel L Jackson, Uma Thurman, and Bruce Willis, Tarantino brilliantly twists his Jungian themes through the vehicles of cliched crime novel plots until they achieve revelations sometimes so stinging that new life is shocked onto the screen. The human nuances and surprises in the writing provide fresh alterations of meaning as they render a grittier and more relaxed integration that we almost ever experience in American films. Those alterations reach far beyond the customary racial cliches that thud upon us frame by frame and the hostile or maudlin soap box oratory that washes all possible eloquence out of dialogue. The viewing experience is familiar and foreign: we feel we've seen it and not seen it before.

The virtuosity of Pulp Fiction is the culmination of the self-taught, thirty-one-year-old Tarantino's only previous works, True Romance and Reservoir Dogs. In those first Tarantino screenplays, black people exist the way they do in the films of Martin Scorsese. They are at the edge of things, briefly stepping into view, sometimes important but most often all-purpose inspiration for obsessive racial comments.

Directed quite effectively by Tony Scott in the swiftly cut style, color and lighting of television commercials, True Romance clocks the adventures of Clarence and Alabama, a rock-and-roll outlaw couple played with superior perception by Christian Slater and Patricia Arquette. It is at once an ingenious variation on Hamlet and a chase film that reaches for the energy of anarchic destruction that defined one aspect of American films made between the chaotic comedies of Mack Sennett and the patriotic slaughter of World War II Hollywood. That bloody disorder within the dramatic American tale was stretched out further with Bonnie and Clyde, THe Wild Bunch, Godfather I and II, and Taxi Driver.

True Romance is informed by all that but goes its own way. The twice quoted "something is rotten in Denmark" means the dope world of casual sadism and murder. We see how the mistaken grabbing of a suitcase of drugs sets in motion a negative democracy of white "trash," black street criminals, Italian gangsters, aspirant actors, pot-heads, Jewish film producers, and law enforcement. That social sweep might have been introduced in the drug dealing montage of stills Superfly used, but it has never breached the condition of art this film has. One essential reason Tarantino succeeds where others bit the dust of exploitation is that he truly understands his crime world within the larger context of our culture. Besides cocaine, there are also the deadening mass opiates of rock and roll, junk food, the amoral cartoonish gore of imported martial arts movies, and a set of comic book conception of romance, valor, and steadfastness that inspires the harsh violence of Clarence and Alabama, who are either trying for nobility or loyally responding to danger with hysterical self defensive rage.

In Detroit, clarence spends one night with the novice prostitute Alabama and marries her the next day. The film's central icon is Elvis Presley, the white man who most successfully and joyously "went native" by bringing black pop rhythms into adolescent mass America. Presley is Clarence's spiritual father. The ghost of "The King appears and orders Clarence to Avenge his new bride's honor by killing Drexl, her murdering white pimp. A venomous minstrel, Drexl "thinks he is" black, sort of a Motor City Mr. Kurtz, a contemporary version of "going native" the worst way.

In his dreadlocks, with his gold teeth, his scarred face, his strained contemptuous black speech rhythms and falsetto punctuation, Gary Oldman's Drexl is much more frightening than his Dracula and inhabits an integrated world of criminality we won't enter again until Pulp Fiction. At their showdown, Clarence tells Drexl before he kills him that his black street mannerisms aren't frightening because they don't include anything that he hasn't already seen in The Mack, a Blaxploitation film with Ma Julian and Richard Pryor. When told by Clarence of his deed, Alabama weeps with pulp emotion, because she considers the murder "so romantic." This Shakespearean idea that all the world's a stage is perhaps Tarantino's favorite theme. His people are executing roles drawn from mass-media or personal contact, most of them miscegenations of style.

This theme is extended when a Sicilian-American Mafia don uses torture in an attempt to find out where the newlyweds have run with the dope Clarence unintentionally took from Drexl, thinking the suitcase contained Alabama's clothes. Christopher Walken is the don, and Dennis Hopper is Clarence's father, a retired cop. The don explains that lies won't work because Sicilians are "great liars - the best," and that they can read untrue faces better than anybody.

Hopper is then given lines that turn things around through one of the most startling monologues in cinematic history. It is perhaps his finest moment in film. Knowing that he can't the torture, his character decides to make the don angry enough to kill him. He attempts this through the shrewd use of racial invective, informing the don that "Sicilians were spawned by niggers." The supposedly startled don smugly demures.

The father, a former alcoholic and security guard who spends time reading history, then speaks of the Moorish invasion and the sexual pillaging of Sicily, which is why Sicilians don't have blond hair and blue eyes like Northern "wops." He asserts that, obviously, the dark-haired and dark-eyed don's grandmother many generations back had "a half nigger kid." In short, Sicilians are "part eggplant." The upshot is that in America, where neither national nor world history is well known, Sicilians who embrace traditional racism are also acting; they are "passing" for white. Absolutely manipulated, the don shoots him through the head.

Clarence and Alabama free to Los Angeles in his purple Cadillac, where he arranges to sell the suitcase of cocaine. The remainder of the film pivots back and forth between scenes of either sadistic or chaotic violence and a telling send up of self-absorbed Hollywood decadence, from the filthy homes of aspiring actors to the cellular phones and sports cars of drug-dealing producers. Almost everyone is doing some sort of an impersonation or seeking public recognition, even the cops, who demand credit for "the collar,' the drug bust that will give them their media moment. An actor who is caught with some of the coke and made to wear a wire by the police says to himself as he prepares to betray his boss, "Elliot, your motivation is to not go to jail." It is as hilarious as it is harrowing.

--------------------
Why do you choose to mimic these wack MCs?
Why do you choose to listen to R&B?

"There are obviously many things which we do not understand, and may never be able to." Leela

*puts emceeing in a box*

I never thought of the whole "world as a stage" thing but its so true. Tarantino uses his very thorough history of movie watching as sort of a POV to which he and his characters view the world around them.

>The recent opening of writer-director Quentin Tarantino's Pulp
>Fiction is a high point in a low age. Already slobbered over
>at Cannes and genuflected before by the New York press, it is,
>perhaps, more than anything else, a continuation of Tarantino
>themes thus far missed and another startling aesthetic victory
>for a small, undeclared American film movement.

That paragraph meant absolutely nothing.

By looking
>full face into the ethnic quirks and racial complexities of
>our identity, Pulp Fiction addresses issues most effectively
>pushed into the ambiguity, humour, and tragedy of art by such
>different works as City of Hope, Mississippi Masala, One False
>Move, Driving Miss Daisy, A Bronx Tale, and Six Degrees of
>Separation. In that respect, no matter his present focus on
>the underworld milieu, Tarantino is bringing a large and
>subtle talent to subjects that have eluded even the most
>consistently celebrated and publicized American directors of
>the last few decades.

Pulp Fiction did not, at all, explore the racial complexities of a gotdamn thing.

And that last sentence sucks.


>Tarantino is deeply intrigued by the artistic challenges of
>the many miscegenations that shape the goulash of American
>culture and by how powerfully the influence of the Negro helps
>define even those whites who freely assert their racism. Pulp
>Fiction presents his most recent variations on Carl Jung's
>observation that white Americans walked, talked, and laughed
>like Negroes and that the black American was one of the two
>figures appearing most often in their dreams.

None of that is true.

'Pulp Fiction' is about none of that shit.

QT thinks he's down with niggaz.

Most niggas don't even fuck with QT.

He ain't shit but a punk ass white boy to me, and his films don't "explore"
a muthafuckin' thing.

Period.

>Drawing deftly imposing performances from an ensemble
>featuring John Travolta, Samuel L Jackson, Uma Thurman, and
>Bruce Willis, Tarantino brilliantly twists his Jungian themes
>through the vehicles of cliched crime novel plots until they
>achieve revelations sometimes so stinging that new life is
>shocked onto the screen.

What?

"achieve relevatioins so stinging that nfew life is shocked onto the screen?"

Whose revelations? And whose new life?"

There were no profound revelations, and wasn't a gotdamn thing shocked.

The human nuances and surprises in
>the writing provide fresh alterations of meaning as they
>render a grittier and more relaxed integration that we almost
>ever experience in American films. Those alterations reach far
>beyond the customary racial cliches that thud upon us frame by
>frame and the hostile or maudlin soap box oratory that washes
>all possible eloquence out of dialogue. The viewing experience
>is familiar and foreign: we feel we've seen it and not seen it
>before.

The guy who wrote this is a fag.

