inherit
Elvis has left the building
9443
0
324
Gandalf the Fabulous
716
Oct 12, 2017 11:02:40 GMT
October 2017
gandalfthefabulous
|
Post by Gandalf the Fabulous on Mar 19, 2018 10:26:23 GMT
Might want to start asking those questions then, being taught something is objective truth while not being taught the why of it isn't so much education as it is indoctrination. Groovy, but that's not what I described at all. I gave one of the reasons for its popularity in my first post on the subject. It hits all the crucial storytelling points with precision, and it manages to do it out of order. Well yeah you do assert that but did not explain how it does that, as I said in my response to your post I really have no idea what the overarching narrative of the movie is supposed to be? To me it is really more a collection of short stories with the loose connecting theme that they all contain people wrapped up in a seedy underbelly of crime. What is the overarching narrative of Pulp Fiction and how does it nail all the crucial storytelling points? It is not enough to merely assert something, the hows and the whys need to be taught to truly understand it.
|
|
inherit
M'lady of Fine Arts
434
0
4,610
Lady Artifice
1,835
August 2016
ladyartifice
|
Post by Lady Artifice on Mar 19, 2018 17:25:50 GMT
Groovy, but that's not what I described at all. I gave one of the reasons for its popularity in my first post on the subject. It hits all the crucial storytelling points with precision, and it manages to do it out of order. Well yeah you do assert that but did not explain how it does that, as I said in my response to your post I really have no idea what the overarching narrative of the movie is supposed to be? To me it is really more a collection of short stories with the loose connecting theme that they all contain people wrapped up in a seedy underbelly of crime. What is the overarching narrative of Pulp Fiction and how does it nail all the crucial storytelling points? It is not enough to merely assert something, the hows and the whys need to be taught to truly understand it. What I found fun about it is that it's like a puzzle. There is an overarching narrative, but you have to search a little bit through the events as they appear onscreen to figure out the chronological order. There are two different plot threads and two characters that are the most important, that of Jules and Butch. I'm super not going to break down the chronological order of events because that would take forever, but that kind of stuff can be found online. In terms of what it's about: The most prominent consensus is that Pulp Fiction is about meaning, value, authority, and the arbitrary nature of all three. It's about nihilism versus a sense of purpose. We enter this world though Jules and Vince, both of whom relate to the world around them exclusively through popular culture, their primary topics of discussion when we meet them. The movie is awash in a sea of Americana--gimmick versus meaning. Jules in particular is subject to it. He quotes the bible (as written by Tarantino) at his targets, but it means nothing to him. He sees it as something cool to say before he kills someone, with the added futility that because he does it to people he's going to kill, there's no one to learn from it, nothing is gained. Jules and Vince have no context for meaning in their lives beyond what Marcellus dictates. Vince is frantic to save Mia not because she's a person and her life has value inherently but because Marcellus has dictated that it has value. The briefcase is similar. What's inside doesn't matter, because it's important only insofar as Marcellus deems it important. Marcellus is fundamentally god in the little world the movie inhabits. Until he isn't. His authority is stolen as easily as if it had never been by a redneck in a security uniform--a little additional symbol of arbitrary authority. The only characters who manage to free themselves from this system of meaninglessness are Jules and Butch, and they're also the ones who have the most acute awareness of its problems. Butch defies the system even while seeming very cynical about it: "I'm an American, honey. Our names don’t mean shit.” He can't quite escape it altogether, after all. The watch is another thing of arbitrary value. It's just a stupid watch, but its connection to his father together with the suffering endured to keep it and bring it to him gives it immense importance. The topic of names and meanings comes up all the time, for the record. Royale with cheese, Garcon means boy. The characters endlessly discuss the meaning and quality of mundane things. There's a lot more discussion out there, and some differences of opinion about the symbolism of the briefcase, but it's a lot to summarize quickly. Edit: It's also important to keep in mind that it doesn't really need any of these larger meanings if you don't want to see them. Your perception is important. If all you see is a bizarre compilation of lurid stories and snappy dialogue, that's great. It's that too.
|
|
inherit
M'lady of Fine Arts
434
0
4,610
Lady Artifice
1,835
August 2016
ladyartifice
|
Post by Lady Artifice on Mar 19, 2018 18:35:31 GMT
I do consider it a great film, but I don't care enough to put effort into convincing other people of it. Like what you like. For what it's worth, I keep making resolutions to be more like Jeremiah (^For obvious reasons), but I can't ever seem to manage it.
|
|
inherit
Mr. Rump
46
0
8,983
Lavochkin
6,785
August 2016
lavochkin
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Lavochkin on Mar 19, 2018 18:53:35 GMT
I preferred Gump Fiction over Pulp Fiction.
