Quentin Tarantino: The Films

[Brasil]

I just had an interesting convo with James the other day, mostly about the usage of music in cinema. Naturally, QT arose in the discussion. I'm making this thread to pretty much talk about his movies, what you liked about them, what you didn't like. But I would just like your input to be reasonable. Don't post something like, "Omygod! QT is s0 awsom!" or "Christ, I couldn't stand Pulp Fiction. It just sucked!"

Whatever your posts may be, use common sense, lol.

Okay, in my discussion about music, I had the following interpretation about Pulp Fiction:

[QUOTE]madsatirist (3:57:18 PM): Have you seen Pulp Fiction?
Shinmaru007 (3:57:41 PM): Yep.
madsatirist (3:57:50 PM): Do you remember most of it?
Shinmaru007 (3:58:10 PM): Yeah.
madsatirist (3:58:31 PM): Okay, Mia and Marsellus.
madsatirist (3:58:37 PM): They're just married, right?
Shinmaru007 (3:59:16 PM): Yeah...unless you have something up your sleeve or something *raises eyebrow*
madsatirist (3:59:30 PM): You've read Othello, right?
Shinmaru007 (3:59:59 PM): No, haven't read it yet.
madsatirist (4:00:31 PM): Oh, well Othello is about the marriage of Desdemona (a white woman) and Othello (a black man).
madsatirist (4:00:37 PM): There's a lot of sexuality throughout the play,
madsatirist (4:00:47 PM): references to D's and O's sex lives.
madsatirist (4:01:21 PM): There are passages in the play that hint at D and O never consummating their relationship.
madsatirist (4:01:34 PM): They've done other stuff, but never had relations.
madsatirist (4:01:38 PM): Now,
madsatirist (4:01:41 PM): apply that to PF.
madsatirist (4:01:58 PM): Mia (white woman) and Marsellus (black man).
madsatirist (4:02:03 PM): Then,
madsatirist (4:02:12 PM): the two songs that play during Mia's first scenes.
madsatirist (4:02:17 PM): Son of a Preacher Man
madsatirist (4:02:24 PM): and Girl you'll be a Woman Soon.
madsatirist (4:02:48 PM): If Jules is the God figure of PF, effectively preaching in the film, then Vincent can be said to be his son.
madsatirist (4:02:58 PM): Vincent turns from Jules and dies.
madsatirist (4:03:04 PM): Jules is his protector, in a sense.
madsatirist (4:03:17 PM): Mia is only saved by the son of a preacher man, Vincent.
madsatirist (4:03:27 PM): And Girl you'll be a Woman Soon,
madsatirist (4:03:50 PM): What is one of the actions that makes a woman, especially one who is just married?
madsatirist (4:04:00 PM): Consummating the relationship.
madsatirist (4:04:11 PM): But what kind of penetration could there be in PF?
madsatirist (4:04:19 PM): The adrenaline needle into her heart.
madsatirist (4:04:46 PM): So...those two songs bring some interesting levels to the film.
Shinmaru007 (4:05:16 PM): Yes, very interesting lol.[/QUOTE]
Thoughts? Seems like a very apt observation of PF.

[Zen]

[color=green][size=1]

That conversation seems like an overanalysus of the film, but kinda makes since. And if you look into Tarantino's works, he does often pull those sort of submliminal message type inventions that hint at his insipration. There's no denying he's a great writer/director. I love his works truely, even though I've only seen Kill Bill and Pulp Fiction. Both actually very recently this year. (Buying the Kill Bill Vol. 1 DVD and watching Pulp Fiction on IFC's 10th Anniversary and homage to the film, watching the annalysus the film by the creators and those involved afterwards.)

I've already found that some of his characters may be a bit hoaky and corny, but really thats fun to watch. His movies purposely have that feeling, because it adds subliminal humor while still making the movie have its serious points. Good example in Pulp Fiction of quick, but appropriate mood changes is when Mia O.D.'s and gets the adrenaline shot. After Vincent drops her off, she tells him the Tomatoe joke. Or the way Jules talks when he's about to pop a cap in someones a--. Just seems natural and still hilaroius. Not forced.

Another thing Tarantino does well is makes people speculate at untold plot objects. Because thats what makes people obsess and analize the movie so much, that they unravel on truth after another as they repeatedly watch the movie. They may not find out what that plot object is, but they do, if there smart enough, unravel neat little plot turns and formations as they reexamine it each time. Aswell, this allows people to come to their own amends to what the plot object is, therefore allowing the audience member to find their own satisfiaction. Good example. The breifcase that Jules and Vincent are trying to get to Marsellus in Pulp Fiction. Its leaves those who few who saw it in awe, but it is never revealed. (this has caused many people to beleive that the breifcase holds Marsellus' soul.)

But there are still two things that I simply love about Tarantino's works. One, the fact that he puts little inside jokes and easter eggs in his movies that people can identify with if they have seen certain movies, namely, the ones he gets inspiration from. Thats always fun. Two, his characterization. No director has ever made me love a character as much as I loved his. My favorite characters in Pulp Fiction being Butch Coolidge and Jules. Butch being a really okay guy mixed up in a bad situation. I mean, what kinda guy will go save the man who set a hit on him from being sadomized by California hillbillies? That was a cool character trait that made me love him even more. And with Jules, his whole personality made me love him. From the way he makes being a hit man fun, to his revalation at the end of the movie (also his wallet, gotta love that wallet). From Kill Bill, it would deffinetely have to be O-Ren Ishii for her attitude and origin. It was very cool how they used an anime sequence to tell of her origin. And the Yakuza meeting scene was great too. I really liked her (aswell, Lucy Liu was an excellent casting choice, and the character kinda matched her own in some, weird, twisted way.)

So, I gues Tarantino really is my favorite director becuase of his ability to make you love and examine his movies. Just gotta love the guy.[/color][/size]

[Shiguru]

Well I liked all of his flicks wholeheartedly until Kill Bill came out.

Resivoir Dogs was an amazing and blazingly real movie in terms of dialouge and personalities. It was so simple, yet the way it was done was simply amazing. From the selfish antics of new talent Steve Besumi to the insane love of tourture of Michael Madsen everything was done so well. Not to mention the awesome 70's radio station. There are two scenes that make this movie simply amazing to me:

The diner and the car where they drive to the meeting. In both scenes these guys are so natural when they talk its like they are just having an everyday conversation. Whether it's acting or the dialouge itself that is mostly to blame I don't know, but damn this movie ruled!

Pulp Fiction is without a doubt the best of his films. It is one of my favorites of all time and deserved every award it got. Not only did this movie have the superb dialouge of his previous movie. It also added more characters you truly enjoyed. None of the characters were realistic, but they were fun now and exticting to watch though. Jules was by far my favorite, his character was so amazing and was one of Sam Jackson's best and brightest characters ever.

It was shocking, deep, and really funny while oozing with style.

Jackie Brown was good.... but I haven't seen that in 6 years. so lets skip it.

Kill Bill. A drop in quality for quantity and style. A good trade-off.... but not if it's supposed to be a comeback. None of the character depth and cool dialouge seen in his previous works is here. Instead insane action and some diffrent but decent dialouge comes into play.

The Bride never made me care about her goal. But damn could she fight. Her dialouge was performed well... but it was typical action movie fare. The same goes for all characters in these movies except for Bill and his pimp-friend/father figure.

While both movies were hysterical, the editing was done wrong. In the first one it was mostly action and little plot, while the second one had some awesome speeches... but little true action. If you swapped a few scenes like put the whole Tokyo scene in the second one while taking the Michael Madsen stuff and putting it at the end of the first one. At least that way the ending isn't as dissapointing... yet cool as it was.