>The virtuosity of Pulp Fiction is the culmination of the
>self-taught, thirty-one-year-old Tarantino's only previous
>works, True Romance and Reservoir Dogs. In those first
>Tarantino screenplays, black people exist the way they do in
>the films of Martin Scorsese. They are at the edge of things,
>briefly stepping into view, sometimes important but most often
>all-purpose inspiration for obsessive racial comments.

There is not racial commentary, for the love of fucking god.

Its a white film nerd who think he down with niggaz, and shit.


>Directed quite effectively by Tony Scott in the swiftly cut
>style, color and lighting of television commercials, True
>Romance clocks the adventures of Clarence and Alabama, a
>rock-and-roll outlaw couple played with superior perception by
>Christian Slater and Patricia Arquette. It is at once an
>ingenious variation on Hamlet and a chase film that reaches
>for the energy of anarchic destruction that defined one aspect
>of American films made between the chaotic comedies of Mack
>Sennett and the patriotic slaughter of World War II Hollywood.
>That bloody disorder within the dramatic American tale was
>stretched out further with Bonnie and Clyde, THe Wild Bunch,
>Godfather I and II, and Taxi Driver.


I like Tony Scott's directing a lot more than Tarantinos.

>True Romance is informed by all that but goes its own way. The
>twice quoted "something is rotten in Denmark" means the dope
>world of casual sadism and murder. We see how the mistaken
>grabbing of a suitcase of drugs sets in motion a negative
>democracy of white "trash," black street criminals, Italian
>gangsters, aspirant actors, pot-heads, Jewish film producers,
>and law enforcement. That social sweep might have been
>introduced in the drug dealing montage of stills Superfly
>used, but it has never breached the condition of art this film
>has. One essential reason Tarantino succeeds where others bit
>the dust of exploitation is that he truly understands his
>crime world within the larger context of our culture.

"Understands his crime world within the larger context of our culture?"

Meaning: He's watched enough crime movies to accurately bite other people's shit?

Yeah. Maybe.


Besides
>cocaine, there are also the deadening mass opiates of rock and
>roll, junk food, the amoral cartoonish gore of imported
>martial arts movies, and a set of comic book conception of
>romance, valor, and steadfastness that inspires the harsh
>violence of Clarence and Alabama, who are either trying for
>nobility or loyally responding to danger with hysterical self
>defensive rage.

This paragraph communicated nothing.

>In Detroit, clarence spends one night with the novice
>prostitute Alabama and marries her the next day. The film's
>central icon is Elvis Presley, the white man who most
>successfully and joyously "went native" by bringing black pop
>rhythms into adolescent mass America. Presley is Clarence's
>spiritual father. The ghost of "The King appears and orders
>Clarence to Avenge his new bride's honor by killing Drexl, her
>murdering white pimp. A venomous minstrel, Drexl "thinks he
>is" black, sort of a Motor City Mr. Kurtz, a contemporary
>version of "going native" the worst way.

Stop FUCKING GIVING CREDIT TO QT for all this racial commentary.

He is a white boy who thinks he's down with niggaz. He could give a fuck about
commenting on racial complexities.

>In his dreadlocks, with his gold teeth, his scarred face, his
>strained contemptuous black speech rhythms and falsetto
>punctuation, Gary Oldman's Drexl is much more frightening than
>his Dracula and inhabits an integrated world of criminality we
>won't enter again until Pulp Fiction. At their showdown,
>Clarence tells Drexl before he kills him that his black street
>mannerisms aren't frightening because they don't include
>anything that he hasn't already seen in The Mack, a
>Blaxploitation film with Ma Julian and Richard Pryor. When
>told by Clarence of his deed, Alabama weeps with pulp emotion,
>because she considers the murder "so romantic." This
>Shakespearean idea that all the world's a stage is perhaps
>Tarantino's favorite theme. His people are executing roles
>drawn from mass-media or personal contact, most of them
>miscegenations of style.

This paragraph communicated nothing.


>This theme is extended when a Sicilian-American Mafia don uses
>torture in an attempt to find out where the newlyweds have run
>with the dope Clarence unintentionally took from Drexl,
>thinking the suitcase contained Alabama's clothes. Christopher
>Walken is the don, and Dennis Hopper is Clarence's father, a
>retired cop. The don explains that lies won't work because
>Sicilians are "great liars - the best," and that they can read
>untrue faces better than anybody.

Uh. Okay.

>Hopper is then given lines that turn things around through one
>of the most startling monologues in cinematic history. It is
>perhaps his finest moment in film. Knowing that he can't the
>torture, his character decides to make the don angry enough to
>kill him. He attempts this through the shrewd use of racial
>invective, informing the don that "Sicilians were spawned by
>niggers." The supposedly startled don smugly demures.

Yes, i saw that. It wasn't that deep.


>The father, a former alcoholic and security guard who spends
>time reading history, then speaks of the Moorish invasion and
>the sexual pillaging of Sicily, which is why Sicilians don't
>have blond hair and blue eyes like Northern "wops." He asserts
>that, obviously, the dark-haired and dark-eyed don's
>grandmother many generations back had "a half nigger kid." In
>short, Sicilians are "part eggplant." The upshot is that in
>America, where neither national nor world history is well
>known, Sicilians who embrace traditional racism are also
>acting; they are "passing" for white. Absolutely manipulated,
>the don shoots him through the head.

Jesus.

The scene ain't about all that.

It was a good monologue and I like Dennis Hopper.

But cheel.

>Clarence and Alabama free to Los Angeles in his purple
>Cadillac, where he arranges to sell the suitcase of cocaine.
>The remainder of the film pivots back and forth between scenes
>of either sadistic or chaotic violence and a telling send up
>of self-absorbed Hollywood decadence, from the filthy homes of
>aspiring actors to the cellular phones and sports cars of
>drug-dealing producers. Almost everyone is doing some sort of
>an impersonation or seeking public recognition, even the cops,
>who demand credit for "the collar,' the drug bust that will
>give them their media moment. An actor who is caught with some
>of the coke and made to wear a wire by the police says to
>himself as he prepares to betray his boss, "Elliot, your
>motivation is to not go to jail." It is as hilarious as it is
>harrowing.

This essay sucks and the writer is a fag.

Nothing else to say.


----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

Haven't spent a great deal of time studied "fancy talk", I know enought to know that Crouch spit 15% content and 85% fancy fluff.
**********

Reality check: according to the 2000 census, there were more than 31,000 black physicians and surgeons, 33,000 black lawyers. There are about 1,400 black athletes playing professional basketball, football and baseball combined.

Yup, Crouch is a fag

Avatar?
E-Boogs and Nayi

MANHOODLUM
Most sig'd okp.
No Aliases.

MANHOODLUM via Twitter
MANHOODLUM@live.com
MANHOODLUM@yahoo.com
Tommy Moran @ Facebook
MANHOODLUM@tmo.blackberry.net

Black rewrote True Romance. Most of the big scenes are Quentin's but Shane fixed it up a lot.

(not so much for this one)

Reservoir Dogs put Tarantino behind the camera, where he again showed off his gift for writing the sustained monologue and simultaneously revealed his unique command of narrative time. Tarantino uses a collage of recollected events and establishing flashbacks to move free of linear storytelling as we see a Los Angeles jewelry heist foiled by an undercover cop. Like Scorsese characters of Mean Streets and Goodfellas, Tarantino's thugs talk about black people as repulsive inferiors, but they also accuse on another of verbally imitating their talk and express sexual attraction to Pam Grier types in the middle of a riotous discussion of domestic differences between white and black women.

Their racial complexity is furthered by the fact that the undercover cop's instructor is black and teaches him how to "pass" for the kind of white criminal necessary to fool the robbers. In order to give his character authenticity, the undercover cop even tells a story that the black mentor scripted and rehearsed with him. The audience of racist crooks swallows it whole. This is another variation on the tradition of Negro composers and arrangers successfully writing for white bands that performed almost exclusively for white audiences. It is also a version of thee black choreographer Lester Johnson tutoring John Travolta for Saturday Night Fever, where his character danced in an essentially all-white world and made Travolta into the disco Fred Astaire of the period. Such events raise the essential question of what we mean by "white" if, as in American. it's long gone from any kind of European "purity." Though one instance of torture in Reservoir Dogs goes to far for this writer's taste, the control of form. the ethnic complexity, and the understanding of criminal psychology are outstanding.

--------------------
Why do you choose to mimic these wack MCs?
Why do you choose to listen to R&B?

"There are obviously many things which we do not understand, and may never be able to." Leela

*puts emceeing in a box*

waaaaay too deep.

We need an Orbit_ Established take on this lol

Avatar?
E-Boogs and Nayi

MANHOODLUM
Most sig'd okp.
No Aliases.