(Fun fact: Phil Lamarr is in both)
|
|
inherit
ღ Twelfth Level Geek
139
0
8,895
Jeremiah12LGeek
Mostly silly, occasionally useful.
2,987
August 2016
jeremiah12thlvlgeek
Bottom
|
Post by Jeremiah12LGeek on Mar 19, 2018 22:12:05 GMT
I do consider it a great film, but I don't care enough to put effort into convincing other people of it. Like what you like. For what it's worth, I keep making resolutions to be more like Jeremiah (^For obvious reasons), but I can't ever seem to manage it. Oh, this does not sound like a good idea! 8O
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
6
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2018 2:18:59 GMT
Disappointing. A simple question and nobody has posted a reason why they like it on two pages. Just some people asserting, without cause given, that it's great. FWIW, I found the movie forgettable. Didn't appeal to me at all. So yeah, it's a complete mystery to me what people like in it. I thought maybe some answers would appear here in this thread, so I could at least unterstand it on a theoretical level, but no... Disappointing. Fair enough. I’ll try to answer that. Disclaimer: I don’t feel any urge to “defend” this movie or try to convert anybody into liking it. I value Pulp Fiction highly, but I am not slighted if somebody somewhere thinks it’s boring, overrated, stupid or whatever. Also, if the film doesn’t resonate with you on the surface, I doubt that any convoluted analysis will improve your viewing experience, but I can see, why it is interesting to know why others value different things in life. It’s a brilliant film and Tarantino’s only masterpiece. I admit that almost grudgingly, because otherwise I find Tarantino and rest of his oeuvre to be technically competent, but loathsome and cynical (or actually I have to take that back a bit, since Jackie Brown is alright. Very likeable and subtle, but rambling, unfocused and too long. Good film if not great. I have seen Reservoir Dogs only once, it didn’t leave much of an impression, and I have no desire to watch it again. I wasn’t annoyed, repulsed, or bored so that makes it ok I suppose. Everything after Jackie Brown has only evoked varying mixtures of those three emotions). Witty dialog, charming characters, instantly memorable scenes, dark humor, superb acting, fitting soundtrack, stylish direction. These qualities alone would make Pulp Fiction a good movie, but it has a serious side, which elevates it into a great movie. Lady Artifice posted a valid and insightful interpretation for the underlying narrative and its meaning. The interpretation I have is somewhat different from what she provided, but I don’t see any contradiction in that great works are open for many different interpretations, which all can be simultaneously coherent and valid. Rather that usually is a mark of interesting and multilayered works. I am not a film scholar or well versed in the subject, so I take her word that it's the consensus among film aficionados. Once I heard description, that the movie is about greatness of soul at the end of history. I find it to be very apt portrayal of the overarching narrative of movie. It’s set in the midst of the criminal underclass of a decadent society. This environment is a meaningless postmodern sewer, homogenizing global commercial culture in tandem with emancipated limitless materialistic hedonism. Nietzsche’s Last Man is the ideal, to which inhabits of this environment seem to aspire. Desire for sensory and carnal pleasures, self-preservation and pursuit of comfort reigns sovereign. It’s dehumanizing and even dangerous for all participants, as other humans seem to be mere instruments for further base pleasures, just one extra variable in hedonistic calculus. All about how much you can screw other people while getting away with it (sometimes literally), for money, sex, dominance, sadism, drugs, etc. It’s telling that almost all locations, character motivations, dialog between them are either about or related to 1) eating, specifically fast food or takeaway of some sort, and shitting 2) anything you can gulp down, inhale, snort or inject into your body 3) robbing or defrauding others for financial gain 4) trying to cover your track for the reason of self-preservation 5) dominating and demeaning others for sadistic pleasure, relating to other forms of usury 6) pursuing sex, consensual or non-consensual, extramarital or not, doesn’t make much difference when maximizing pleasure is the highest goal, and the most virtuous act for rational hedonist is sacrificing present pleasures for future pleasures. This end of history is the point, from which all the characters start. However, it’s not just about wallowing in the cool allure postmodern degeneration, nihilism, and corrosive individualism, as two main characters have their turning points. Or “moment of clarity” as Jules describes it brilliantly, as him and Butch manage transcendence this Gehenna of casual and meaningless self-indulgence. Even if all three main characters start from very similar place, their fundamental character drives determinate their arcs and how and where they end up. All have their charms and are intelligent and capable of men. Difference is that Vincent is entirely driven by his desires, Jules is a spiritual man, and decides to follow spiritual path when it conflicts with his material desires. Butch is honor-driven to the point, that he’s willing to risk his own life for preserving honor, something which would be totally alien to almost anyone but Jules in the world of Pulp Fiction (if I didn’t know better, they represent Platonic trichotomy of the soul). Character arcs of Jules and Butch are about that greatness of human soul overcoming and ascending bleak environment they are in, while it inevitably drowns Vincent. All the scenes, details in the movie carry, reinforce or focus themes and story arcs of these three, and there’s nothing out of place or unnecessary. It all connects, and the non-linear story structure is necessity for the story, not just some gimmick to make the movie appear to be more deeper or cleverer than it is. Samuel L. Jackson's speech at the diner had to be the end. Anything after that would've been a downer or anticlimactic (you know the one, in which he connects all the dots, and sees through his own self-deceptions and rationalizations, that his criminal life has been just a tool of “the tyranny of evil men.”). It was also a point in story in which Vincent Vega had to be present, but his random and callous end had to be in the story as well. I could talk about each individual scenes separately, and how they relate to overarching narrative, but this is getting long and going analyzing each scene would be pretty redundant. Like how in the initial dialog between Jules and Vincent, after touring great European metropolises for three years, the only thing Vincent seems to relate is fast food, alcohol and drugs. How Jules has aesthetic and moral considerations for the food he consumes, as he refuses to eat pork. How Butch decides second time to take a potentially life-threatening risk for the sake of honor. Not just out of affection for the man or human life in general (he didn't have much qualms about injuring or killing the very same man just moments before), not to mention who was and could still be his enemy, by storming the BDSM dungeon with a perfect symbol for honor over the death, the samurai sword.