Kill Bill was good, but it could have been much, much, more than it was. Hopefully he can regain his true magic in his next films.

[BlueYoshi]

[color=teal]Tarantino's films are out of the ordinary. Besides the content of them, they are most popular for the subliminal messages in them within certain parts of some scenes, like ReFlux already said. I can think of many trademarks aspects that QT has ventured with some of his films, ranging the from the most obvious one; the black suits, the repitition of characters and names, and the use of briefcases, all the way down to the more complex hidden ideals such as the one Bean mentioned.

I have to agree with Bean's theory regarding the mass of Pulp Fiction being a partial adaptation of Othello and his affairs, that seems pretty spot on in my books, but then again, it could mean just about anything. I'm not so keen on your view of seeing Jules as the image of God though, Bean. It is a reasonable argument and truthfully I had pretty much gathered that information too, but after watching the film over and over I managed to convince myself to totally turn against that thought. It's pretty simple really. One of the Ten Commandments prohibits the ownership or distribution of images, so if QT did try to implement any form of a religious theme to Pulp Fiction then I doubt he would have used such an indirect approach. I understand that all the pieces are in the right places and everything seems to link together smoothly, but it's still a misfitting contraption to me. An easy trap to fall into.

Granted, between Jules and Vincent, Jules is the wiser, however, I prefer to see their specified roles in a much different way. During the opening chapter, the two hitmen interacted with each other personally and conversed with one another like friends normally would. In the light of that, it was Vincent who led the most part of their discussion inside the car and hotel. But, when they both confront three of the four dealers who ripped Marcellus off, it's Jules who mesmerises with everyone while Vincent lies out in the back with a totally smug attitude. They practically switch roles once they get down to their line of work. Don't get me wrong, Vincent certainly wasn't scared during that incident, but I got the impression that he just wanted to get the job done and dusted as quickly as possible, and this was proved to me by the level of enthusiasm he displayed when it came down to [spoiler]killing the dealers off[/spoiler]. Jules on the other hand simply wanted to help them in a non-meaningful way even though he knew he had to inevitably [spoiler]kill them[/spoiler]. He wanted to share his morals and ideologies to the viewers as well as in the film.

As a matter of fact, Jules said it himself that the passage, Ezekiel 25:17, he always used was something he proclaimed to as scary, especially as something to preach before he would "pop a cap up someone's a**", but he never actually gave the true meaning of Ezekiel 25:17 much thought before the incident involving 'divine intervention' took place. Conceiving, Jules is a solid character who will show a fair amount of compassion to his friends and those close to him if he feels they deserve it, and is also willing to strike down his enemies. Truly a man who bares many similarities to God himself, but somehow he just doesn't quite push the button for me. Anyway, regarding the above, I haven't since thought of a corollary reason that justifies Jules' and Vincent's natural behaviour patterns in Pulp Fiction. It's weird to say the least, not many directors show as much commitment to the making of a film the way QT does, and the fact that his films are aimed at a highly matured audience stress that there will be some puzzling attributes that make the core of it.

Here's an interesting point I discovered from Pulp Fiction myself :p. It occurs during the incident when Butch has second thoughts on leaving Marcellus in the clutches of the two rapists, and so he decided to return to him and extract his revenge while he's at it. It's a clever little thing, heh, so see for yourself.

After Butch manages to release himself from his binds and drags himself up the stairs to the ground floor of the pawn shop, you'll notice that he freezes just before walking through the exit, if you didn't know, he's deciding whether to save Marcellus, or escape to Tennessee and retrieve his money. Just [i]where[/i] he freezes, there's a neon sign that says 'Killian's Red' on it and a Tennessee license plate right next to it. On the neon plating, the only lit letters on it are 'Kill ed', and then we're immediately shown a shot of Z's keyring that portrays the letter 'Z'. If you put them all together, it obviously says 'Kill Zed', but, here's the clever bit, if Butch had gone to Tennessee and left Marcellus there, he would have gotten 'kill ed'--just as the broken neon sign said.[/color]

[quote name='ReFlux][color=green][size=1]Good example. The breifcase that Jules and Vincent are trying to get to Marsellus in Pulp Fiction. Its leaves those who few who saw it in awe, but it is never revealed. (this has caused many people to beleive that the breifcase holds Marsellus' soul.)[/color'][/size][/quote]

[color=teal]Actually, most people think that because of the huge plaster on the back of his head. Reason being that the actor who played Marcellus Wallace (Ving Rhames) had a big scar on the back of his head that the make up artists of Pulp Fiction thought would be too distracting for viewers in his scene with Butch in the bar since you get a total close up of the back of Rhame's head, that's all. The briefcase most certainly doesn't contain his soul though, I can't explain the gold shine effect, but I was thinking something more along the lines of a large quantity of Cocaine or Heroine.[/color]

[Shiguru]

Another popular theory was that it was the Resivour Dog's Diamonds. This is what I follow as I sure has hell don't believe the bit about Marcellus Wallace's soul. He proved he had one in his final dealings with Butch after his awesome line about some friends and a blow torch. :D

Dude frekin RULES!

[BlueYoshi]

[color=teal]Nope. It can't be the diamonds from Reservoir Dogs. If you remember correctly, [spoiler]every colour-coded thief was killed, with the exception of Mr. Pink who made off with the diamonds, but was apprehended by the police immediately after, so with that in mind they must have confiscated them.[/spoiler] It's most likely drugs or gold or anything like that.

I've worked out every angle trying to figure out what was in the case to the extent that I'll only believe anything I hear about it if it's an official statement from Tarantino himself.[/color]

[Zen]

[color=green][size=1]

I never said that was what I beleived. I simply said that because I was watching IFC (Independent Film Channel) and its night dedicated to Tarantino and Pulp Fiction had little shorts telling about the movie and it said that many people beleived it contained Marsellu's soul. I personally beleive its heroine or cocaine, judging by the appereance of the people Vincent and Jules conviscated it from. I don't think Marsellus' would let them come into possesion of his soul, especially seeing as how the guys the got it from supposedly "did business" with Marsellus, it probably is drugs. (most likely heroine, seeing as how thats one of the most predomenant drug in the movie, and probably the main drug Marsellus deals).[/size][/color]

[Brasil]

BlueYoshi, rock on with the reply.

[quote][color=#008080]I'm not so keen on your view of seeing Jules as the image of God though, Bean. It is a reasonable argument and truthfully I had pretty much gathered that information too, but after watching the film over an over I managed to convince myself to totally turn against that thought. It's pretty simple really. [b]One of the Ten Commandments prohibits the ownership or distribution of images, so if QT did try to implement any form of a religious theme to Pulp Fiction then I doubt he would have used such an indirect approach.[/b] I understand that all the pieces are in the right places and everything seems to link together smoothly, but it's still a misfitting contraption to me. An easy trap to fall into.[/color][color=black][/quote][/color]

I figure you're referring to the [url="http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/tencom.htm"]Idolatry Commandment[/url].

[quote]"You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I The Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate Me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love Me and keep My Commandments."[/quote]What is Idolatry, and how is it represented in Pulp Fiction? I'm not quite sure what you meant by what I bolded, but it sounds like you're saying that since the T.C.'s prohibit Idolatry, QT would have needed to be very overt in his presentation of religious themes. Is that about right? I'm not quite sure that supports your argument.

While Jules may not be God exactly, he certainly represents religious values, true? He does in fact preach Ezekiel 25:17, never really understanding what it meant until the divine intervention, like you said. But if he doesn't understand what he is preaching, he's not all that different from the usual religious leaders. Agreed? I mean, many of the prominent religious figures today don't "get" or practice what they preach. In this sense, Jules becomes a criticism of religious doctrine, how conflicted it is.