MANHOODLUM via Twitter
MANHOODLUM@live.com
MANHOODLUM@yahoo.com
Tommy Moran @ Facebook
MANHOODLUM@tmo.blackberry.net

glossary:
moxie = backbone, determination, fortitude
protean = exceedingly variable



The evolution from True Romance and Reservoir Dogs to Pulp Fiction is expresssive of a nearly astonishing talent. Tarantino's dark world of overlapping stories is iteslf and emblamatic development of the filmmaker's sense of intricate racial counterpoint. Regardless of our color, the coarse and overstated pulp vision is what anchors so many of us and, ultimately, allows common frames of reference. Our opinionated conversations are full of commitment to the failures of feeling that shape the sentimentality and false moxie of popular culture. Tarantino knows that while those elements are either comical or obnoxiously pretentious in the straight world, they become sinister in a criminal context. He supplies us with a key to how evil works in our time of arrested moral comprehension. Every wrong is justified with offhanded, narcissistic cynicism, a reflection of the flippant anarchy that gives counterfeit vitality tot he mass-market rebellion of our rock and rap world. Even so, the unpredictable arrives to produce a dissonant, gallows wit.

All of the central characters in Pulp Fiction course through a thickening smog of amorality. Their Los Angeles stories lead one into the other, usually focusing on couples, boy and girl robbers asserting their love through petty heists; a pair of seasoned hit men "getting into character" before performing the blood sport of their brutal work; the trusted thug given the job of entertaining Mr. Big's hot wife; a fighter who agrees to throw a bout but double crosses the crime boss central to all of the stories, then the fighter and the outraged boss murderously battling their way into the store, where they become sudden captives of two redneck sadists and are gleefully taken beneath their own underworld into a homemade hell. As prisoners, these two men discover that, for all their knowledge of hard knocks, murder and corruption, there are arenas of evil where they are equal in virginity tot he world's biggest squares.

So realities tumble one into the other, race into race, class into class - and make us realize, once more, how little separates us in our urban Wild West of contraband, drugs, bribery, and processional destruction. In this cosmos of unforced integration, there is a fundamental, hard bitten morality; the sole taboos are the callous unintentional, and indifferent crimes committed against the guilty as well as the innocent. Redemption is possible only through the rigors of and dangers of compassion, the essence of a loyalty that reaches down as well as up, to those who don't understand and to those who do. We also realize that capturing the actual wackiness of American life frees our most insightful artists from the contrivances of surrealism.

Black and white from the central motif, John Travolta and Samuel L Jackson, wearing black ties, black suits and white shirts - like the robbers in Reservoir Dogs - are the killers working for black Ving Rhames, the millionaire criminal whose white wife, Uma Thurman, wears her hair black and has matching nails. As Bruce Willis flees the boxing arena in a cab, the Technicolor interior is back-dropped by black-and-white street scenes from what looks like an old film. The rednecks take their prisoners into a basement of silver chains and black leather. Tarantino himself plays a middle-class friend of Jackson's whose home he and Travolta come to when they have the fierce problem of cleaning up and getting rid of a black corpse after a messy, accidental killing in their car. Tarantino's character, not wanting to rist his marriage, pushes them to do it fast and be gone before his black wife returns from their work. Harvey Keitel, a Jewish fixer in black evening clothes and white shirt, speeds to their aid. The Joycean sense of "here comes everybody" is basic.

What makes the film such an accomplishment is the clarity of the characters. None of them, even the cameos, are cartoons. They all have specific visions of the world, and most love to talk. Tarantino is one of those bent on bringing back to American film the combination of strong dialogue and open physical dimension that gave Hollywwod its greatest moments, those points at which the verbal essence and the stage craft of spoken theater were extended by the camera's freedom of position and range of scale. Tarantino's words push the drama and the comedy, reveal the characters, and give the violence a power it never has in the periodic disruptions of formula action films, where spectacle gore replaces the dramatic intensification of feeling and adolescent smirks pose as anti-establishment irony. Even when Tarantino's people are posturing, they say things that unveil their psychological roots. A real-sounding but expansively rewritten biblical quotation, for instance, prepares the way for a murderer's totally unexpected spiritual revelation.

Possibly an ensemble masterpiece, the film contains the finest performances we've seen yet from Samuel L Jackson and John Travolta. Each of them brings nuances of remarkable subtlety and rhythm to speech, gesture, and facial expressions forming superb contrasts of sensibility that collaborate for murder, detail a friendship, and range into areas as widely removed as theological disputes and discussions of international hamburger quality. Uma Thurman gives a prickly magnetism to her spiritually mildewed sex kitten, a coke-snorting-failed television star who is bored and taken by the upper-class privilege resulting from her marriage to a widely feared and wealthy criminal. During her evening out with Travolta, Tarantino sends up both Planet Hollywood and our self congratulatory faux nostalgia for pop trash. At Jack Rabbit Slim's, the pop museum and restaurant, black and white slides up again - the vanilla milk shakes are called "Martin and Lewis" the chocolate ones "Amos and Andy." Later, the pampered gun moll's mistaking one kind of dope for another allows Tarantino to do a stunning reversal of the stake in the heart of the vampire - this time to save her life.


The lumbering crime boss whose girth and heavy voice are metaphoric of his power is done to a sullen fare-thee-well by Ving Rhames (his character's name - Marsellus - obviously connects him to the Roman references made in Godfather II and to the Greco-Roman appropriations of American slavery, when such names were given to chattel). Effortlessly brilliant, Christopher Walken has a hilarious monologue about patriotism, family heirlooms, and the honoring of friendship that sparks a moral decision in Bruce Willis's fighter. Tarantino then bends a cliche over by making the dialogue's early homoerotic references to one character literal. The avuncular corruption of Harvey Keitel's Winston Wolf is another in what is an almost endless line of high points in varied styles of contemporary film acting, which includes the work of Tim Roth, Amanda Plummer, Eric Stoltz, Rosanna Arquette and Maria De Medeiros.

One cannot be too impressed by what Quentin Tarantino has just accomplished in this time of shrill emptiness and our submission to what has become the sanctimonious profession of ethnic alienation. As they say in the South, Tarantino seems to have been "born knowing." His Pulp Fiction brings a detailed, visceral craft to our culture and makes it clear that he means to join those in our most invincible pantheon. Even at the point of development we can see what he wants - the epic sense of racial conflict and synthesis John Ford brought to his best westerns, the His Girl Friday snap of Howard Hawks, the inventive social satire of Preston Sturges, and the deglamourizing grunge of Scorsese's finest criminal portraits. But, finally, the lyrical cynicism and wit of Pulp Fiction recall the moral dilemmas of Orson Welles and Billy Wilder. The work of both identified the American tension created by what always opposes the high democratic vitality of empathetic individualism. Our perpetual nemesis is the protean and sentimental mob, instructed by the worst of our commercial culture of greed, our cannibalizing of lacquered celebrity, and our narcissistic varieties of xenophobia.

--------------------
Why do you choose to mimic these wack MCs?
Why do you choose to listen to R&B?

"There are obviously many things which we do not understand, and may never be able to." Leela

*puts emceeing in a box*

I'm convinced this guy is Frank Longo.



----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

I hate in-depth analysis into shit. See all of my mockeries of araQual's Donnie Darko essays.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

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.

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.")

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.

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.

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.

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.

7. The characters have depth because they all love to talk. None of them are cartoons with just a few stereotypical lines

the race related points of his essay are fairly clear and interesting for True Romance and Reservoir Dogs (pulling the rug out from under Sicilian racism, the familiar scenario of white performer with black support, hatred towards black people but fascination with their art, pop culture spreading aspects of black peoples mannerisms to the rest of America); the racial aspects of Pulp Fiction i'm not convinced about

--------------------
Why do you choose to mimic these wack MCs?
Why do you choose to listen to R&B?

"There are obviously many things which we do not understand, and may never be able to." Leela

*puts emceeing in a box*

>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).

>
>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.

>
>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.

>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.

>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.

>
>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. 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.


>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?

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

>>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

--------------------
Why do you choose to mimic these wack MCs?
Why do you choose to listen to R&B?

"There are obviously many things which we do not understand, and may never be able to." Leela

*puts emceeing in a box*

I think you could write psychoanalytical diarrhea of the keyboard and be published as well.

However, I see the movie a different way. A simpler way. A non-psychobabble horseshit way.

They are characters in a world. They may be different stories, but they are all about the same world. Characters in a world intertwine and relate. Nothing is new, except in this movie, he tells separate stories about the supporting characters in this world.