|
|
Duelist
N3
Winston/Reinhardt Main
PSN: Rogue_276
Posts: 796 Likes: 958
inherit
37
0
Dec 17, 2023 22:13:27 GMT
958
Duelist
Winston/Reinhardt Main
796
August 2016
duelist
Rogue_276
|
Post by Duelist on Mar 20, 2018 4:00:12 GMT
Honestly, I like anything with Samuel L Jackson so naturally I liked Pulp Fiction.
|
|
inherit
Elvis has left the building
9443
0
324
Gandalf the Fabulous
716
Oct 12, 2017 11:02:40 GMT
October 2017
gandalfthefabulous
|
Post by Gandalf the Fabulous on Mar 20, 2018 4:43:46 GMT
Well yeah you do assert that but did not explain how it does that, as I said in my response to your post I really have no idea what the overarching narrative of the movie is supposed to be? To me it is really more a collection of short stories with the loose connecting theme that they all contain people wrapped up in a seedy underbelly of crime. What is the overarching narrative of Pulp Fiction and how does it nail all the crucial storytelling points? It is not enough to merely assert something, the hows and the whys need to be taught to truly understand it. What I found fun about it is that it's like a puzzle. There is an overarching narrative, but you have to search a little bit through the events as they appear onscreen to figure out the chronological order. There are two different plot threads and two characters that are the most important, that of Jules and Butch. I'm super not going to break down the chronological order of events because that would take forever, but that kind of stuff can be found online. In terms of what it's about: The most prominent consensus is that Pulp Fiction is about meaning, value, authority, and the arbitrary nature of all three. It's about nihilism versus a sense of purpose. We enter this world though Jules and Vince, both of whom relate to the world around them exclusively through popular culture, their primary topics of discussion when we meet them. The movie is awash in a sea of Americana--gimmick versus meaning. Jules in particular is subject to it. He quotes the bible (as written by Tarantino) at his targets, but it means nothing to him. He sees it as something cool to say before he kills someone, with the added futility that because he does it to people he's going to kill, there's no one to learn from it, nothing is gained. Jules and Vince have no context for meaning in their lives beyond what Marcellus dictates. Vince is frantic to save Mia not because she's a person and her life has value inherently but because Marcellus has dictated that it has value. The briefcase is similar. What's inside doesn't matter, because it's important only insofar as Marcellus deems it important. Marcellus is fundamentally god in the little world the movie inhabits. Until he isn't. His authority is stolen as easily as if it had never been by a redneck in a security uniform--a little additional symbol of arbitrary authority. The only characters who manage to free themselves from this system of meaninglessness are Jules and Butch, and they're also the ones who have the most acute awareness of its problems. Butch defies the system even while seeming very cynical about it: "I'm an American, honey. Our names don’t mean shit.” He can't quite escape it altogether, after all. The watch is another thing of arbitrary value. It's just a stupid watch, but its connection to his father together with the suffering endured to keep it and bring it to him gives it immense importance. The topic of names and meanings comes up all the time, for the record. Royale with cheese, Garcon means boy. The characters endlessly discuss the meaning and quality of mundane things. There's a lot more discussion out there, and some differences of opinion about the symbolism of the briefcase, but it's a lot to summarize quickly. There are a lot of different interpretations for Pulp Fiction question is however is this interpretation the deliberate message intended by the film's creator or is the interpretation of somebody looking for meaning where there may not be any? I guess it is ironic that out of all the interpretations you could have gone for you went with the one about the arbitrary nature of symbolism and meaning when you yourself may be attributing meaning where there is none. I guess that is the problem with vague symbolism, everyone has their own interpretation and while the movie creator might arbitrarily interpret something some way the audience may not view that symbol the same way and the entire message is lost. Take for instance the scene where Vince tries to save Mia, you may interpret this scene as Vince arbitrarily placing a higher value on Mia's life because Vince believes her life must be valuable because Marcellus deems it valuable, yet another may interpret Vince as the embodiment of cowardice and interpret the scene as Vince scrambling to save Mia's life as being purely out of self interest because he knows what Marcellus will do to him if Mia dies, both could be valid interpretations but when the meaning of the scene can be interpreted in 2 totally different ways can you really say that the directer succeeded in getting his point across? Other things like the uniform symbolizing authority, or the corset in Titanic representing the constraints expected of those in the upper class, or the colour red in Birdman symbolizing lies are all very flimsy methods of story telling as there are a number of different ways that each symbol can be