Now, if he is not God, but still a preacher, that is to say, servant of God, who is God?

Jules works for Marsellus, fair enough, but is Marsellus God? Seems more like the Devil. After all, the briefcase's combination is 666. When we are first introduced to Marsellus, the setting is a red-lit bar. In fact, Marsellus as the Devil is supported when we see Butch making a deal with Marsellus--making a deal with the Devil.

So what is Butch? A lost soul, searching for answers? Salvation, perhaps? Makes sense, I think.

Then if Marsellus is the Devil, what is Mia? A prisoner...seduced by Satan (bringing in echoes of Garden of Eden), protected, as well. Is Othello the Devil, though? Good question. He certainly doesn't demonstrate compassion for his fellow man, seeks to destroy before questioning, and Marsellus certainly demonstrates this behavior.

Vincent...look at those opening scenes, though. Vincent leads the conversations because Jules is interested in what he has to say, and wants him to speak. Of course, in the the Foot Massage exchange, this becomes fuzzy. But Jules knows he has been proven wrong, and admits that in his own way.

This is an example of maturity and should not be taken lightly (you haven't taken it lightly, I'm just saying). Also, when they are about to knock on the drugdealers' door, Jules says, "All right, let's get into character." Perhaps it's just me, but all of this points to [i]Jules[/i] watching over everything, further establishing his character as the father figure in the Jules/Vincent duality, and further cementing the idea that Vincent becomes the "Son of a Preacher Man."

And if Jules represents religious values, and Vincent turns away from him, Vincent will meet his death. I mean, he turns away from God, essentially. He doesn't believe in the divine intervention that Jules wants him to realize. He doubts the power of God.

But we are brought back to the question of what is God in Pulp Fiction? God is simply there, in the form of the "hand of God reaching down and stopping those bullets."

Rambly, and I apologize for that.

EDIT: I forgot to mention something.

BlueYoshi, don't forget that 99% of what we see in Tarantino's films are totally deliberate and intentional, which means if we see something, chances are, it was meant to be that way. QT is anal retentive when it comes to details, and I think based on what we've seen in PF regarding the religious imagery and thematics, we can't deny what is going on with the characterizations...Jules as the God figure or servant of God; Marsellus as Satan; Vincent as the Fallen Son; Mia as an Eve, of sorts...it's all so concrete and clear that I don't think we can doubt the intent.

[BlueYoshi]

[color=teal]ReFlux, sorry if you misunderstood me. I wasn't having a go at you or anything; I was just clarifying what I thought of the briefcase as a whole. So yeah, sorry about that. ^_^[/color]

[quote name='Bean']What is Idolatry, and how is it represented in Pulp Fiction? I'm not quite sure what you meant by what I bolded, but it sounds like you're saying that since the T.C.'s prohibit Idolatry, QT would have needed to be very overt in his presentation of religious themes. Is that about right? I'm not quite sure that supports your argument.[/quote]

[color=teal]What I'm trying to say is that if QT wanted a religious casting in his film, then he must obviously have his own thoughts about it whether or not he?s a believer, and on the basis of the points you've made it can easily be seen that QT does have respect for religion and does believe in God, but if that was the case then why would he break the rules whilst trying to achieve the complete opposite? Simple, the Second Commandment is the most commonly broken one of them all. If QT had taken that into consideration, then there would be no image or reference of God or Satan, but he didn't, he wanted to make his movie whilst subliminally parading Heaven and Hell--how can he though? He defied one of the Ten Commandments.

That's a kind of farfetched perspective of the religious aspect in Pulp Fiction, I'll admit that, but the boot fits for me.[/color]

[quote]While Jules may not be God exactly, he certainly represents religious values, true? He does in fact preach Ezekiel 25:17, never really understanding what it meant until the divine intervention, like you said. But if he doesn't understand what he is preaching, he's not all that different from the usual religious leaders. Agreed? I mean, many of the prominent religious figures today don't "get" or practice what they preach. In this sense, Jules becomes a criticism of religious doctrine, how conflicted it is.[/quote]

[color=teal]Agreed. Jules is the servant God, not because QT wanted him to be in correlation to the religious values, but because that's simply his character. The opening scene doesn't vibrate much one the fact that Jules is a religious man, you get the impression he's a normal guy doing a normal hit. His actions in the hotel with the dealer did reflect exactly the fundamental truth behind the Ezekiel 25:17, but he just didn't realise it. Later on in the diner, Jules' eyes were opened due the events that previously happened, namely the divine intervention, he knew the situation very well and only then was he able to personify the Ezekiel passage and what he wants to do in life because it finally smacked him in the face--it wasn't a tool for scaring people at all. Vincent is a very different matter though. Many teachers take huge responsibility of their disciples as they know they carry a huge burden, and mean to teach them well. In the diner, Vincent insisted so urgently to Jules that he either takes back his $1500 or he'll shoot Ringo on general principle, in a way, you could almost say that Vincent was trying to give Jules advice, but that's not the point. Vincent, the son of a preacher man, must have been guided by Jules' religious authority through out the course of his duty and so, should know better than to kill someone or have the intent to kill over money.[/color]

[quote]Jules works for Marsellus, fair enough, but is Marsellus God? Seems more like the Devil. After all, the briefcase's combination is 666. When we are first introduced to Marsellus, the setting is a red-lit bar. In fact, Marsellus as the Devil is supported when we see Butch making a deal with Marsellus--making a deal with the Devil.

So what is Butch? A lost soul, searching for answers? Salvation, perhaps? Makes sense, I think.[/quote]

[color=teal]Butch I don't think holds any sort of religious implementation. Simply put, he just wants to settle down with his girlfriend and keep himself to himself. After all, I can't think of any man who'd want to save the devil, but his reasons are his own. He certainly isn't of any representative value as far as God goes because he aided the devil, befriended him in a way. The 666 is just superstition to me though, it could very well be that the devil is inside of the briefcase as whatever?s inside it is evil, or it could merely be an easy number to remember... but I feel the image of holiness and God stretch far beyond the possibilities of Pulp Fiction. It's fun to sit and chat about the messages and stuff, but I'd also like to appreciate the movie for what it is, too, so no disrespect there.[/color]

[quote]BlueYoshi, don't forget that 99% of what we see in Tarantino's films are totally deliberate and intentional, which means if we see something, chances are, it was meant to be that way. QT is anal retentive when it comes to details, and I think based on what we've seen in PF regarding the religious imagery and thematics, we can't deny what is going on with the characterizations...Jules as the God figure or servant of God; Marsellus as Satan; Vincent as the Fallen Son; Mia as an Eve, of sorts...it's all so concrete and clear that I don't think we can doubt the intent.[/quote]

[color=teal]We have to remember how exactly Pulp Fiction was made and put together. All three stories were originally set to be separate films, but unfortunately that never worked out for him (I'm a bit hazy in that department, lol). With that, he decided to combine the three scripts together, adding some parts in and taking some out, and so, the non-linear adaptation of Pulp Fiction was created. Now, I don't know if Pulp Fiction reflects Tarantino's temperament on God, but I find it hard to believe that three totally different scripts and stories managed to share your view on God's presence. What I do know is that it's no coincidence, that's for sure.[/color]

[Brasil]

[QUOTE][b]BlueYoshi:[/b]
[color=teal]What I'm trying to say is that if QT wanted a religious casting in his film, then he must obviously have his own thoughts about it whether or not he?s a believer, and on the basis of the points you've made it can easily be seen that QT does have respect for religion and does believe in God, but if that was the case then why would he break the rules whilst trying to achieve the complete opposite? Simple, the Second Commandment is the most commonly broken one of them all. If QT had taken that into consideration, then there would be no image or reference of God or Satan, but he didn't, he wanted to make his movie whilst subliminally parading Heaven and Hell--how can he though? He defied one of the Ten Commandments.[/quote][/color]