Good vs. evil and right vs. wrong is a conflict in damn near EVERY movie. Just because QT expressed it with rapists and pop culture and all the other horseshit mentioned in the article/ your reply doesn't mean it doesn't boil down to the same damn thing as all these other movies.

NONE OF THIS IS ABOUT THE WORLD AS A WHOLE. Can the world relate to characters? Sure. But it's not this huge all-encompassing statement about the unbearable battle between evil and good that all of humanity faces and that B-grade Book of Revelations you and Crouch spell it out to be.

QT didn't tell a NEW story with Pulp Fiction. He just told it differently. People took notice because of its unusual structure and its harsh violence.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

now, I'm not gonna ride particularly hard for Pulp Fiction cause I think a lot of this analysis was more read into it than intended.

But a lot of people in this post are basically coming across as saying "movies have no meaning but the basic narrative".

And this, to me, is really too bad. It's enforcing that idea that film is just some zone out entertainment and should not be taken as any kind of art. Or, even if art, it's just the art of straight storytelling and nothing more.

As I said before, even if I may not agree with every point in these essays, they're pretty refreshing just for the fact that they are trying to look deeper and find meaning.

Now, another thing I said in another post is, even if QT didn't explicitly put these ideas into his movies, I've found with a lot of art (my own included) people will realize they put stuff into their works that they never even realized! To take it another step, who cares if QT didn't put the meaning there, someone found it, and it played that way to them. I think it's great, and I think it's comendable that dude is really digging, and he made some valid points.

Bottom line, you may not agree, but the amount of hate is ridiculous.

Lastly, I know you are gonna HATE me for bringing this up, but there haev been times in my life where I was extremely frusturated because I DID NOT UNDERSTAND art analysis. Shit, it still happens all the time. Just food for thought.

>But a lot of people in this post are basically coming across
>as saying "movies have no meaning but the basic narrative".

Yeah, that is what I said.

Lol.

The essay suck.

That is what we are saying.

They suck.

The author of the essay is writing fiction and inventing storylines and themes.

The essays suck

>And this, to me, is really too bad. It's enforcing that idea
>that film is just some zone out entertainment and should not
>be taken as any kind of art. Or, even if art, it's just the
>art of straight storytelling and nothing more.

Strawman.

The essays suck.

Get over it.

>As I said before, even if I may not agree with every point in
>these essays, they're pretty refreshing just for the fact that
>they are trying to look deeper and find meaning.

No,

They are fiction writing.

They suck.


>Now, another thing I said in another post is, even if QT
>didn't explicitly put these ideas into his movies, I've found
>with a lot of art (my own included) people will realize they
>put stuff into their works that they never even realized! To
>take it another step, who cares if QT didn't put the meaning
>there, someone found it, and it played that way to them. I
>think it's great, and I think it's comendable that dude is
>really digging, and he made some valid points.

So its okay for people to invent themes and meanings that the film didn't at all communicate, at all?

Its fiction writing.

It sucks.


>Bottom line, you may not agree, but the amount of hate is
>ridiculous.

No, the fact that this bitch has a job writing and analyzing film is ridiculous.

He needs to write trashy romance novels.

His writing sucks.

>Lastly, I know you are gonna HATE me for bringing this up, but
>there haev been times in my life where I was extremely
>frusturated because I DID NOT UNDERSTAND art analysis. Shit,
>it still happens all the time. Just food for thought.

Well, I *DO* understand art analysis.

These essays were not art analysis.

They are fiction writing.

They suck.

Can you consider anyone's points without being totally dismissive?

You really know how to get your point across by repeating "they suck" over and over again.

>Can you consider anyone's points without being totally
>dismissive?

Not when they SUCK as bad as this essay.

I actually have broken shit down, you just choose to ignore it.

>You really know how to get your point across by repeating
>"they suck" over and over again.

Read above.


----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

This thread is clearly not for you since you prefer name calling and dismissiveness to actually considering someone else's viewpoint.

Not everyone gets the same thing out of a movie. I'm not agreeing with Crouch/Damaja, but it is interesting to think about.

Personally, I think Crouch was seriously reaching. I didn't agree with the essays. There are some shreds of what Crouch was talking about in the movies, but he took things way too far.
However, Damaja made some great points.

Your arguments are basically that the movie sucks, Crouch sucks, and everyone who disagrees is stupid. That's just not very convincing.

I think this entire discussion would have been better if you hadn't even entered it. You add nothing to the discussion.

>This thread is clearly not for you since you prefer name
>calling and dismissiveness to actually considering someone
>else's viewpoint.

Actually, I have debated intelligently, I just happen to do so and clown people
at the same time. It makes it more fun. I would delve into actual academics if I wanted
stale, boring, bland, discussions.

The difference between PTP and OkaySports is that the PTP guys are waaay too sensitive. In Okaysports you punch, people punch back.

>Not everyone gets the same thing out of a movie. I'm not
>agreeing with Crouch/Damaja, but it is interesting to think
>about.

No. its not interesting to think about, because the people are MANUFACTURING REASONS in order to MAKE THEMSELVES FEEL INTELLIGENT.

That is my beef.

It ain't got NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ACTUAL MOVIE.

It has to do with the PEOPLE. CROUCH WROTE THIS FOR HIMSELF. NOT TO ACTUALLY COMMUNICATE SOMETHING HELPFUL ABOUT THE MOVIE.

>Personally, I think Crouch was seriously reaching. I didn't
>agree with the essays. There are some shreds of what Crouch
>was talking about in the movies, but he took things way too
>far.
>However, Damaja made some great points.

Like his point about how the metric/imperial system of measurement comparsion had something to do with how the criminal underworld uses the metric system in their measurement of drugs?

That was fucking BRILLIANT.

In a retarded way.

>Your arguments are basically that the movie sucks, Crouch
>sucks, and everyone who disagrees is stupid. That's just not
>very convincing.

Indeed, and I actually made points to that end. Crouch and Damaja's arguments both DO suck, and I explained HOW THEY SUCK.

>I think this entire discussion would have been better if you
>hadn't even entered it. You add nothing to the discussion.

And a skeptic ruins a conversation between a psychic and a woman trying to win the lottery.

I'll take it as a compliment.

Nah mean son.

----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

>>This thread is clearly not for you since you prefer name
>>calling and dismissiveness to actually considering someone
>>else's viewpoint.
>
>Actually, I have debated intelligently,

arguable (lol)


>I just happen to do so
>and clown people
>at the same time. It makes it more fun.

Perhaps. But it's still juvenile. It would be one thing if you were actually funny or amusing, but I think for the most part the only person you amuse is yourself. Which is fine, I mean, it's only a message board. You can amuse yourself however you want.


I would delve into
>actual academics if I wanted
>stale, boring, bland, discussions.

I get it. Academics are boring. Thus the need to be juvenile.


>The difference between PTP and OkaySports is that the PTP guys
>are waaay too sensitive. In Okaysports you punch, people punch
>back.

I don't know about Damaja, but no one's really catching feelings. I don't really care one way or the other, but I enjoy reading posts that are either funny, interesting, or give me something to think about. For the most part, yours do none of the three.


>>Not everyone gets the same thing out of a movie. I'm not
>>agreeing with Crouch/Damaja, but it is interesting to think
>>about.
>
>No. its not interesting to think about, because the people are
>MANUFACTURING REASONS in order to MAKE THEMSELVES FEEL
>INTELLIGENT.

If it's not interesting to you, why are you spending so much time here? I've read plenty of analyses of art (whether it's painting, sculpting, fiction, movies, etc.) that I disagreed with or thought were total bunk. Some of them I may not have understood, some of them really WERE bullshit, and some of them may have had things that the artist put into the work (themes, archetypes, etc) that were not totally intentional/conscious choices.


>That is my beef.
>
>It ain't got NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ACTUAL MOVIE.

You hate the actual movie, which means you're probably going to attack any in-depth positive analysis/review of the movie, regardless of the content.
Personally, I usually don't bother reading in-depth analyses of movies I hated - it's a waste of my time.
It's funny to me that it's suck a passion of yours. I guess Pulp Fiction is the movie you LOVE to HATE, because you sure as hell pop up every single fucking time the movie is mentioned.


>It has to do with the PEOPLE. CROUCH WROTE THIS FOR HIMSELF.
>NOT TO ACTUALLY COMMUNICATE SOMETHING HELPFUL ABOUT THE MOVIE.

While I don't agree with Crouch, I don't agree with you either.


