Are
introductions really necessary for Quentin Tarantino's best film?
Pulp Fiction is nearly perfectly executed in every detail, balancing a
fine line between tragedy and comedy, the absurdly surreal and the
unflinchingly realistic, morally depraved and counter-intuitively positive.
With nearly ceaseless wit, style, panache, and straight-out balls, Tarantino
goes for broke, taking chances that most other directors would have considered
too high risk to attempt. In nearly every case, the attempts are
successful, and just like any high odds wager, the payoff for all of the
personal investment is immense indeed. The success of Pulp Fiction
would catapult Quentin Tarantino (Reservoir
Dogs) as a filmmaker to watch, and countless imitators would follow
suit, although few would succeed at producing even a tenth of the humor or
thrills this one packs in.
Interwoven together are several stories,
some told out of sequence, but all interconnected in some way. The
primary story involves two hitmen, Jules (Jackson,
Jurassic Park) and Vincent
(Travolta, Two of a Kind), and some of the
strange occurrences that take place during the latest hit they've been sent to
cement for their boss, Marsellus (Rhames,
Entrapment). Vincent is also involved in a second side story
involving an evening with Marsellus' eccentric wife, Mia (Thurman,
Mad Dog and Glory). Meanwhile, we
are also treated to the tale of Butch the boxer (Willis,
Hudson Hawk), who is paid by Marsellus to
take a dive in his next big fight, except Butch has plans of his own to score
some cash.
The stories themselves would only have
been marginally interesting if not for the overwhelmingly fresh quality of
Tarantino's dialogue, which is so rich in allusions and humorous asides that
you literally listen to every sentence or phrase just waiting for the next
quip or pearl of wisdom to emerge from another character's mouth. As
witty as Tarantino can be, he owes a great deal of debt to the performances of
his actors. In particular, Samuel L. Jackson provides the stand-out
performance of the film, driving Pulp Fiction's momentum into sheer
intensity with complete conviction. Much has been made of how this film
revitalized John Travolta's long-thought-dead career, and he does do a
terrific job in giving the film a light and fun feel, while also playing well
during the low-key flirtations that are the underpinnings of the Mia/Vincent
scenes.
Not all of the actors fare as well.
Perhaps the weakest part of this otherwise powerhouse film is the choice by
Tarantino to cast himself in a prominent role. Interesting that
Tarantino would have the most difficult time among all of the actors in
reciting his dialogue, but thankfully, once he is off-screen, the momentum
does pick back up again for the gripping finale.
As with all of Tarantino's work, the
writing and directorial stylings are rife with homage, although they are done
with a much less obvious way than in his other films. Cult film buffs
will get the references, but you don't need to know every significance to
understand them. They're just little bits thrown in that lend depth and
irony to the stories at large.
For all of its flash, there is a
surprising amount of thematic substance here underneath it all, which is
precisely why viewers keep returning to the film time and again. There
is a living and breathing presence that seems to permeate every scene of this
film, imbuing these stories with a feeling of depth and connectedness with
forces that exist beyond the intentionally banal discussions. The nature
of good vs. evil, salvation, redemption and culture are all in play, dizzying
us with meanings that make us want to backtrack the film to see if we can
catch all of the significance. Whether any of these meanings are
intentional or not is of little significance -- the little touches here and
there command your attention and play with your intellect, never settling into
a mundane existence for even a moment.
The momentum generated by this film would
have Tarantino's fans bestowing his two successive films,
Jackie Brown
and Kill Bill, as great films as well, although I must
respectfully disagree. Remove Pulp Fiction from the equation and
one would see them as interesting but flawed films on their own. I guess
that's what makes Pulp Fiction such a magical movie in itself -- it
leaves viewers to ravenous for more, that they will scour all of Tarantino's
future works for more little details and portals into the skewed universe
created from this film, as if they were extensions of the same story.
I actually have known a couple of people
that absolutely hate this film, and while I think that there are too many good
performances and brilliant moments to understand why someone would disregard
this film so easily, I should remind potential viewers that any piece of work
that is ambitious, audacious, and concertedly different than the norm will
have its share of detractors as well. On the other hand, there are also
an even larger number of fans that consider this film to be a masterpiece, and
while I can also see their point of view more so than those that would seek to
call this movie disposal-worthy entertainment, there are some weaknesses here
and there that keep me from bestowing that label on it so readily. That
it's one of the best films of the decade, I have no qualms about. It
provided a roadmap for up-and-coming filmmakers of the next decade to
follow through its use of sight, sound, and dialogue to tell stories that
might ostensibly have
little meaning on the surface, but are full of intelligent thought underneath.
Qwipster's rating:
©2005 Vince Leo