[color=teal][color=black]Actually...I think in order to discuss this, we should look at the Second Commandment. While it's nice to think that it prohibits using religious imagery at all, it actually prohibits the praying to images/objects that are not God. Tarantino does not worship or praise the images in PF, necessarily. In fact, check this out.[/color][/color]
[color=teal][color=#000000][/color][/color]
[color=teal][color=#000000]The briefcase...Marcellus' briefcase. Marcellus as Satan...making the briefcase Satan's briefcase. The combination is 666. There is an almost (un)holy (hehe) glow when Vincent opens it, and Vincent is wowed by it--damn near worships it, places it above anything else. What happens to Vincent? He dies. Keep in mind also, that he only dies [i]after[/i] Jules leaves.[/color][/color]
[color=teal][color=#000000][/color][/color]
[color=teal][color=#000000]If Jules symbolizes God, in that he is a preacher, and Vincent is his son, the Fallen Son, which can be interpreted as Adam from the Garden of Eden, further reinforcing the idea that Mia is Eve (the forbidden fruit), we can say with a fairly high level of confidence that Vincent (Adam) turning away from God, disobeying him, disregarding his power (divine intervention) and thus is punished.[/color][/color]
[color=teal][color=#000000][/color][/color]
[color=teal][color=#000000]There is definite Idolatry in Pulp Fiction, and the transgressing characters are punished for it. Religion is still respected in PF, even though it doesn't seem that way on the surface.[/color]

[quote]That's a kind of farfetched perspective of the religious aspect in Pulp Fiction, I'll admit that, but the boot fits for me.[/quote][/color]

I'd agree it's a bit farfetched, and it's cool you're playing Marcellus' Advocate here. :p

[color=teal][quote]Agreed. Jules is the servant God, not because QT wanted him to be in correlation to the religious values, but because that's simply his character. The opening scene doesn't vibrate much one the fact that Jules is a religious man, you get the impression he's a normal guy doing a normal hit. His actions in the hotel with the dealer did reflect exactly the fundamental truth behind the Ezekiel 25:17, but he just didn't realise it. Later on in the diner, Jules' eyes were opened due the events that previously happened, namely the divine intervention, he knew the situation very well and only then was he able to personify the Ezekiel passage and what he wants to do in life because it finally smacked him in the face--it wasn't a tool for scaring people at all. Vincent is a very different matter though. Many teachers take huge responsibility of their disciples as they know they carry a huge burden, and mean to teach them well. In the diner, Vincent insisted so urgently to Jules that he either takes back his $1500 or he'll shoot Ringo on general principle, in a way, you could almost say that Vincent was trying to give Jules advice, but that's not the point. Vincent, the son of a preacher man, must have been guided by Jules' religious authority through out the course of his duty and so, should know better than to kill someone or have the intent to kill over money.[/quote][/color]

Exactly. The placement of the song, "Son of a Preacher Man," becomes more and more meaningful here.

[color=teal][quote]Butch I don't think holds any sort of religious implementation. Simply put, he just wants to settle down with his girlfriend and keep himself to himself. After all, I can't think of any man who'd want to save the devil, but his reasons are his own. He certainly isn't of any representative value as far as God goes because he aided the devil, befriended him in a way. The 666 is just superstition to me though, it could very well be that the devil is inside of the briefcase as whatever?s inside it is evil, or it could merely be an easy number to remember... but I feel the image of holiness and God stretch far beyond the possibilities of Pulp Fiction. It's fun to sit and chat about the messages and stuff, but I'd also like to appreciate the movie for what it is, too, so no disrespect there.[/quote][/color]

Butch isn't a value of God, nor is he of the Devil. He is a Lost Soul, inbetween of those Ideologies, conflicted. But he helps the Devil. Why? I think it's because even though the Devil is an evil creature, there is still far greater evil there, and Butch realizes this. In fact, after saving Marcellus, Butch is still unsure of what he should do. Look at how the shot is framed. Butch is standing behind Marcellus, samurai sword ready to swing. He even [i]asks[/i], "So...what's left for us?" Marcellus replies, "There is no 'us.'"

Also, though this may be stretching it a bit, but still makes sense in accordance with the religious theme, it appears that the God of PF is the vengeful God spoken of in the Old Testament, and perhaps the reason that Butch lives is because he kills the sodomites, Zed and Maynard. While he does aide the Devil, he still enacts the will of the OT God. Now, I realize this is really going into it here, but I think this point is worth merit.

EDIT INSERT: Yep. It is from the OT.

[url="http://www.quisdom.com/religion/R2517_ezekiel25-17.html"]PF and OT[/url]

[url=http://www.halexandria.org/dward194.htm]Sodom and Gomorrah and OT[/url]

[color=teal][quote]We have to remember how exactly Pulp Fiction was made and put together. All three stories were originally set to be separate films, but unfortunately that never worked out for him (I'm a bit hazy in that department, lol). With that, he decided to combine the three scripts together, adding some parts in and taking some out, and so, the non-linear adaptation of Pulp Fiction was created. Now, I don't know if Pulp Fiction reflects Tarantino's temperament on God, but I find it hard to believe that three totally different scripts and stories managed to share your view on God's presence. What I do know is that it's no coincidence, that's for sure.[/color][/QUOTE][color=black]That's not entirely accurate. While QT did write those stories separately, they were short stories. In fact, in the interview with QT on the Special Features DVD of Pulp Fiction, he explains how he wanted these short stories to link together. I'd go more into this but I've got to run out for a few minutes, then start work. But keep in mind that he still viewed those short stories as linking together. He makes a special point of talking about the significance of Vincent and Butch and how their stories intertwine.[/color]

[color=black]Also, if you haven't already, check out...[/color]

[color=black]Roger Ebert's "Secrets of Pulp Fiction"[/color]

[color=black]Shamal Kanter's "Pulp Midrash: Cinema as Sermon"[/color]

[color=black]They're both excellent articles about PF and its religious implications.[/color]

[BlueYoshi]

[color=teal]Interesting points. I'm prepared to leave that aside for now because we could go on all day. Instead, let me take your attention to yet another Biblical theory regarding what exactly is in the briefcase.

So I watched Pulp Fiction [i]again[/i] yesterday, only this time I had a broader span of Bible knowledge relevant to the aesthetic involvement of God.

Marcellus has a plaster on the back of his head. This is the one place that the Bible states where the Devil will drag your soul. Now, taking your remark about the code being '666', I decided to put it to use and accept that the Devil has some sort of revelation in the movie.

Marcellus sold his soul to the Devil, and he wanted it back, so he sent in Vincent and Jules (one might call these two 'God's helpers) to retrieve it for him. The four people who had his soul were the 'Devil's helpers', because their aim was to get it and ultimately pass it on to someone who would actually represent the Devil in PF, but we don't see that person.

According to the Bible, when you sell your soul to the Devil you will obtain infinite power and authority--Marcellus is a pretty powerful man when we see him in PF, it's him who gives the orders. Marcellus sent Vincent and Jules in to get his soul--to save his soul--from the Devil, thus explaining why they are both considered as God's helpers. Inevitably, the evil lose and the good win. When the guy in the bathroom unloaded on Vincent and Jules, he missed every single shot. Reason being that God came down and stopped the bullets... God didn't want them to die because hence, they were saving a soul. This was the divine intervention that they were heatedly discussing in the diner.