interpreted based on the arbitrary whims of the creator and those viewing the film. In Pulp fiction any authority Zed might have is so quickly undermined that it is very hard to see him as a symbol of authority at all and for all it matters the uniform might as well represent Zed as just another cog in the system working a low paying job just to get by, the corset in Titanic can be seen as a symbol of fashion and wealth, and I don't know about you but for a lot of people red can also be interpreted as a colour of passion. I think there is a difference between a movie with a clear and purposeful message inserted by the creator and a movie with vague symbolism left to the interpretation of the movie goer, if there are so many contradicting theories on what the movie means can it truly be said that the movie actually has any meaning at all or only the meaning we want to see? www.quora.com/What-is-the-meaning-of-the-movie-Pulp-FictionI suppose another question to ask is was the interpretation of the movie you gave the message you interpreted from watching the movie yourself or was it merely the interpretation you borrowed from Mark Conard (or your film professors who likely got their interpretation from Mark Conard) which is literally the first Google result you get when you search "the meaning behind pulp fiction"? Edit: It's also important to keep in mind that it doesn't really need any of these larger meanings if you don't want to see them. Your perception is important. If all you see is a bizarre compilation of lurid stories and snappy dialogue, that's great. It's that too. Perhaps I am not quite as charitable on that front, while it is true that a person's enjoyment of a film may depend on what they get out of it and not necessarily what the director intended I don't think that it is enough for a movie to be considered great, I do think the film does need to have a clear message and the director does need to show a clear proficiency in getting that message across, otherwise if the film is so vague that nobody can truly say what it is about and there are multiple contradicting theories of what the film is about then it is clear the creator has failed to get their point across and the film becomes meaningless.
|
|
inherit
Elvis has left the building
9443
0
324
Gandalf the Fabulous
716
Oct 12, 2017 11:02:40 GMT
October 2017
gandalfthefabulous
|
Post by Gandalf the Fabulous on Mar 20, 2018 4:50:43 GMT
I am not a film scholar or well versed in the subject, so I take her word that it's the consensus among film aficionados. I don't know I wouldn't put too much stock in the general consensus of art critics because generally all it takes for something to become consensus among art critics is for one person to say it and for the rest to nod their empty heads because to go against the general consensus will get you ostracized from the purple circle
|
|
inherit
∯ Alien Wizard
729
0
Sept 14, 2023 6:08:41 GMT
9,897
Ieldra
4,771
August 2016
ieldra
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda
25190
6519
|
Post by Ieldra on Mar 20, 2018 8:56:39 GMT
Disappointing. A simple question and nobody has posted a reason why they like it on two pages. Just some people asserting, without cause given, that it's great. FWIW, I found the movie forgettable. Didn't appeal to me at all. So yeah, it's a complete mystery to me what people like in it. I thought maybe some answers would appear here in this thread, so I could at least unterstand it on a theoretical level, but no... Disappointing. Fair enough. I’ll try to answer that. Disclaimer: I don’t feel any urge to “defend” this movie or try to convert anybody into liking it. I value Pulp Fiction highly, but I am not slighted if somebody somewhere thinks it’s boring, overrated, stupid or whatever. Also, if the film doesn’t resonate with you on the surface, I doubt that any convoluted analysis will improve your viewing experience, but I can see, why it is interesting to know why others value different things in life. It’s a brilliant film and Tarantino’s only masterpiece. I admit that almost grudgingly, because otherwise I find Tarantino and rest of his oeuvre to be technically competent, but loathsome and cynical (or actually I have to take that back a bit, since Jackie Brown is alright. Very likeable and subtle, but rambling, unfocused and too long. Good film if not great. I have seen Reservoir Dogs only once, it didn’t leave much of an impression, and I have no desire to watch it again. I wasn’t annoyed, repulsed, or bored so that makes it ok I suppose. Everything after Jackie Brown has only evoked varying mixtures of those three emotions). Witty dialog, charming characters, instantly memorable scenes, dark humor, superb acting, fitting soundtrack, stylish direction. These qualities alone would make Pulp Fiction a good movie, but it has a serious side, which elevates it into a great movie. Lady Artifice posted a valid and insightful interpretation for the underlying narrative and its meaning. The interpretation I have is somewhat different from what she provided, but I don’t see any contradiction in that great works are open for many different interpretations, which all can be simultaneously coherent and valid. Rather that usually is a mark of interesting and multilayered works. I am not a film scholar or well versed in the subject, so I take her word that it's the consensus among film aficionados. Once I heard