>>Personally, I think Crouch was seriously reaching. I didn't
>>agree with the essays. There are some shreds of what Crouch
>>was talking about in the movies, but he took things way too
>>far.
>>However, Damaja made some great points.
>
>Damaja

Are you claiming I am an alias? Well, I was here before you OR Damaja so what's that say? I am not an alias, nor do I have any aliases. Aliases are for people who don't have the balls to say what they want - which is stupid because this is a message board and nobody knows you anyway (except GD people who actually get together and meet each other in real life).


>>Your arguments are basically that the movie sucks, Crouch
>>sucks, and everyone who disagrees is stupid. That's just not
>>very convincing.
>
>Indeed, and I actually made points to that end. Crouch and
>Damaja's arguments both DO suck, and I explained HOW THEY
>SUCK.

You attacked some of Damaja's points, but I didn't really see you explain how the arguments suck besides saying that Crouch/Damaja made that shit up and none of it was in the movies. Couldn't you just have said, "I didn't get that from the movies at all."

That would have been your two cents and you wouldn't seem like such a prick. (which clearly doesn't bother you anyway)


>>I think this entire discussion would have been better if you
>>hadn't even entered it. You add nothing to the discussion.
>
>And a skeptic ruins a conversation between a "psychic" and a
>woman trying to win the lottery.

Not really. If the woman believes in and trusts the psychic, the skeptic won't change her mind. He's just in there talking to hear himself speak.

Whether she wins the lottery or not has NOTHING to do with the skeptic, and everything do with
1) whether the psychic is really a psychic or just someone pretending to be psychic
2) luck/chance

The skeptic doesn't affect whether the psychic is a fake or not, and the skeptic doesn't affect the woman's luck/chance. He's just wasting his time.

>I think this entire discussion would have been better if you
>hadn't even entered it. You add nothing to the discussion.

if you look at the stuff OE and I are arguing about, below, it's based on a miniscule detail of the film, then it's based on things one step or more removed from that miniscule detail

now people wont even want to click on the thread, because it's already massive, even though there's been little proper discussion

--------------------
Why do you choose to mimic these wack MCs?
Why do you choose to listen to R&B?

"There are obviously many things which we do not understand, and may never be able to." Leela

*puts emceeing in a box*

I rarely enjoy films on a tell-a-revealing-truth-about-society level. Usually films that reach for that piss me off (i.e. Fight Club, but that's a different post).

Can a movie tell me a good story? Can the story intrigue/move/amuse/sadden me? Will this story remain with me after the movie's over? This is what I need.

What I don't like (and what I admittedly don't understand) about film analysis often is the need, the UNDYING DESIRE of these wannabe-intellectual windbags to tie all of the stuff that is WITHIN the story (morality, pride, religion, anything else you could come up with, etc.) to some blanket statement relating to the world. If you wanna talk about movies compared to other movies, cool. Compare characters to other characters in the film, cool. But alla this...nah.

Not to mention this guy states all this stuff as if he's the first one to think of these obvious statements. "There's a battle of the moral versus the immoral." "There are black and white people interacting." These are not huge revelations, as Mr. Crouch makes them out to be. They are merely common sense statements, fluffed up to look like important intellectual bullshit. I am an English major, I've seen bullshit, I've written bullshit, and this is bullshit.

It's not meant to undermine Pulp Fiction, which I enjoy. It's meant to undermine the "art" of Crouch's art analysis, and others like him, where most of these dudes find a thesaurus and grasp at straws, describing these straws using the fanciest words they can find.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

>I think you could write psychoanalytical diarrhea of the
>keyboard and be published as well.
>
>However, I see the movie a different way. A simpler way. A
>non-psychobabble horseshit way.
>
>They are characters in a world. They may be different stories,
>but they are all about the same world. Characters in a world
>intertwine and relate. Nothing is new, except in this movie,
>he tells separate stories about the supporting characters in
>this world.
>

You talk about this as if a film is a computer game/simulation that the director merely programs, starts-up, and allows to unfold of its own accord. The writer not only has to choose the initial setting and characters, out of all other possible settings and characters, he has to pick the events that make up the stories, then he has to WRITE the characters into the events and have them REACT every step of the way, and INTERACT, in a manner internally consistent with their personalities, so that by the end of the film they have CHANGED - change being the most fundamental rule of writing a story. EVERYTHING is deliberate, therefore looking for the WHY behind everything is completely valid, though difficult since you as the viewer have to backwards engeneer it.

Also, look at Sin City where there's three different stories and characters pop up in stories they aren't involved in because as you say "they're in the same world." But look at how much more intertwined and cohesive Pulp Fiction is than Sin City, when you take the three stories as a whole.

>Good vs. evil and right vs. wrong is a conflict in damn near
>EVERY movie. Just because QT expressed it with rapists and pop
>culture and all the other horseshit mentioned in the article/
>your reply doesn't mean it doesn't boil down to the same damn
>thing as all these other movies.

i can't believe you're even making this point
did you try this on your Shakespeare paper? lol
"So Macbeth goes from a righteous man to a wrongful one, and there is a conflict between good and evil. VERY ORIGINAL WILL."
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

(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.

>
>NONE OF THIS IS ABOUT THE WORLD AS A WHOLE. Can the world
>relate to characters? Sure. But it's not this huge
>all-encompassing statement about the unbearable battle between
>evil and good that all of humanity faces and that B-grade Book
>of Revelations you and Crouch spell it out to be.
>

I'm not sure why you've got a bee in your bonnet about this either.
Any film that uses real settings and issues will "relate" to the world as you say.

Take a film like "Dead Poets Society"
the ending with the main character killing himself doesn't really make sense, it's too extreme, unless you take into account that the schoolboys were being used to symbolize different philosophies, namely romanticism and realism. The boy killed himself because his philosophy of romanticism made death the only acceptbale alternative to freedom. Thus WITHIN the film understanding the ideologies is essential to understanding the story, and OUTWITH the film you can apply those ideologies to real life, if you wish

And best believe writers are very conscious about the overall messages their work puts out. Just by creating characters and events they're essentially playing god so they're bound to think twice about stuff

>QT didn't tell a NEW story with Pulp Fiction. He just told it
>differently. People took notice because of its unusual
>structure and its harsh violence.

it;s a bit harder to pinpoint what exactly is "new" about anything. that's another post

--------------------
Why do you choose to mimic these wack MCs?
Why do you choose to listen to R&B?

"There are obviously many things which we do not understand, and may never be able to." Leela

*puts emceeing in a box*

>
>You talk about this as if a film is a computer game/simulation
>that the director merely programs, starts-up, and allows to
>unfold of its own accord. The writer not only has to choose
>the initial setting and characters, out of all other possible
>settings and characters, he has to pick the events that make
>up the stories, then he has to WRITE the characters into the
>events and have them REACT every step of the way, and
>INTERACT, in a manner internally consistent with their
>personalities, so that by the end of the film they have
>CHANGED - change being the most fundamental rule of writing a
>story. EVERYTHING is deliberate, therefore looking for the WHY
>behind everything is completely valid, though difficult since
>you as the viewer have to backwards engeneer it.
>
>Also, look at Sin City where there's three different stories
>and characters pop up in stories they aren't involved in
>because as you say "they're in the same world." But look at
>how much more intertwined and cohesive Pulp Fiction is than
>Sin City, when you take the three stories as a whole.

But these are all things that happen in EVER good movie. Things unfold, characters react, interact, and change.

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.

>
>>Good vs. evil and right vs. wrong is a conflict in damn near
>>EVERY movie. Just because QT expressed it with rapists and
>pop
>>culture and all the other horseshit mentioned in the
>article/
>>your reply doesn't mean it doesn't boil down to the same
>damn
>>thing as all these other movies.
>
>i can't believe you're even making this point
>did you try this on your Shakespeare paper? lol
>"So Macbeth goes from a righteous man to a wrongful one, and
>there is a conflict between good and evil. VERY ORIGINAL
>WILL."
>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. Or he invents things, like the race arguments.

>
>(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.

>>
>>NONE OF THIS IS ABOUT THE WORLD AS A WHOLE. Can the world
>>relate to characters? Sure. But it's not this huge
>>all-encompassing statement about the unbearable battle
>between
>>evil and good that all of humanity faces and that B-grade
>Book
>>of Revelations you and Crouch spell it out to be.
>>
>
>I'm not sure why you've got a bee in your bonnet about this
>either.
>Any film that uses real settings and issues will "relate" to
>the world as you say.

Yes, but it's not ABOUT the world. It's about characters in a world and their choices. If the world reacts to it, gravy. But it's not ABOUT the world.

>Take a film like "Dead Poets Society"

A movie that sucks.