I hope that explains the possible outcome of the case (my interpretation anyway), and how the divine intervention was meant to be viewed. To sum it up, it's a battle between God and the Devil himself, but QT uses a very subliminal method about telling us this, and that's what's most compelling about it. It would be very dull if he sat there in an interview and explained what was supposed to be in the case, so I'd take it that some things are best left untold.[/color]

[Shiguru]

On the DVD commentary did Tarentino actually say anything about his movie being religous or based after Othello? Or is this all based on Fan Theories? This confuses me.

[Brasil]

[quote name='BlueYoshi][color=teal']Interesting points. I'm prepared to leave that aside for now because we could go on all day. Instead, let me take your attention to yet another Biblical theory regarding what exactly is in the briefcase. [/quote][/color]

[color=teal][color=black]Sure thing. Let's see what's on your mind.[/color]

[QUOTE]So I watched Pulp Fiction [i]again[/i] yesterday, only this time I had a broader span of Bible knowledge relevant to the aesthetic involvement of God.[/QUOTE][color=black]Hehe. I watched Pulp Fiction again a few days ago, to refresh my memory, too.[/color]

[QUOTE]Marcellus has a plaster on the back of his head. This is the one place that the Bible states where the Devil will drag your soul. Now, taking your remark about the code being '666', I decided to put it to use and accept that the Devil has some sort of revelation in the movie.[/QUOTE][color=black]I think it's actually a band-aid, but that's irrelevant. The focus of the discussion is that a covering is there. Could you point me to the particular passage of the Bible that says this? I couldn't find any mention of that particular information when I ran an online search of the Bible.[/color]

[QUOTE]Marcellus sold his soul to the Devil, and he wanted it back, so he sent in Vincent and Jules (one might call these two 'God's helpers) to retrieve it for him. The four people who had his soul were the 'Devil's helpers', because their aim was to get it and ultimately pass it on to someone who would actually represent the Devil in PF, but we don't see that person.[/QUOTE][color=black]Most of this seems reasonable, except the part about Jules and Vincent. Now, if we're to say that Marcellus sends Jules and Vincent to get his soul back from the Devil, and that Jules and Vincent could be called "God's Helpers," does that mean Marcellus is God? I'm not so sure there is enough in Pulp Fiction to support that claim, especially considering that God wouldn't smite an entire village for the errors of two.[/color]

[color=black]True, Zed and Maynard [i]were[/i] Sodomists, and Marcellus [i]does[/i] order the blowtorching of the entire neighborhood because of Zed and Maynard--I do like this parallel but just never picked up on it until now. God rained fire and sulfur and such down on Sodom and Gomorrah, and Marcellus pretty much does the same with blowtorches.[/color]

[color=#000000][i]But[/i], Sodom was populated with many sinners, and the neighborhood's Sodomists were only Zed and Maynard, so in accordance with the Biblical Ideologies, striking down Sodom for deviance was justified, while blowtorching/crowbarring an entire town simply due to Zed and Maynard is very extreme and rather unfeeling...very un-God-like of Marcellus, if he does in fact represent God.[/color]

[QUOTE]According to the Bible, when you sell your soul to the Devil you will obtain infinite power and authority--Marcellus is a pretty powerful man when we see him in PF, it's him who gives the orders. Marcellus sent Vincent and Jules in to get his soul--to save his soul--from the Devil, thus explaining why they are both considered as God's helpers. Inevitably, the evil lose and the good win. When the guy in the bathroom unloaded on Vincent and Jules, he missed every single shot. Reason being that God came down and stopped the bullets... God didn't want them to die because hence, they were saving a soul. This was the divine intervention that they were heatedly discussing in the diner.[/QUOTE][color=black]Okay, so then Vincent dies because he doubts God. I'm pretty sure we agree on that point, as your direction with the above quote indicates that.[/color]

[color=#000000]But where does Butch fit into all of this? If God and the Devil are not personified in PF, and if Vincent and Jules are doing God's work, striking down drug dealers, if Marcellus is simply caught in the middle, as it were, how would Butch be significant? He's a very significant character in and of himself. He is the Everyman, as it were...the...run-of-the-mill Average Joe caught in the middle of everything.[/color]

[color=#000000]I don't know if you considered Butch in your assessment, or even Mia. These are two characters that must be considered when talking about the religious implications/themes of PF, as they are significant roles in the film.[/color]

[quote]I hope that explains the possible outcome of the case (my interpretation anyway), and how the divine intervention was meant to be viewed. To sum it up, it's a battle between God and the Devil himself, but QT uses a very subliminal method about telling us this, and that's what's most compelling about it. It would be very dull if he sat there in an interview and explained what was supposed to be in the case, so I'd take it that some things are best left untold.[/color][/QUOTE][color=black]I found much of your interpretation to be solid, albeit a few points needing some clarification and/or further development/consideration.[/color]
[color=black] [/color]
[color=black]I certainly agree that PF is about the conflict between God and the Devil, but QT is a wily one in the specifics of it. :)[/color]
[color=black] [/color]
[color=black]Shigeru, uh...none of this is really mentioned anywhere in QT interviews, lol. I know I just really love delving into QT's work, because there's so much there to work with.[/color]
[color=black] [/color]
[color=black]Here's a neat point for anyone:[/color]
[color=black] [/color]
[color=black]QT has always been heavily criticized for the levels of violence in his films, noteably Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, and recently, Kill Bill. There are reviewers who call him obsessed with violence and unable to provide any different forms of entertainment.[/color]
[color=black] [/color]
[color=black]But what these reviewers fail to realize is, that his films are not about the violence itself, but merely the characters' reaction to that violence, and then the audience's reaction to both the character reaction and the initial violence on-screen.[/color]
[color=black] [/color]
[color=black]I think this is a driving factor in why the dialogue of QT films is what it is: natural.[/color]
[color=black] [/color]
[color=black]It seems safe to say that QT is not celebrating violence, instead criticizing the desensitization to violence inherent in society, through Jules and Vincent thinking nothing of gunning down a few drug dealers as they eat breakfast, in fact having a conversation about fast food on the way there, or Vincent and Lance arguing over how to inject an adrenaline needle into Mia's heart as she OD's.[/color]
[color=black] [/color]
[color=black]The violence is not about violence, surprisingly. It is about the [i]reaction[/i] to violence.[/color]

[James]

[color=#707875]Well, I've been following this discussion...I'm a bit late to this, so please bear with me. Also, I've only seen Pulp Fiction 1.5 times. lol

Anyway, regarding the briefcase thing first.

I think it has to be said that Quentin Tarantino hadn't ever specified what was actually in the briefcase. As far as I know, he had said something along the lines of "whatever you want it to be". To me, this suggests that he may never have specifically sat down and consciously thought "Okay, here's what's in the case but I'm not telling anyone".

[i]However[/i], among all the theories I've seen, I think the soul theory is the most plausible. These are the basic points that I've noticed, in reading discussions about this particular theory:

1) The band-aid on the back of Marsellus's head and the connection with the soul being removed from this spot. I haven't read the bible passage (and I don't know if it's even from the bible itself), but I think it's plausible enough, especially given the other factors.

2) Marsellus had sold his soul to the devil and he wanted it back. He sent Vincent and Jules to get it. They came across the three guys in the apartment, who were the "devil's helpers". Notice how the bullets missed Jules and this led Jules to believe that it was an act of God? Perhaps God showed mercy because Jules and Vincent were doing his work (ie: [i]literally [/i]saving a soul).

3) The "gold factor". Notice the golden glow that comes from the biefcase? And notice the gold that appears in the corner of the screen when Jules and Vincent shoot one of the guys in the apartment? Perhaps that signifies that his soul is leaving his body.

4) The "666" code is used [i]both [/i]on the briefcase and on the alarm in Mia's house.