description, that the movie is about greatness of soul at the end of history. I find it to be very apt portrayal of the overarching narrative of movie. It’s set in the midst of the criminal underclass of a decadent society. This environment is a meaningless postmodern sewer, homogenizing global commercial culture in tandem with emancipated limitless materialistic hedonism. Nietzsche’s Last Man is the ideal, to which inhabits of this environment seem to aspire. Desire for sensory and carnal pleasures, self-preservation and pursuit of comfort reigns sovereign. It’s dehumanizing and even dangerous for all participants, as other humans seem to be mere instruments for further base pleasures, just one extra variable in hedonistic calculus. All about how much you can screw other people while getting away with it (sometimes literally), for money, sex, dominance, sadism, drugs, etc. It’s telling that almost all locations, character motivations, dialog between them are either about or related to 1) eating, specifically fast food or takeaway of some sort, and shitting 2) anything you can gulp down, inhale, snort or inject into your body 3) robbing or defrauding others for financial gain 4) trying to cover your track for the reason of self-preservation 5) dominating and demeaning others for sadistic pleasure, relating to other forms of usury 6) pursuing sex, consensual or non-consensual, extramarital or not, doesn’t make much difference when maximizing pleasure is the highest goal, and the most virtuous act for rational hedonist is sacrificing present pleasures for future pleasures. This end of history is the point, from which all the characters start. However, it’s not just about wallowing in the cool allure postmodern degeneration, nihilism, and corrosive individualism, as two main characters have their turning points. Or “moment of clarity” as Jules describes it brilliantly, as him and Butch manage transcendence this Gehenna of casual and meaningless self-indulgence. Even if all three main characters start from very similar place, their fundamental character drives determinate their arcs and how and where they end up. All have their charms and are intelligent and capable of men. Difference is that Vincent is entirely driven by his desires, Jules is a spiritual man, and decides to follow spiritual path when it conflicts with his material desires. Butch is honor-driven to the point, that he’s willing to risk his own life for preserving honor, something which would be totally alien to almost anyone but Jules in the world of Pulp Fiction (if I didn’t know better, they represent Platonic trichotomy of the soul). Character arcs of Jules and Butch are about that greatness of human soul overcoming and ascending bleak environment they are in, while it inevitably drowns Vincent. All the scenes, details in the movie carry, reinforce or focus themes and story arcs of these three, and there’s nothing out of place or unnecessary. It all connects, and the non-linear story structure is necessity for the story, not just some gimmick to make the movie appear to be more deeper or cleverer than it is. Samuel L. Jackson's speech at the diner had to be the end. Anything after that would've been a downer or anticlimactic (you know the one, in which he connects all the dots, and sees through his own self-deceptions and rationalizations, that his criminal life has been just a tool of “the tyranny of evil men.”). It was also a point in story in which Vincent Vega had to be present, but his random and callous end had to be in the story as well. I could talk about each individual scenes separately, and how they relate to overarching narrative, but this is getting long and going analyzing each scene would be pretty redundant. Like how in the initial dialog between Jules and Vincent, after touring great European metropolises for three years, the only thing Vincent seems to relate is fast food, alcohol and drugs. How Jules has aesthetic and moral considerations for the food he consumes, as he refuses to eat pork. How Butch decides second time to take a potentially life-threatening risk for the sake of honor. Not just out of affection for the man or human life in general (he didn't have much qualms about injuring or killing the very same man just moments before), not to mention who was and could still be his enemy, by storming the BDSM dungeon with a perfect symbol for honor over the death, the samurai sword. That was interesting, thank you. I guess I might have liked the movie more if these themes were clearly apparent to me, but they aren't. From my POV, whatever point the movie is trying to get across, it's all overshadowed by dialogue and plot so extreme in it's "wittiness" and cynisism that it seems parodistic, and I have little tolerance for parody in more than small doses. It's hard to pin down where my dislike comes from, but the main reason is probably the dialogue. It makes me groan more often than not, and because of it, I can't take the characters seriously, and consequently I also can't appreciate any themes in it that are supposed to be serious. Finally, there's what Gandalf said: are these things really in the movie, or is this just interpretation by an uncommonly intellectual mindset? The thing is, if they are, then they should be apparent, in however a vague and unreflected form, to most people who watched the movie. Are they? I don't know, but I have my doubts.