>the ending with the main character killing himself doesn't
>really make sense, it's too extreme, unless you take into
>account that the schoolboys were being used to symbolize
>different philosophies, namely romanticism and realism. The
>boy killed himself because his philosophy of romanticism made
>death the only acceptbale alternative to freedom. Thus WITHIN
>the film understanding the ideologies is essential to
>understanding the story, and OUTWITH the film you can apply
>those ideologies to real life, if you wish
>
>And best believe writers are very conscious about the overall
>messages their work puts out. Just by creating characters and
>events they're essentially playing god so they're bound to
>think twice about stuff

Zzzz Dead Poet's Society is lame.

>
>>QT didn't tell a NEW story with Pulp Fiction. He just told
>it
>>differently. People took notice because of its unusual
>>structure and its harsh violence.
>
>it;s a bit harder to pinpoint what exactly is "new" about
>anything. that's another post

Well, yes.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

>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

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


>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. 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


>>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.

>>
>>(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.


>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"


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

man

--------------------
Why do you choose to mimic these wack MCs?
Why do you choose to listen to R&B?

"There are obviously many things which we do not understand, and may never be able to." Leela

*puts emceeing in a box*

>>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.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

>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

--------------------
Why do you choose to mimic these wack MCs?
Why do you choose to listen to R&B?

"There are obviously many things which we do not understand, and may never be able to." Leela

*puts emceeing in a box*

>>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.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

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

no, it doesn't break the rule, you're being so simple minded, and i've explained this already. the dialogue is witty but the humour isn't more important than the conversation itself, unlike in most comedies. Watch an episode of Friends notice how many times an unrealistic reaction to a joke is the only thing that lets the scene continue, or how many times Joey says something so dumb it makes his character's existence an impossibility. Pulp Fiction manages to be very funny, without being unrealistic like that.

>
>You said very little in a lot of words.
>

LOL i attempted to be thorough in explaining the complexity of some of the changes/reactions the characters go through, as YOU requested. You're not even concentrating, are you?

>>>>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.
>

other than Masellus, Vince is the only one who knows Mia, and it was the first time they'd met.

>either way, waltzing
>>into scenes at CRUCIAL moments is a little bit more than
>>inevitable contact
>
>Yes, but there's ONE moment of that.
>

1. Butch turning up to kill Vince
2. Pumpkin and Honeybunny meeting Jules during a "transitional period"

but you don't want too much of that stuff because it's coincidental
the main thing is there is similar themes in all 3 main stories, Vince and Jules are effected by the same event, not to mention recurring motifs linking up all the chapters, and that the stories are re-sequenced so that the film as a whole builds momentum towards the end like a normal film does


>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.

the stories are related to each other on more than just a "some of the characters are acquainted with each other" level, what more is there to say. if it was any more intertwined it would just be irritating

>
>Give me one instance of Marsellus being pop culture.
>

Without his presence, the three main stories aren't "pulp fiction" stories

>>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...

You said not enough in unsurprisingly few words

i take it you mean we have a morbid fascination with monsters and serial killers, so we enjoy watching horror films. or maybe you mean something else. i don't know


>
>
>>
>>>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?
>

if you're talking to a scholarly audience, why not. it's not like he's referencing an obscure book, it's one of the most famous books there is



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

jesus is a hater

--------------------
Why do you choose to mimic these wack MCs?
Why do you choose to listen to R&B?

"There are obviously many things which we do not understand, and may never be able to." Leela

*puts emceeing in a box*

>
>>Most of the dialogue breaks your rule #1, because it is
>>comical in many people's opinion. I find much of the
>dialogue
>>amusing.
>>
>
>no, it doesn't break the rule, you're being so simple minded,
>and i've explained this already. the dialogue is witty but the
>humour isn't more important than the conversation itself,
>unlike in most comedies. Watch an episode of Friends notice
>how many times an unrealistic reaction to a joke is the only
>thing that lets the scene continue, or how many times Joey
>says something so dumb it makes his character's existence an
>impossibility. Pulp Fiction manages to be very funny, without
>being unrealistic like that.

But it's still funny.

>
>>
>>You said very little in a lot of words.
>>
>
>LOL i attempted to be thorough in explaining the complexity of
>some of the changes/reactions the characters go through, as
>YOU requested. You're not even concentrating, are you?

No I'm not. Because I'm tired and bored.

>
>>>>>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.
>>
>
>other than Masellus, Vince is the only one who knows Mia, and
>it was the first time they'd met.

Jules knows of Mia. I'm sure Wolf has met Mia, or knows of her. They know who she is, and what she's done. When/If they meet, they already know her background and story.

>
>>either way, waltzing
>>>into scenes at CRUCIAL moments is a little bit more than
>>>inevitable contact
>>
>>Yes, but there's ONE moment of that.
>>
>
>1. Butch turning up to kill Vince

How is that a coincidence? Butch doesn't know Vince. Just because we know them both doesn't make it a coincidence in the story. A coincidence would be if a person runs into another person they know unexpectedly. There are lots of strangers I interact with that maybe a mutual friend knows. That doesn't make it a coincidence.

>2. Pumpkin and Honeybunny meeting Jules during a "transitional
>period"
>

Same thing.


>
>>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.
>
>the stories are related to each other on more than just a
>"some of the characters are acquainted with each other" level,
>what more is there to say. if it was any more intertwined it
>would just be irritating
>
>>
>>Give me one instance of Marsellus being pop culture.
>>
>
>Without his presence, the three main stories aren't "pulp
>fiction" stories

That doesn't explain how HE PERSONALLY is pop culture. That's sidestepping the question by saying what things aren't without him. Without him, there's no story, so that's a bullshit answer. How IS he pop culture?

>
>>>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...
>
>You said not enough in unsurprisingly few words
>
>i take it you mean we have a morbid fascination with monsters
>and serial killers, so we enjoy watching horror films. or
>maybe you mean something else. i don't know

Right. And horror films amuse us. And the violence doesn't shock us. Sometimes the violence amuses us/ intrigues us. Like you said.

>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>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?
>>
>
>if you're talking to a scholarly audience, why not. it's not
>like he's referencing an obscure book, it's one of the most
>famous books there is
>

Zzzzzz. Again, is it the clearest way to make his point? No.

>
>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Take a film like "Dead Poets Society"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A movie that sucks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>man
>>>>
>>>>Yep. It sucks.
>>>
>>>jesus
>>
>>Jesus also hates that movie.
>
>jesus is a hater

I guess so. Cuz Dead Poets Society sucks.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

>>
>>>Most of the dialogue breaks your rule #1, because it is
>>>comical in many people's opinion. I find much of the
>>dialogue
>>>amusing.
>>>
>>
>>no, it doesn't break the rule, you're being so simple
>minded,
>>and i've explained this already. the dialogue is witty but
>the
>>humour isn't more important than the conversation itself,
>>unlike in most comedies. Watch an episode of Friends notice
>>how many times an unrealistic reaction to a joke is the only
>>thing that lets the scene continue, or how many times Joey
>>says something so dumb it makes his character's existence an
>>impossibility. Pulp Fiction manages to be very funny,
>without
>>being unrealistic like that.
>
>But it's still funny.
>

... uh-huh


>
>>
>>>>>>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.
>>>
>>
>>other than Masellus, Vince is the only one who knows Mia,
>and
>>it was the first time they'd met.
>
>Jules knows of Mia. I'm sure Wolf has met Mia, or knows of
>her. They know who she is, and what she's done. When/If they
>meet, they already know her background and story.
>

ok so the characters know of eachother...
pulp fiction's stories are intertwined, related, mixed together, whatever, it's OBVIOUS
you're complaining because Tarantino actually allows a PRETENCE for them being connected? And if you say it's not more intertwined than a normal film, normal flims don't have 3 or 4 separate stories.