Having said the above though, I do want to stress that I don't necessarily agree that Marsellus's soul is actually what's in the briefcase. I think it's most likely that "we aren't supposed to know because Tarantino himself doesn't know". But, out of all the ideas I've heard, the soul one is the most plausible to me.

In regard to the violence issue...I'll respond to that later, when my fingers aren't so tired from typing (posting on OB with a million AIM windows open is never fun ~_^).

EDIT: Before I go, did anyone here know that [spoiler]Mia and Vincent did not actually win the trophy in the twist competition? They stole it. I found that pretty interesting. ~_^[/spoiler]

EDIT 2: Okay, well...nobody's posted in the last day, so I might as well continue my post now. ~_^

Alex mentioned violence in Tarantino movies. And I think it's safe to say that Tarantino uses violence as his main subject matter. But if you look at movies like Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill in particular, I think you get the sense that the violence isn't just there for no reason.

With Pulp Fiction, I remember Tarantino actually saying that the film wasn't an endorsement of violence. In fact, Pulp Fiction demonstrates some of the consequences for violence, in ways that "less realistic" films may not.

In the case of Jules...he's kind of rewarded for "turning away from a life of crime and violence". But Vincent doesn't do that, and he's killed as a result. It seems to be a very stark contrast in terms of how each character ends up.

And with Mia, you could say that when she snorts heroin, she's being taught a lesson about careless drug-taking. I remember when I saw that part of the movie, I actually thought to myself "Wow, that'll discourage [i]anyone [/i]from taking drugs".

Violence is also a big issue in Natural Born Killers, which I didn't particularly enjoy. The movie deliberately glorifies violence, but does so in a way that actually insults mainstream society and its treatment of violence. When you see members of the public who actually seem to worship the serial-killers...and treat them like celebrities, you get a sense that something isn't quite right. The more violent scenes are punctuated with cartoon sequences, to avoid suspension of disbelief...to make you stand back from the carnage on screen and think about it rationally. Black and white sequences are also used in that same way.

So, I think talking about the violence and what it means is a good idea with Tarantino films. People like Bob Dole who say that he's just obsessed with killing...I think that's an over-simplification. Violence [i]isn't [/i]violence, as such -- we've seen, with Tarantino's films, that violence can be treated and assessed in a multitude of ways.[/color]

[BlueYoshi]

[quote name='James][color=#707875]And with Mia, you could say that when she snorts heroin, she's being taught a lesson about careless drug-taking. I remember when I saw that part of the movie, I actually thought to myself "Wow, that'll discourage [i]anyone [/i']from taking drugs".[/color][/quote]

[color=teal]That's interesting. I never put much thought into [i]why[/i] Mia was punished in the sense of snorting heroine; she certainly wasn't a derelicious character and besides actually snorting she was fairly innocent throughout the film.

Remember, the couple's date took place after Jules retired, and before [spoiler]Vincent was killed[/spoiler], which should state that Vincent was [i]already[/i] in the process of abandoning God's side. So in theory, Mia was punished for vulturing an independent man in the form of an over dose -- I thought she was lucky to have been alive, and if you fit that into context then you could say that she was given a second chance, with the first being a kind of warning.

I think that what I've rendered above fits conclusively, but part of it doesn't prove its own point to me. It was Marcellus who ordered Vincent to take his wife Mia out, meaning that Marcellus put his wife's hands in the temporary possession of a man who's not with God -- why would he do that? Maybe he was unaware of the consequences that awaited him, therefore paying them by suffering at the hands of the rapists... I'm still a bit weary on that subject.

Swiftly moving along, guess what? I watched Pulp Fiction [i]again[/i] a few nights ago and this time I was really into it. I paid attention to every little detail, I even subtitled the dialogue and read everything twice... I didn't miss a thing. And now, I've come up with yet another Biblical theory that's all relevant. Diverging from the briefcase matter, I've decided to call Pulp Fiction an "indirect translation of Ezekiel 25:17".

Here's why:

"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee." -- Ezekiel 25:17

Above is the original passage. Now, fork your mind and provide it with a comparison to the film in total. It should look something like below. Note that it's not in linear order regarding the events that took place in PF and is more in correlation to the Bible passage itself, but with a close eye it's a decent interpretation.

[spoiler]"Shepherds the weak" -- This occurs when Butch returns to Zed and Maynard with the intention of saving Marcellus. Marcellus was weak in his position because he was bound and beaten, even if he was the most powerful man in Inglewood he had nothing to back his cause.

"The finder of lost children" -- This refers to Jules. When the diner is stood up, Pumpkin and Honeybunny have basically thrown their lives away because Jules isn't the type of guy you'd want to mess with, his occupation speaks for himself, but the divine intervention that took place that morning made him think otherwise. As a result, he didn't kill them, instead he saved them and set them in the right direction. Above all, he gave his money away to them.

"And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers" -- Vincent. His attempt to kill Butch back-fired and he ended up as the victim. With Butch being the shepherd I don't think he was supposed to die, and so, his life was switched for Vincent's, the man who turned against God. This happened before the incident with the rapists however, thus Butch wasn't yet the shepherd but he was still entitled to his life.[/spoiler][/color]

[James]

[QUOTE=BlueYoshi][color=teal]I think that what I've rendered above fits conclusively, but part of it doesn't prove its own point to me. It was Marcellus who ordered Vincent to take his wife Mia out, meaning that Marcellus put his wife's hands in the temporary possession of a man who's not with God -- why would he do that? Maybe he was unaware of the consequences that awaited him, therefore paying them by suffering at the hands of the rapists... I'm still a bit weary on that subject.

[/color][/QUOTE]
[color=#707875]Well, at that point Vincent is with God. Like we've pretty much established, he and Jules were "doing God's work". This was before he essentially turned down the concept of divine intervention and everything that goes along with that.

But like I mentioned before - specifically in regard to the briefcase - I think that I'm definitely aligned with your theories about it, given what I've read elsewhere by so-called "Pulp Fiction experts". Although I do feel that many of these theories are overestimating the deliberate intent of the movie, there is [i]definitely [/i]quite a lot of merit to many of 'em.

I'd be interested to hear your take on the violence in Tarantino's films too (Pulp Fiction or otherwise). I'll let Alex respond to your spoilered stuff, since I think it's worthy of a more detailed, point-by-point analysis.[/color]

[BlueYoshi]

[color=teal]I'll do that. So far the only QT films that I remember and can interpret are Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, and Kill Bill -- we're aware of how violent they can get already. I'm going to need a bit more knowledge than that to put up a fair argument, or one that seems idealistic at least. I own True Romance but haven't seen it yet, and I feel obliged to watch Jackie Brown once more after five years.

I'll rent/watch as many QT films as I can this weekend, then it would be safe to say what's on my mind, eh?[/color]

[James]

[color=#707875]Well, I've only seen Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill and Natural Born Killers. But even if you've only seen just one of these films -- and if you've analysed it to some degree -- I think you can draw a conclusion about the violence in them. And obviously, there's no blanket conclusion; each film uses it differently. So yeah, I haven't seen all of his movies, but I'm able to comment on the ones I [i]have [/i]seen.

By all means though, it's good to have as rounded a knowledge as you can about the subject matter. ^_^[/color]

[BlueYoshi]

[color=teal]I guess so. This is mainly coherent to Kill Bill and you have to remember that QT [I]strongly[/I] condemns violence. I wouldn't prefer to see the blood and gore as melodrama if anything, I feel there's a much stronger sensation to it than that.

As you may already know, some critics tend to find the amount of violence in QT's films as obnoxious. When I watch these films though, I don't get disturbed by the level of black humour, because that's essentially what it is; most of the time I found myself laughing during the violent parts as I always detected a hint of comedy deep down in them. I could enumerate each one if you like, but the list would go on forever.