|
|
inherit
∯ Alien Wizard
729
0
Sept 14, 2023 6:08:41 GMT
9,897
Ieldra
4,771
August 2016
ieldra
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda
25190
6519
|
Post by Ieldra on Mar 20, 2018 9:27:02 GMT
I am not a film scholar or well versed in the subject, so I take her word that it's the consensus among film aficionados. I don't know I wouldn't put too much stock in the general consensus of art critics because generally all it takes for something to become consensus among art critics is for one person to say it and for the rest to nod their empty heads because to go against the general consensus will get you ostracized from the purple circle I don't think there's any final arbiter of truth in the reception of art. It's an interactive process. I've read Lady Artifice's and Mikael's interpretations, and while I can certainly see there's some point to them, they're not something that's clearly apparent to me as "main themes" after watching the movie, even after having it pointed out for me. As I said in my other post, IMO in order for a message to be unambiguous and clear, it must at least be vaguely apparent, even though unreflected, to the majority of viewers. That, of coruse, is part of my personal view on art: it is meant for everyone, not just for intellectuals. Interpretation of art that does not resonate, at least as a starting point for more in-depth reflection, with what most average recipients take away emotionally from a work, comes across to me as contrived. Whether that's the case with "Pulp Fiction", I can't say since I don't know enough about its reception.
|
|
inherit
Elvis has left the building
9443
0
324
Gandalf the Fabulous
716
Oct 12, 2017 11:02:40 GMT
October 2017
gandalfthefabulous
|
Post by Gandalf the Fabulous on Mar 21, 2018 2:31:09 GMT
There are a lot of different interpretations for Pulp Fiction question is however is this interpretation the deliberate message intended by the film's creator or is the interpretation of somebody looking for meaning where there may not be any? Gandalf I know you didn't ask me and I'm butting in. It's really more of an open question for anyone to chime in so feel free. I think redemption probably resonates stronger as a possible overarching theme, at least stronger than the other themes presented by other posters, but I still can't say it is strong enough for me to be able to go "YES! that is the theme! That is the message the creator was trying to get across!", I still don't see how the redemption angle really fits into Vincent's story and arc. Also I don't really deny the comedic nature of the film however i don't really see how shock humor on it's own really makes the movie great? It was fun. Simple but sometimes simple can be the best reason. For some. Can't really argue with that, obviously I don't get the same enjoyment out of Pulp Fiction as you do but sometimes you don't really need much reason to enjoy other than the simple reason you that you have fun watching it, I mean I feel the same way about the Marvel cinematic universe and movies like Pacific Rim, I fucking love Pacific Rim, I know these movies will never be hailed as the most influential movies of their time or as a higher form of art but they are just fun movies where you just sit down, turn off your brain and enjoy the simple pleasures of watching a giant robot punch a 300ft kaiju in the face with rocket fists. However the thing I don't get is why is Pulp Fiction considered this higher work of art? Why is it considered so influential that film students are being taught that it is some "holy grail" of narrative structure despite the fact that nobody can actually tell me what the overall narrative of the movie is supposed to be?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
1002
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2018 18:44:04 GMT
Is a very Americana film. There's a lot of little subtleties with Tarantino films in general that you probably won't get without viewing them through their cultural lens. I'll be honest that most of it goes over my head (though Lady and Sebastia gave a great synopsis that should be enlightening if I watch again) but I still enjoyed Pulp Fiction just because it was flashy, a bit edgy and had memorable characters. My favourite of his films is Inglorious Basterds. Probably tells you all you need to know about my taste (or lack therof)
|
|
GruntKitterhand
N3
Ha! They're Dead!
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy
XBL Gamertag: GruntKitterhand
PSN: GruntKitterhand
Posts: 901 Likes: 6,396
inherit
135
0
Mar 24, 2024 19:54:17 GMT
6,396
GruntKitterhand
Ha! They're Dead!
