Newsgroups: uchi.cs.cs350 Path: uchinews!ellis!esti From: esti@ellis.uchicago.edu (Paul A. Estin) Subject: Pulp Fiction (was Re: i finished dancing and am now back...) X-Nntp-Posting-Host: midway.uchicago.edu Message-ID: Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator) Reply-To: esti@midway.uchicago.edu Organization: U. Michigan Cognitive Psychology References: Distribution: uchi Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 18:06:55 GMT In article , wrote: >i have a list of reasons why i think pulp fiction is a bad movie. mostly >it relates to my political affiliations. if somebody would like to have >a flame war--please, feel welcome to start a new thread, i'll be happy to >elaborate on the subject. but i don't think this thread is appropriate >for this. In a nutshell, I'm a "moderate" when it comes to Pulp Fiction, siding with neither its haters nor its religious devotees. I saw it, I enjoyed it, but I didn't think it was all that great a movie. Too alienating, too "clever for the sake of cleverness"-- great surface glitter, but without a heart. Since I already wrote a short article on "Pulp Fiction" (to a mailing list I'm on) back in Februrary, I might as well repost that here. ---begin include file--- (Message inbox:9810) From: "Paul Estin" Subject: "Good because it's different" & Pulp Fiction Date: Wed, 22 Feb 95 14:06:34 -0500 ...I wanted to post about different ways that a show/book/etc. can be "good". The usual two definitions mentioned are (1) entertaining, fun, enjoyable, and (2) of high quality, deeper themes, greater value, thought-provoking, etc. (These are not mutually exclusive, of course, nor do I want to take away from the value of "mere entertainment"-- it's a damn hard thing to pull off well, and worth appreciating when it comes along.) However, there's also a third definition of "good" that I sometimes use. It's the sense that sometimes something is good because it's distinctive, bold, new and different (at least to a given person). Concrete examples: Grant Morrison's run on the comic book "Animal Man", the musical group "Brave Combo" (described by Jim as "nuclear polka"), and most recently, Quentin Torentino's movie "Pulp Fiction". In each of these cases, the work is certainly more than "merely entertaining," yet I hesitate to ascribe to it the "deeper themes" that I've seen others do. Take "Pulp Fiction", for example. The coolest thing it has going for it, aside from "mere entertainment" aspects like fun dialogue, is the weird temporal structure. There are basically four stories in the movie. (For those who've seen the film, Story 1 is the one with Harvey Keitel in it, Story 2 is the diner scene, Story 3 is the John Travolta and Uma Thurman one, and Story 4 is the tale with Bruce Willis as the boxer.) Rather than being presented in chronological order, the movie starts with a prelude (the start of Story 2), then skips on to Story 3, then Story 4, then back to Story 1, before concluding with the rest of Story 2. It's "thought-provoking" in the sense that, while watching, one is trying to fit together the proper chronology. (Hint: check out the clothes, and recall also that if a character dies in one scene and then reappears, the latter scene comes earlier in the chronology. :-) "Pulp Fiction" also has something in the way of "deeper themes" because of the odd double-meaning and foreshadowing that inevitably occurs when scenes are out of sequence. (I'm reminded of the Berke Breathed joke in the Bloom County comic strip: "Foreshadowing: your key to quality literature.") But its themes aren't all *that* deep, and I think they've been blown out of proportion by some of its supporters who want for it to get the Best Picture Oscar. (Admittedly, I don't think "Forrest Gump" deserves it either, but I'll cover *that* topic in a later post.) I'm reminded also of the musical play "Merrily We Roll Along", in which the scenes take place in reverse chronological order, to great effect. But there, too, it's not all *that* great a work of art; it's virtue comes primarily out of being "different". This is not to say that a work of art can't be both groundbreaking *and* good-in-a-deeper sense. "Citizen Kane" is an oft-cited example. Indeed, there are a large number of works that not only are famed for setting up new standards, but which also are great works that stand up over time. But I think it's important to separate out a work's ability to "break the mold" from its deeper thematic greatness (if any) and both, in turn, from "how entertaining it is." Comments? -Paul ---end include file--- Newsgroups: uchi.cs.cs350 Path: uchinews!rainbow.uchicago.edu!rwzehner From: rwzehner@rainbow.uchicago.edu (rob zehner) Subject: Re: Pulp Fiction (was Re: i finished dancing and am now back...) X-Nntp-Posting-Host: rainbow.uchicago.edu Message-ID: Sender: rwzehner@rainbow Organization: Poor Graduate Students of America References: Distribution: uchi Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 02:36:45 GMT In article , Paul A. Estin wrote: >I'm reminded also of the musical play "Merrily We Roll Along", in >which the scenes take place in reverse chronological order, to great >effect. But there, too, it's not all *that* great a work of art; it's >virtue comes primarily out of being "different". Interesting comparison. "Merrily," in the opinion of many theatre critics, is one of the worst musicals ever written. We produced it three years ago at University of Richmond, with a revamped script and score which Sondheim did after it flopped on Broadway. You're right about the effect. The ending, taken by itself, is incredibly happy (in contrast to the rest of the musical). When you realize that it happens BEFORE everything else, however, it is one of the saddest moments in musical theatre. I still appreciate "Merrily" for that, in spite of the horrible libretto and annoying Sondheim dissonance. I would say that "Pulp Fiction" is a different beast. There, the temporal mix-up is only part of what makes it a great film (and a small part at that). I think I like the film so much because it so effectively satirizes itself, and the entire shoot-em-up, action genre. Also, Tarrantino writes the best dialogue this side of Mamet or Pinter. But, hey, it a pretty bloody, violent film, and I can understand if people can't get past that. - With my two cents and more - Rob Newsgroups: uchi.cs.cs350 Path: uchinews!kimbark!esti From: esti@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Paul A. Estin) Subject: Re: Pulp Fiction (was Re: i finished dancing and am now back...) X-Nntp-Posting-Host: midway.uchicago.edu Message-ID: Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator) Reply-To: esti@midway.uchicago.edu Organization: U. Michigan Cognitive Psychology References: Distribution: uchi Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 06:03:55 GMT Interesting notes on "Merrily". As for the rest... Rob: > I would say that "Pulp Fiction" is a different beast. There, the >temporal mix-up is only part of what makes it a great film (and a small part >at that). I think I like the film so much because it so effectively satirizes >itself, and the entire shoot-em-up, action genre. Not sure I quite understand this. There is certainly a tongue-in-cheek tone to the movie-- PF seems oddly half-self-aware of itself, at times-- but I didn't particularly see that as *satire*. Maybe you mean something different by "satire" than I understand the term, or maybe I just haven't seen enough genre films to appreciate the satire (though that seems unlikely). >Also, Tarantino writes the >best dialogue this side of Mamet or Pinter. The dialogue is indeed wonderful. >But, hey, it a pretty bloody, >violent film, and I can understand if people can't get past that. Mmm... that really wasn't the problem for me. (Indeed, I was a little worried about myself after I saw the film, by the fact that I *wasn't* bothered by the violence-- have I become that desensitized?) Rather-- and this may just be personal taste-- I seem to need some viewpoint character to relate to, and PF's characters all seem calculatedly stand-offish. Also, I didn't even realize that the supposed theme of the film concerned Jules' "moment of truth", until I read that afterward. If that was indeed a central point of the film, it didn't come across well at all, IMHO. That's why I wrote earlier that PF lacked depth. Paul Andrew Estin "Haiku's inventor U. Michigan Cognitive Psychology must have had seven fingers estin@umich.edu on his middle hand."