>>
>>>either way, waltzing
>>>>into scenes at CRUCIAL moments is a little bit more than
>>>>inevitable contact
>>>
>>>Yes, but there's ONE moment of that.
>>>
>>
>>1. Butch turning up to kill Vince
>
>How is that a coincidence? Butch doesn't know Vince. Just
>because we know them both doesn't make it a coincidence in the
>story. A coincidence would be if a person runs into another
>person they know unexpectedly. There are lots of strangers I
>interact with that maybe a mutual friend knows. That doesn't
>make it a coincidence.
>
>>2. Pumpkin and Honeybunny meeting Jules during a
>"transitional
>>period"
>>
>
>Same thing.
>

They are "coincidental" as far as the FILM is concerned, because they are important collisions for the characters. They are contrived meetings so Tarantino can make a point. If you do that too much, it looks bad


>>>Give me one instance of Marsellus being pop culture.
>>>
>>
>>Without his presence, the three main stories aren't "pulp
>>fiction" stories
>
>That doesn't explain how HE PERSONALLY is pop culture. That's
>sidestepping the question by saying what things aren't without
>him. Without him, there's no story, so that's a bullshit
>answer. How IS he pop culture?
>

"Marsellus Wallace IS pop culture" doesn't make sense, and nobody said it

Masellus Wallace, does, however, BRING pop culture to the film
He could have been someone else, like say Vince's brother, just another hoodlum that happens to make the story link up nicely
But he's the CRIME BOSS, THE GODFATHER, he's the ingredient that makes all the stories "pulp fiction" stories, and the crime boss is practically a CREATION of pop culture because very few people actually know any crime bosses in real life, but we all know who Corleone and Scarface are, and hell the most we know about Al Capone is probably Robert Di Nero holding a baseball bat

(come to think of it, did Bruce Willis pick up a bat before he picked up the sword?)

>
>Right. And horror films amuse us. And the violence doesn't
>shock us. Sometimes the violence amuses us/ intrigues us. Like
>you said.
>

I'm still not sure what you mean. "Amuse" as in makes us laugh? or "amuse" as in entertains us

i've seen horror films have the characters joke about, then suffer a catastrophe, the sudden contrast catching us off guard
i've seen horror films attempting to be scary, but just being idiotic (therefore funny)
i've seen horror films advertise nothing exept horror and suffering, and pull audiences

but none of these things strikes me as being equivalent to Tarantino catching the audience out for its callous reaction to on screen violence, making you laugh then feel guilty for laughing. Guilt being the key emotion, not shock or fear (though that may be part of the scene)


>Zzzzzz. Again, is it the clearest way to make his point? No.

it could be explained more clearly, but that would take several sentences, and he'd actually already explained it in the introductory paragraphs. if you don't know what the sentence means, then it causes confusion, but otherwise it just reaffirms an ealier point.


>
>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Take a film like "Dead Poets Society"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>A movie that sucks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>man
>>>>>
>>>>>Yep. It sucks.
>>>>
>>>>jesus
>>>
>>>Jesus also hates that movie.
>>
>>jesus is a hater
>
>I guess so. Cuz Dead Poets Society sucks.
>

it's a damn sight better than The Passion of the Christ, I bet

--------------------
Why do you choose to mimic these wack MCs?
Why do you choose to listen to R&B?

"There are obviously many things which we do not understand, and may never be able to." Leela

*puts emceeing in a box*

>>>no, it doesn't break the rule, you're being so simple
>>minded,
>>>and i've explained this already. the dialogue is witty but
>>the
>>>humour isn't more important than the conversation itself,
>>>unlike in most comedies. Watch an episode of Friends notice
>>>how many times an unrealistic reaction to a joke is the
>only
>>>thing that lets the scene continue, or how many times Joey
>>>says something so dumb it makes his character's existence
>an
>>>impossibility. Pulp Fiction manages to be very funny,
>>without
>>>being unrealistic like that.
>>
>>But it's still funny.
>>
>
>... uh-huh

Good one.


>>>1. Butch turning up to kill Vince
>>
>>How is that a coincidence? Butch doesn't know Vince. Just
>>because we know them both doesn't make it a coincidence in
>the
>>story. A coincidence would be if a person runs into another
>>person they know unexpectedly. There are lots of strangers I
>>interact with that maybe a mutual friend knows. That doesn't
>>make it a coincidence.
>>
>>>2. Pumpkin and Honeybunny meeting Jules during a
>>"transitional
>>>period"
>>>
>>
>>Same thing.
>>
>
>They are "coincidental" as far as the FILM is concerned,
>because they are important collisions for the characters. They
>are contrived meetings so Tarantino can make a point. If you
>do that too much, it looks bad
>

Contrived and coincidence are two totally different words, you realize that, right? If you'd said contrived earlier, we wouldn't be arguing this point.


>"Marsellus Wallace IS pop culture" doesn't make sense, and
>nobody said it
>

You made THE FOLLOWING ANALOGY.

"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."

Marsellus= anchor for movie world
Pop Culture= anchor for real world

You can put two and two together to make four very easily with your phrasing, pal o' mine.


>Masellus Wallace, does, however, BRING pop culture to the
>film
>He could have been someone else, like say Vince's brother,
>just another hoodlum that happens to make the story link up
>nicely
>But he's the CRIME BOSS, THE GODFATHER, he's the ingredient
>that makes all the stories "pulp fiction" stories, and the
>crime boss is practically a CREATION of pop culture because
>very few people actually know any crime bosses in real life,
>but we all know who Corleone and Scarface are, and hell the
>most we know about Al Capone is probably Robert Di Nero
>holding a baseball bat
>
>(come to think of it, did Bruce Willis pick up a bat before he
>picked up the sword?)
>

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


>I'm still not sure what you mean. "Amuse" as in makes us
>laugh? or "amuse" as in entertains us

Amuse as in funny? I'm funny how? I amuse you?

"to
>Tarantino catching the audience out for its callous reaction
>to on screen violence, making you laugh then feel guilty for
>laughing. Guilt being the key emotion, not shock or fear
>(though that may be part of the scene)"

Did ANYBODY feel like this while watching Pulp Fiction? Please post a reply to this message of "No." if you, like me, didn't feel guilty for laughing.


>
>
>>Zzzzzz. Again, is it the clearest way to make his point? No.
>
>it could be explained more clearly, but that would take
>several sentences, and he'd actually already explained it in
>the introductory paragraphs. if you don't know what the
>sentence means, then it causes confusion, but otherwise it
>just reaffirms an ealier point.
>

It was an artsy-fartsy bullshit phrase where he wanted to reference classic literature and create his own little expression that barely makes sense in order to seem more intellectual than everyone who's seen the movie that's reading his essay. I understand. Because I've read the book. And I've seen the movie. And that sentence is in no way enlightening or eye-opening or even clever.


>>>>>>>>>Take a film like "Dead Poets Society"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>A movie that sucks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>man
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yep. It sucks.
>>>>>
>>>>>jesus
>>>>
>>>>Jesus also hates that movie.
>>>
>>>jesus is a hater
>>
>>I guess so. Cuz Dead Poets Society sucks.
>>
>
>it's a damn sight better than The Passion of the Christ, I
>bet

I don't even know what means, really.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

>
>>>>no, it doesn't break the rule, you're being so simple
>>>minded,
>>>>and i've explained this already. the dialogue is witty but
>>>the
>>>>humour isn't more important than the conversation itself,
>>>>unlike in most comedies. Watch an episode of Friends
>notice
>>>>how many times an unrealistic reaction to a joke is the
>>only
>>>>thing that lets the scene continue, or how many times Joey
>>>>says something so dumb it makes his character's existence
>>an
>>>>impossibility. Pulp Fiction manages to be very funny,
>>>without
>>>>being unrealistic like that.
>>>
>>>But it's still funny.
>>>
>>
>>... uh-huh
>
>Good one.
>

lol. You're implying that I didn't come back with a strong argument on that last line? That's because you didn't even PRESENT an argument by saying "But it's still funny." That basically AGREED with what I said. And then you have the nerve to say "good one" like that

>
>>>>1. Butch turning up to kill Vince
>>>
>>>How is that a coincidence? Butch doesn't know Vince. Just
>>>because we know them both doesn't make it a coincidence in
>>the
>>>story. A coincidence would be if a person runs into another
>>>person they know unexpectedly. There are lots of strangers
>I
>>>interact with that maybe a mutual friend knows. That
>doesn't
>>>make it a coincidence.
>>>
>>>>2. Pumpkin and Honeybunny meeting Jules during a
>>>"transitional
>>>>period"
>>>>
>>>
>>>Same thing.
>>>
>>
>>They are "coincidental" as far as the FILM is concerned,
>>because they are important collisions for the characters.
>They
>>are contrived meetings so Tarantino can make a point. If you
>>do that too much, it looks bad
>>
>
>Contrived and coincidence are two totally different words, you
>realize that, right? If you'd said contrived earlier, we
>wouldn't be arguing this point.
>
>
>>"Marsellus Wallace IS pop culture" doesn't make sense, and
>>nobody said it
>>
>
>You made THE FOLLOWING ANALOGY.
>
>"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."
>
>Marsellus= anchor for movie world
>Pop Culture= anchor for real world
>
>You can put two and two together to make four very easily with
>your phrasing, pal o' mine.
>

yes but I didn't say "Marsellus IS pop culture" because that sounds silly
I explained in what way Marsellus represents pop culture or brings it into the equation (below and elsewhere)