901
August 2016
gruntkitterhand
Mass Effect Trilogy
GruntKitterhand
GruntKitterhand
|
Post by GruntKitterhand on Mar 22, 2018 2:31:47 GMT
I'm another one for whom Inglorious Basterds is my favourite of Tarantino's films, but Pulp Fiction runs it close, alongside Jackie Brown. I've never seen any others more than once, though I enjoyed them. I can add little to what Lady Artifice and @mikaelsebastia have said, with the exception of an observation about the iconic dance scene. In 1994, John Travolta was pretty much nobody. He had a couple of hits with voice-acting in the 'Look Who's Talking' films, but was otherwise washed up. (Edit: I got my actors mixed up - it was Bruce Willis doing the voice-over work, but either way the point still stands: forgettable fluff.) What some younger people may not be aware of is just how huge a star he had been in the 70s, with his most famous role as the iconic white-suited poster boy for 'Saturday Night Fever'. He was possibly the most famous male dancer in the world, even though he wasn't even a dancer. Then he did it again in Grease. Then pretty much nothing for 16 years until Tarantino cast him as a killer who is deftly set up for the scene in question. If you are aware of the context, his 'dorky' period dancing is beyond hilarious, and additionally adds to the various layers of sexual tension between Vincent and Mia. If I was to sum up my love for the film, it lies in the performance of Samuel L Jackson - his career best by an absolute country mile. I like him fine in most other things but seriously, the character of Jules is a work of art in itself, and Jackson's performance is, well, he's a Bad Motherfucker. That is all. There's also the soundtrack to think about. It's worth noting that Film Soundtracks as commercial vehicles were transformed by Pulp Fiction. It had been a long time since Fame or Grease or War of the Worlds or The Sound of Music or South Pacific - none of which really compare in any way. It's unlikely Danny Boyle, as a random example, would have had the courage to give Trainspotting the soundtrack he did had Tarantino not paved the way for him. And then there are the cameos from Christopher Walken and Steve Buscemi and of course some of the scariest dialogue in cinema history... - Bring out the gimp. - Gimp's sleeping. - Well, I guess you're gonna have to go wake him up now, won't you? On the subject of Fabienne being, in the OP's opinion, 'mentally handicapped', bearing in mind that Butch calls her a 'retard' himself, jokingly, I would think that 'highly-strung' would be a more socially acceptable description for her overall character. And her compulsive teeth-cleaning 'the morning after' remains something that cracks me up every time I think about it. What about Honey Bunny btw? Is she 'mentally handicapped' too? I'm frightened by how what I would view as merely eccentric behaviour may be reduced to such labels. I don't think it's a perfect film by any means, but it's much more than 'all style, no substance', and even if it wasn't, the 'style' in question is undeniable. So much quotable dialogue and so many visually arresting scenes. The biggest flaw in the whole film is probably the casting of the role of Jimmie.
|
|
inherit
Elvis has left the building
9443
0
324
Gandalf the Fabulous
716
Oct 12, 2017 11:02:40 GMT
October 2017
gandalfthefabulous
|
Post by Gandalf the Fabulous on Mar 22, 2018 3:13:25 GMT
My favourite of his films is Inglorious Basterds. Probably tells you all you need to know about my taste (or lack therof) Inglorious Basterds is brilliant, by far Quentin Tarantino's best film, even Quentin Tarantino acknowledges that!
|
|
inherit
Elvis has left the building
9443
0
324
Gandalf the Fabulous
716
Oct 12, 2017 11:02:40 GMT
October 2017
gandalfthefabulous
|
Post by Gandalf the Fabulous on Mar 22, 2018 3:17:51 GMT
On the subject of Fabienne being, in the OP's opinion, 'mentally handicapped', bearing in mind that Butch calls her a 'retard' himself, jokingly, I would think that 'highly-strung' would be a more socially acceptable description for her overall character. And her compulsive teeth-cleaning 'the morning after' remains something that cracks me up every time I think about it. What about Honey Bunny btw? Is she 'mentally handicapped' too? I'm frightened by how what I would view as merely eccentric behaviour may be reduced to such labels. I would say Honey Bunny is more of a psycho, we don't get to see much of her character beyond her holding up a diner but she doesn't seem anywhere near as dense as Fabienne.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
6
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2018 21:56:23 GMT
It's hard to pin down where my dislike comes from, but the main reason is probably the dialogue. It makes me groan more often than not, and because of it, I can't take the characters seriously, and consequently I also can't appreciate any themes in it that are supposed to be serious. I can see where you are coming from. It's not nonsensical, ostentatious or anything like that. Obviously I don't share it, as my last posting indicates. Finally, there's what Gandalf said: That’s not her exact or entire interpretation of the movie or discussion about it, or its overall theme or narratives. She said: “it just seems to follow the random occurances of some people wrapped up in a life of crime with the events not exactly playing out in order.” She also seem to heavily imply that people who disagree with her interpretation, who find different meanings from the film (art critics, film professors, and people who she thinks borrowed their views from them, including some people in this thread) are afraid to go against consensus and are just nodding their empty heads in fear of ostracized from the purple circle, or “it would ruin their hipster cred or ruin their credibility with the artsy crowd”. Her faux ponderings