I don't want to criticize the mass-violence featured in his films, nor do I think it's sensible to do so. You have to look at the directional work that has been fulfilled if you want to grow to love and understand his methods. It took QT one year to write one specific fight scene in Kill Bill and the scene where The Bride takes on The Crazy 88 took eight weeks to shoot. How can you complain about that? If a man takes his work to heart, whatever concept it may reveal or mask, then it can't be kosher to drag him down.

"I wanted to make the most exciting sequence in cinema." -- QT about Kill Bill? If violence is what it takes to do this then so be it. After all, it's not only a job, but a form of expressionism, like art and just the way Pulp Fiction was.[/color]

[James]

[color=#707875]You're absolutely right about the comedy, I think. It's the kind of thing that you'll either appreciate, or not understand.

In regard to Kill Bill specifically, I had heard about how violent it was before I went and saw it. And to some degree it surprised me, but not simply because it was violent. There was something about the violence that was different from, say, The Matrix. With The Matrix, you have this gorgeous choreography and beautiful movements of the body...it's very artistic and anime-esque. But Kill Bill is a much heavier, grittier type of action...in the sense that you get the feeling that every punch [i]really hurts[/i]. lol

The first fight in Kill Bill is particularly like that, for me. The thud when they land on the floor never ceases to get my heart racing. It's just...cool. It grabs your attention, it [i]feels [/i]realistic.

And yet at the same time, the fights generally have that weird, camp quality to them (particularly the GoGo fight, as well as the Crazy 88 fight). In the end it creates something that is less about violence and more about artistry, in my opinion. The Crazy 88 fight looked particularly difficult to film and considering that Tarantino had never done an action movie before...I think he's shown that he can handle action brilliantly well.

And of course, nobody can ignore the work that Kill Bill is based on. I think that plays an important role, because then it's not just a matter of saying "He did it because he could"; it becomes a question of how true he is to the subject matter on which the movie is based. And it really becomes a genre study I guess.

There's so much more to say about Kill Bill though, in terms of the violence. Same goes for all of the other movies. I think Pulp Fiction definitely has that dark humor undertone to everything it does, at least in terms of the violent content.

There's also a kind of..."hyper-realism" to the violence in that movie, you know what I mean? It's hard to describe though. I remember Tarantino saying that Kill Bill is a movie that the characters in his [i]other [/i]movies might see, should they visit a cinema. Kill Bill is a "hyper-hyper-reality", at least according to Tarantino. And Pulp Fiction itself is almost like a comic book version of reality, at least in a mild sense.

I kind of feel like I've twisted around in a circle there, so I hope that makes sense. lol

By the way, Yoshi, do you like my new signature? I thought I'd jump from Kill Bill to Pulp Fiction. ~_^[/color]

[BlueYoshi]

[color=teal]Heh, I can recognize that. It's the scene were Mia and Vincent return to her house after their date at that 50's style restaurant, right? It shows that Vincent genuinely enjoyed his night out as opposed to having been forced to doing it by his boss, hence when he walked through the door in a waltz position with Mia. Short but sweet. ^_^

Funny that you made the comparison to The Matrix. QT was told that the scene where The Bride massacres The Crazy 88 was very similar to Neo's fight with the horde of Smith's. I don't think he can emphasize enough that Kill Bill was inspired mostly by Hong Kong cinema and had absolutely nothing to do with The Matrix. Also, the fact that every member of The Crazy 88 wore black suits, just as the Smith's do, shouldn't make The Matrix open for discussion anyway. QT said that when he thinks of the black suits, he thinks Reservoir Dogs (Mr. White, Mr. Blonde, Mr. Orange, etc), he thinks Pulp Fiction (Vincent and Jules). Don't know about Jackie Brown, heh, sorry.

Of the many things I love about his films, one's got to be the Mexican stand-offs. They're one of the many areas that you can find the comedic value of the violence. Love 'em.

Reservoir Dogs...

[img]http://www.pg.ru/dogs/images/res26.jpg[/img]

Pulp Fiction...

[img]http://www.gorenight.com/movies/pulpf/data/pf8.jpg[/img]

True Romance...[/color]

[img]http://www.hometheaterforum.com/ronsreviews/true12.jpg[/img]

EDIT: Found the True Romance pic. ^_^

[James]

[QUOTE=BlueYoshi][color=teal]Funny that you made the comparison to The Matrix. QT was told that the scene where The Bride massacres The Crazy 88 was very similar to Neo's fight with the horde of Smith's. I don't think he can emphasize enough that Kill Bill was inspired mostly by Hong Kong cinema and had absolutely nothing to do with The Matrix. Also, the fact that every member of The Crazy 88 wore black suits, just as the Smith's do, shouldn't make The Matrix open for discussion anyway. QT said that when he thinks of the black suits, he thinks Reservoir Dogs (Mr. White, Mr. Blonde, Mr. Orange, etc), he thinks Pulp Fiction (Vincent and Jules). Don't know about Jackie Brown, heh, sorry.

[/color][/QUOTE]
[color=#707875]I wouldn't compare The Matrix and Kill Bill [i]at all [/i]in terms of saying that the two are similar. They aren't. They are 100% different from one another.

That is precisely why I mentioned The Matrix; to use it as a basis from which to describe how Kill Bill provides something different (since The Matrix has really already established many "traditions" for fight scenes in movies). So yeah, it was about a point of difference...not a similarity.

Oh and...Mexian stand-offs are great, agreed. ~_^

You got the banner thing right, too. I'd have made it longer, but I couldn't be bothered. ^_^[/color]

[BlueYoshi]

[img]http://tarantino.webds.de/tarantino/movie/gloriousbastards/bastards.jpg[/img]

[color=teal]Have you guys heard of QT's new film, Inglorious Bastards? I think this is the one he decided to scrap for Kill Bill, but it looks like he's back in it again. Again, IB is written and directed by QT with production being a joint effort of him and Lawrence Bender.

Nothing has been said about the plot-hole as of now, only a brief statement from everythingtarantino.com that's more of a synopsis: "During the time of WWII, U.S. soldiers who are about to be executed, are offered a chance at reprieve. Despite some rumours, this film is not a remake of the 1977 Bo Svenson movie also titled Inglorious Bastards (that particular movie was also known as Counterfeit Commandos, Deadly Mission, G.I. Bro, and Hell's Heroes)." I'd like to see how a WWII film would glimmer in his collection of gangster models, and if we'll get the chance to see the same gore galore detail as in those films.

The film should be released in cinemas in the closing section of 2004, so a DVD release would be in order for the first/second quarter of 2005, hopefully. As usual, Michael Madsen will make an appearance, so will Bo Svenson, and someone new to the scene... Adam Sandler. o.O It may have something to do with the fact that QT attended his wedding, or he could very well be a prop to add to his streak of dark humour in hope of him complimenting it.

Seems promising all in all; one and a half QT films in one year, his quickest yet. Can't wait.[/color]

[James]

[color=#707875]I generally [i]really [/i]dislike war films, even good war films. lol

So, that's probably a good thing, because this movie can possibly serve to change that point of view. It's great to see that it'll be out this year, too.

I'm actually glad that Kill Bill was released in two volumes, rather than one condensed film, because I think it gave me something to look forward to (ie: a few months of waiting for Volume II's cinema debut). And now that another Tarantino movie is arriving by the end of the year, it gives me something else to watch out for.