>
>>Masellus Wallace, does, however, BRING pop culture to the
>>film
>>He could have been someone else, like say Vince's brother,
>>just another hoodlum that happens to make the story link up
>>nicely
>>But he's the CRIME BOSS, THE GODFATHER, he's the ingredient
>>that makes all the stories "pulp fiction" stories, and the
>>crime boss is practically a CREATION of pop culture because
>>very few people actually know any crime bosses in real life,
>>but we all know who Corleone and Scarface are, and hell the
>>most we know about Al Capone is probably Robert Di Nero
>>holding a baseball bat
>>
>>(come to think of it, did Bruce Willis pick up a bat before
>he
>>picked up the sword?)
>>
>
>Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
>
>

good one

>>I'm still not sure what you mean. "Amuse" as in makes us
>>laugh? or "amuse" as in entertains us
>
>Amuse as in funny? I'm funny how? I amuse you?
>


good one


>"to
>>Tarantino catching the audience out for its callous reaction
>>to on screen violence, making you laugh then feel guilty for
>>laughing. Guilt being the key emotion, not shock or fear
>>(though that may be part of the scene)"
>
>Did ANYBODY feel like this while watching Pulp Fiction? Please
>post a reply to this message of "No." if you, like me, didn't
>feel guilty for laughing.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>Zzzzzz. Again, is it the clearest way to make his point?
>No.
>>
>>it could be explained more clearly, but that would take
>>several sentences, and he'd actually already explained it in
>>the introductory paragraphs. if you don't know what the
>>sentence means, then it causes confusion, but otherwise it
>>just reaffirms an ealier point.
>>
>
>It was an artsy-fartsy bullshit phrase where he wanted to
>reference classic literature and create his own little
>expression that barely makes sense in order to seem more
>intellectual than everyone who's seen the movie that's reading
>his essay. I understand. Because I've read the book. And I've
>seen the movie. And that sentence is in no way enlightening or
>eye-opening or even clever.
>
>

whatever. it's not even important. we can do this with practically any piece of writing


>>>>>>>>>>Take a film like "Dead Poets Society"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>A movie that sucks.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>man
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yep. It sucks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>jesus
>>>>>
>>>>>Jesus also hates that movie.
>>>>
>>>>jesus is a hater
>>>
>>>I guess so. Cuz Dead Poets Society sucks.
>>>
>>
>>it's a damn sight better than The Passion of the Christ, I
>>bet
>
>I don't even know what means, really.

how could you not?

--------------------
Why do you choose to mimic these wack MCs?
Why do you choose to listen to R&B?

"There are obviously many things which we do not understand, and may never be able to." Leela

*puts emceeing in a box*

in fiction they ARE the same thing, this is obvious

(unless it's a very small detail that the author overlooked)

--------------------
Why do you choose to mimic these wack MCs?
Why do you choose to listen to R&B?

"There are obviously many things which we do not understand, and may never be able to." Leela

*puts emceeing in a box*

These essays are all hilarious.


----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

i think not

look, you say PF is nothing but a series of inside jokes, and that the plot was razor thin

why don't you pick a movie you like, and explain why it's plot is more substantial, and why there's more to it beyond the amusing lines, and what it's valuable deeper meaning is

--------------------
Why do you choose to mimic these wack MCs?
Why do you choose to listen to R&B?

"There are obviously many things which we do not understand, and may never be able to." Leela

*puts emceeing in a box*

A film which OE champions, LOL.

------------------------------

17x NBA Champions

At least Eminem actually has real black friends, though, and is somewhat good at what he does.

QT invents his friends, and sucks at what he does.


----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

You liked 8 Mile.

------------------------------

17x NBA Champions

I said the film was well done. As in well-researched. As in, the characters looked mid-90s. As in the music playing was all timely, all the posters on all the walls, were very timely. It had the feel of a dark era in the hip hop art form. It captured what the hip hop scene was like in a city bereft of any stars as of yet. The battles were well choreographed, and the rhymes were well written. I like the freestyle scene at the Steel plant, well done, especially when the girl freestyles about how she hates her job...love that scene.

I also think that '8 Mile's protagonist's life was only even worthy of a film because of his whiteness. Without him being white, that film is never made, because white people don't grasp the concept that 'B Rabbit's' life is actually the story of countless black rappers whose lives will never warrant a feature film.

Its very telling for how much more sympathy people have for white hardship than black hardship.

I also felt like it was quite ironic that the two of the largest grossing hip hop/urban movies of all time are '8 Mile' and 'Save the Last Dance' both featuring white protagonists facing racial discrimination from the big, mean, black kids.

>You liked 8 Mile.



----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

>I also think that '8 Mile's protagonist's life was only even
>worthy of a film because of his whiteness. Without him being
>white, that film is never made, because white people don't
>grasp the concept that 'B Rabbit's' life is actually the story
>of countless black rappers whose lives will never warrant a
>feature film.

But that's the point. That's what makes it interesting. A white man in a black man's world. Otherwise, it's just another story about a rapper. I grasped the concept that he a broke, struggling artist. There are plenty of those, black and white.

Why should countless black rappers warrant a feature film? There needs to be an angle, a good story.

Remember, rap is still relatively young in the scope of its and our lifetimes. A movie about Ray Charles in his heydey would have been premature as a movie about Chuck D would be now. But someday, his career would be worth looking at in the context of a movie.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

*Effasig*

>But that's the point. That's what makes it interesting. A
>white man in a black man's world. Otherwise, it's just another
>story about a rapper. I grasped the concept that he a broke,
>struggling artist. There are plenty of those, black and
>white.

But here is what's ironic:

Eminem's whiteness has actually made his rise to success EASIER and not HARDER.

The film focused on how HARD it was for him being WHITE.

That is the problem.

Don't focus on whitness as a handicap when its not a handicap, but an advantage.

And you are wrong -- there is PLENTY OF ROOM for a gritty, well made drama about a black man's rise in hip hop.

Just check that whole "Hustle and Flow" movie that is getting rave reviews.

Sadly, "Hustle and Flow" would not have even been MADE without the commercial success of '8 Mile'(though, Hustle and Flow will make a fraction at the box office compared to '8Mile' despite being twice as good a film).

>Why should countless black rappers warrant a feature film?
>There needs to be an angle, a good story.

If you are black, you are simple minded.

If you are white, you are a closet racist.

Lets do this:

Andre Benjamin.

Nasir Jones

Andre Young

Oshea Jackson.

Rakim Allah.

Chris Parker.

Christopher Wallace.

Curtis Jackson.


THE ONLY THING these guys have in common is the fact that they are black.


They each have compelling, inspirational, unique stories about their rise to hip hop.


Some of their stories are AT LEAST as compelling as that of Marshall Mathers.


And are therefore worthy of a film.


That fact that you can so flippantly say that Eminem's life is more interesting solely because he operated "in a black man's world" is quite disturbing to me.


The reality is that all of hip hop operates in a white man's world. Just check most of the record label execs and CEOs.

"Old White Men, is Running this Rap Shit..."

(C) Mos.


>Remember, rap is still relatively young in the scope of its
>and our lifetimes. A movie about Ray Charles in his heydey
>would have been premature as a movie about Chuck D would be
>now. But someday, his career would be worth looking at in the
>context of a movie.


No. No. No. No.

That is what makes films about Hip hop NOW MORE COMPLELLING because a lot of its creators/early innovators are RELATIVELY YOUNG and we can still see them making the artform, and see the effects of their artform.



----------------------------

O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.

"Any fighter that I face, I say prayers for them every night and that he and I live to fight another day."

(C) Floyd Mayweather Jr.

Came up, sold out as a gimmick, got ripped by Biggie, could never overcome his gimmick and be taken seriously. Like a hip hop Hollywood Shuffle.

being white has not made eminems career easier. i actually think its made it completely harder than it needs to be. the fact that he's white and when he came out late 90's the only comparison people made was vanilla ice. so he had to prove that he wasnt a joke or vanilla ice (same thing now that i think about it), and that he actually had staying power which is incredibly difficult in the music business. come the marshal mather lp. he is now looking for sophemore success. he now has to convince the world that he can be taken seriously, or its all over. controversial lyrics lead to protests against his music, bannings on radio, etc etc.

he has faced so many hardships to get to the point he's at now. its easy for him now, he could shit and record the audio of it and he'll win best rap album. but it wasnt that easy some years back.

a black rapper might not have had as much success if he released the exact same albums, but he would be scrutinized the same either.

********************************************************************




"I *always* quote myself. I'm the only reliable source on *most* subjects" - OKP's First Lady of Knowledge, Janey