are insincere, it’s just a basic rhetorical tool to mask statements as questions. I don’t know why she frames her arguments in this bs “I am just asking questions here”-method, and frankly I am not particularly interested to find out. There’s a reason I didn’t address her points, and I’d rather not do so indirectly either, so please, I ask you not to bring them up (if I wanted to address her points or her, I’d do that directly). are these things really in the movie, or is this just interpretation by an uncommonly intellectual mindset? The thing is, if they are, then they should be apparent, in however a vague and unreflected form, to most people who watched the movie. Are they? I don't know, but I have my doubts. What do you mean exactly, when you say “are these things really in the movie”? Are you saying that this collage of rapidly projected still images with synchronized audio has a “true and real meaning” which is totally unrelated and disconnected from people who watch it? Like that these symbols, objects, character strings presented in the film have some transcendent universal meaning, independent of people like us interpreting them (something such as classical or neoclassical Idealism, i.e. Platonism or Pythagoreanism)? Or do you imply that the real meaning is exactly and only what film’s creator(s) consciously meant to express by it? Or perhaps the real meaning is some kind public consensus of the meaning, some aggregate from all the people who have ever watched it (whatever that might be, or how that can be known, measured or compared)? I have to admit that I am disagreeing with “the real meaning”-argument regardless of from what exact angle it comes from. I ask for a clarification, because I’d rather not to assume your position, or make the case against all possibilities I can think of. Related to that I also disagree with the notion, that these themes or overarching narrative should be apparent to most people who watch it, but it’s related to the previous question, so I’ll make the point along with it. Your sequent post would indicate that you’d go with the third option, but it's not explicitly clear about this slightly separated issue, of is there such a thing as the real meaning, or where something like that could come from, and can it be known. I take that you are very pleased with the current state and future trajectory of mainstream movies (let’s define that as what is shown in commercially run movie theaters worldwide)? The cost structure of +100 000 000$ budget movies alone eliminates any incentives for making pretentious big brain nibba movies. There's few exceptions, as there’s not much money in that audience, and public stock companies have very different motives compared to patrons or mecenates of the past. The most expensive and cultivated cultural artifacts our current generations will leave are Avengers movies, not things like Pantheon, Shakespeare, or Tarkovsky movies. If there ever was a time of mass-entertainment and popular culture, it most certainly is the time we live in. Have you ever read Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut btw? Or perhaps seen the movie about it? It’s an art democracy realized (though top down enforced and exaggerated to a satire).
|
|
inherit
Elvis has left the building
9443
0
324
Gandalf the Fabulous
716
Oct 12, 2017 11:02:40 GMT
October 2017
gandalfthefabulous
|
Post by Gandalf the Fabulous on Mar 23, 2018 7:38:57 GMT
Finally, there's what Gandalf said: That’s not her exact or entire interpretation of the movie or discussion about it, or its overall theme or narratives. She said: “it just seems to follow the random occurances of some people wrapped up in a life of crime with the events not exactly playing out in order.” Well to be fair I guess Ieldra isn't talking about my synopsis of the movie but rather the question I posed of "is the message you interpreted from the movie the message that was intended and deliberately put there by the director?" She also seem to heavily imply that people who disagree with her interpretation, who find different meanings from the film (art critics, film professors, and people who she thinks borrowed their views from them, including some people in this thread) are afraid to go against consensus and are just nodding their empty heads in fear of ostracized from the purple circle, or “it would ruin their hipster cred or ruin their credibility with the artsy crowd”. That is the current hypothesis I am currently going with yes but it isn't because "people disagree with me" but rather because nobody can actually tell me what the film is about, all I get are mere assertions of the movies greatness and can only get flimsy justifications when I challenge the assertions. Besides it is not like what I describe is not a common phenomena among a lot of people and groups, all too often it seems people would rather be stupid in silence rather than open their mouth and confirm it to everyone, better to go along with the general consensus than to question it and be proven wrong and an idiot for not understanding it Surely somebody would have read the Emperor's New Clothes to you as child? That is pretty much the message the book is trying to get across (a clear and deliberate message inserted by the author), don't be afraid of your own convictions and don't be afraid to question assertions everyone believes to be true, only the foolish do not. Her faux ponderings are insincere, it’s just a basic rhetorical tool to mask statements as questions. I don’t know why she frames her arguments in this bs “I am just asking questions here”-method, and frankly I am not particularly interested to find out. That is unfortunate, curiosity is the mark of an intelligent mind and one should not be afraid to challenge their preconceived knowledge, but if you are keen to wallow in ignorance I wont try to convince you otherwise.
|
|