I've also been doing a bit of trailer-hunting lately...I downloaded the trailers for Reservoir Dogs and Jackie Brown. I'd never seen anything about Reservoir Dogs before, so the trailer was very welcome...it gives me even more incentive to go out there and find the DVD. ~_^

Has anyone here seen Jackie Brown? I'm interested to know what people's opinions are on that, because I think it looks like a really fun movie (but I have yet to see it).[/color]

[Brasil]

[quote name='BlueYoshi][color=teal]That's interesting. I never put much thought into [i]why[/i'] Mia was punished in the sense of snorting heroine; she certainly wasn't a derelicious character and besides actually snorting she was fairly innocent throughout the film.[/quote][/color]

[color=teal][color=black]One could say that she was punished because she was irresponsible in consumption.[/color]

[QUOTE]Remember, the couple's date took place after Jules retired, and before [spoiler]Vincent was killed[/spoiler], which should state that Vincent was [i]already[/i] in the process of abandoning God's side. [b]So in theory, Mia was punished for vulturing an independent man in the form of an over dose[/b] -- I thought she was lucky to have been alive, and if you fit that into context then you could say that she was given a second chance, with the first being a kind of warning.[/QUOTE][color=black]I have a problem with this, simply because I don't think it's reasonable to view Mia's overdose as a temptation for Vincent's fall. Throughout Pulp Fiction, we are almost smacked in the face with Mia as the Forbidden Fruit, the temptress, the seductress. Look don't touch, etc. While the needle going into her heart can be interpreted as a penetration of an almost sexual nature, which I feel is a rather reasonable interpretation, the penetration of the needle during the OD scene is not one of carnal desire, but more of a desire to [i]save[/i], hence the song's, "The only one who could ever reach me was the Son of a Preacher Man."[/color]

[color=#000000][i]In fact[/i], check out the lyrics to the song and there's an interesting parallel in terms of Kill Bill and Uma:[/color]

[color=black][quote][b]Bill[/b]y Ray was a preacher's son[/color]

[color=#000000][...][/color]
[color=black]
Bein' good isn't always easy
No matter how hard I try
When he started sweet - talkin' to me
He'd come'n tell me "Everything is all right"
He'd kiss and tell me "Everything is all right"
Can I get away again tonight?

[...]

How well I remember
The look that was in his eyes
Stealin' kisses from me on the sly
Takin' time to make time
Tellin' me that he's all mine
Learnin' from each other's knowin'
Lookin' to see how much we've grown and[/quote]QT does describe Bill as a Pimp in the Press Notes found in a PDF file on the Kill Bill Vol. 2 website. Bill is fairly seductive...and the "Billy" of this song, played for Uma's character in PF...is this coincidence? Just a neat parallel I just noticed.

I do agree about the "second chance" point. It's very clear that Mia has been brought back from the dead and given another chance to live her life better.
[/color]
[QUOTE]I think that what I've rendered above fits conclusively, but part of it doesn't prove its own point to me. It was Marcellus who ordered Vincent to take his wife Mia out, meaning that Marcellus put his wife's hands in the temporary possession of a man who's not with God -- why would he do that? Maybe he was unaware of the consequences that awaited him, therefore paying them by suffering at the hands of the rapists... I'm still a bit weary on that subject.[/QUOTE][color=black]I'm not too sure about that, either. The fact that both Mia and Marcellus live shakes that argument up a bit, and further, Vincent dying. If there was to be true holy retribution for endangering the lives of those you care about, Marcellus would be dead. But then again, when we see the story of Abraham in the OT, and how he placed his faith in God above everything else, things worked out okay.[/color]

[color=#000000]And has Vincent fallen yet at that point in the film? Remember that Marcellus asks Vincent to show his wife a good time long before Pulp Fiction ever happens. This is evidenced by the conversation between Jules and Vincent before they slaughter the drug dealers during breakfast. I think it's safe to say that Marcellus had requested Vincent's help the week before, as those involved in the business all know about it, even the bartender.[/color]

[color=#000000]So, when Marcellus asks him, Vincent is still relatively "good." He hasn't fallen yet, but he does fall. He falls hard. Because Vincent is still the Prodigal Son, Marcellus is in the clear, I think.[/color]

[QUOTE]Swiftly moving along, guess what? I watched Pulp Fiction [i]again[/i] a few nights ago and this time I was really into it. I paid attention to every little detail, I even subtitled the dialogue and read everything twice... I didn't miss a thing. And now, I've come up with yet another Biblical theory that's all relevant. Diverging from the briefcase matter, I've decided to call Pulp Fiction an "indirect translation of Ezekiel 25:17".

Here's why:[/QUOTE][color=black]Interesting. Let's see.[/color]

[QUOTE] "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee." -- Ezekiel 25:17

Above is the original passage. Now, fork your mind and provide it with a comparison to the film in total. It should look something like below. Note that it's not in linear order regarding the events that took place in PF and is more in correlation to the Bible passage itself, but with a close eye it's a decent interpretation.[/QUOTE][quote][spoiler]"Shepherds the weak" -- This occurs when Butch returns to Zed and Maynard with the intention of saving Marcellus. Marcellus was weak in his position because he was bound and beaten, even if he was the most powerful man in Inglewood he had nothing to back his cause.

"The finder of lost children" -- This refers to Jules. When the diner is stood up, Pumpkin and Honeybunny have basically thrown their lives away because Jules isn't the type of guy you'd want to mess with, his occupation speaks for himself, but the divine intervention that took place that morning made him think otherwise. As a result, he didn't kill them, instead he saved them and set them in the right direction. Above all, he gave his money away to them.

"And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers" -- Vincent. His attempt to kill Butch back-fired and he ended up as the victim. With Butch being the shepherd I don't think he was supposed to die, and so, his life was switched for Vincent's, the man who turned against God. [b]This happened before the incident with the rapists however, thus Butch wasn't yet the shepherd but he was still entitled to his life.[/[/b]spoiler][/color][/QUOTE][color=black]The "lost children" interpretation is solid. No doubt about that.[/color]

[color=black]However, regarding Butch as the Shepherd, I bolded the sentence that weakens the interpretation. If Butch does not become the Shepherd until after he kills Vincent (specifically, saves Marcellus), then Vincent going to kill him would not affect the outcome.[/color]

[color=black]The Gold Watch needs consideration here, because Butch Idolizes the Gold Watch. To him, the watch is more important than anything else in his apartment. Think Golden Calf in the Bible. Think the Second Commandment.[/color]

[color=black]At this point in the film, Butch is equally guilty of blasphemy, as it were.[/color]

[color=black]Now, why does Vincent die and not Butch?[/color]

[color=black][quote]The book that Vincent reads is "Modesty Blaise", by 'Peter O'Donnell' . In that book, a killer indulges in a Biblical rant very similar to that of [/color][url="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000168/"][color=black]Samuel L. Jackson[/color][/url][color=black]'s character.[/quote] [/color]
[color=black]Perhaps Vincent dies because he is reading a text that glorifies killing and also exploits religion, similar to how Jules once did before the Divine Intervention. When Jules retires, the proper interpretation of the Jeremiad (very passionate and threatening Biblical speech) no longer has any...what's the word...staying power, I suppose, in Vincent's life, hence reading Modesty Blaise.[/color]

[color=black]It's incredibly late, and I'll clarify my points sometime tomorrow if need be.[/color]
[color=black] [/color]
[color=black]EDIT: I now know what I was trying to say here, lol.[/color]
[color=black] [/color]
[color=black]If we're going by "right to life," then Vincent would have an even greater right, as he saved Mia's life previously. Considering, also, he was still acting on the Side of God, while Butch was making a deal with Marcellus, who is certainly acting along the side of the Devil.[/color]
[color=black] [/color]
[color=black]So, if you're going to argue that Butch lives simply because "right to life," then Vincent clearly should have lived, because he has, at that point in the story, done much more good than Butch has. In fact, Butch treats his girlfriend like **** when she forgets the Gold Watch, further establishing Butch as an Idolator.[/color]