tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post6556636359349856127..comments2024-03-12T12:38:23.542-04:00Comments on The Kind of Face You Hate: You Gotta Have an Opinion!bill r.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17748572205731857892noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-74381126443395846952010-04-21T10:42:45.027-04:002010-04-21T10:42:45.027-04:00That's how I look at it, Jake. A version of P...That's how I look at it, Jake. A version of PULP FICTION that ends with Butch and Fabienne riding off on the chopper feels to me, in retrospect, like it would be a giant let-down.<br /><br />To be honest, the one time I saw 21 GRAMS, I liked it. Because I picked it up at a Blockbuster sale, I'll be getting around to that one eventually, and I'll have to watch it again to write anything about it. The fact that I found BABEL to be fucking tedious doesn't bode well.<br /><br />I shall check that comment, Greg. NOW!bill r.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17748572205731857892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-47761232779813921812010-04-21T09:49:43.693-04:002010-04-21T09:49:43.693-04:00I commented on your Stage Fright post but am notif...I commented on your Stage Fright post but am notifying you here to make it more impactful. Gimmick? Sure, but that's just how I roll.Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05730146625671701859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-80232798533612269272010-04-21T08:47:29.485-04:002010-04-21T08:47:29.485-04:00I completely agree with your assessment here, Bill...I completely agree with your assessment here, Bill. For me, when I think of a "gimmick" I think of something that is unessential to a story and distracting that usually masks a lack of actual substance. If you remove a gimmick, the story should, essentially, remain the same.<br /><br />I would say that in Pulp Fiction if you remove the "gimmick," you get <i>a different story</i>, which, to me, means it's not really a gimmick, it's a natural, organic part of the story.<br /><br />When I think of the non-chronological storytelling used as gimmick, I think of a movie like 21 Grams, a movie I loathed. I found it dull, lazy, laughably maudlin and melodramatic, and all-in-all a shitty piece of filmmaking. If you were to unscramble that movie and play it chronologically there would be nothing missing, it would just be obviously trite and boring. <br /><br />Those are my two cents, at least.Jake T.https://www.blogger.com/profile/18309724089923787456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-25131500248597893472010-04-20T21:23:12.934-04:002010-04-20T21:23:12.934-04:00I get that, but as Ed said in the case of PULP FIC...I get that, but as Ed said in the case of PULP FICTION, the story is simply being told in the way that works best for it. Since that's the best way to tell the story, telling it another way with diminished results only proves that Tarantino did the right thing.bill r.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17748572205731857892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-45302819758428535442010-04-20T20:14:52.920-04:002010-04-20T20:14:52.920-04:00More accurately, I said, "I also thought the ...More accurately, I said, "I also thought the power of that film was <b>strictly attributable</b> to its device of telling the story in reverse. But after seeing the chronological version... I stand corrected. If anything, that version is <b>just as good</b> if not better for the moral implications it casts on Guy Pearce's character, who essentially sets himself up to murder Joey Pants, a detail not altogether clear in the theatrical version."<br /><br />I suppose you could infer that I like the chrono version better, which I do. But I don't think the theatrical version is bad. I simply meant to say that before I saw the chrono version I though the film was all about the gimmick, and the chrono version revealed that the underlying film was strong enough to stand on its own without the gimmick.Tony Dayoubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04632329277519635858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-19736513784523877522010-04-20T18:50:23.020-04:002010-04-20T18:50:23.020-04:00Ed made most of my points because it took me so lo...Ed made most of my points because it took me so long to write that comment. Stupid phone/giant fingers.bill r.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17748572205731857892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-49562800128238751512010-04-20T18:47:47.245-04:002010-04-20T18:47:47.245-04:00We can't judge how good PULP FICTION would be ...We can't judge how good PULP FICTION would be without the jumbled timeline, but obviously my gut tells me it would be worse. In the case of MEMENTO, you seem to be arguing that the reverse-time version is worse than than the frontwards (or whatever) version. Wouldn't that imply that the reverse version IS a gimmick?<br /><br /> I feel like a gimmick is defined as something that either adds nothing, or hurts, the story being told, something that is pure flash, and nothing more. If placing the beginning of PULP FICTION's timeline at the end enhances it, then I don't believe it qualifies. It's not a gimmick -- it's storytelling.bill r.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17748572205731857892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-34485557423825140392010-04-20T18:45:59.184-04:002010-04-20T18:45:59.184-04:00Ed, as a formalist I can't believe I'm on ...Ed, as a formalist I can't believe I'm on the opposite side of this argument, but the key word in your argument is "enhance." To fall back on my earlier argument (simply to make a distinction because both films are quite different), MEMENTO enhances its point that things are not what they seem with its form. PULP FICTION merely <i>instills</i> the resonance you speak of with its form. The resonance isn't there without the narrative device.<br /><br />I don't think any of us are in disagreement on this point. I simply think we disagree on the quality of the film and the intentions of the filmmaker in this regard.Tony Dayoubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04632329277519635858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-17541114569009519272010-04-20T18:34:50.902-04:002010-04-20T18:34:50.902-04:00Tony, any good film enhances its themes, emotions ...Tony, any good film enhances its themes, emotions and ideas through form. Saying that <i>Pulp Fiction</i> wouldn't be as resonant if it was told linearly doesn't suggest that Tarantino simply used a gimmick — it suggests he used the proper form to tell this particular story! The film is structured as a loop: those who can reform and discover the virtues of forgiveness (Butch) and non-violence (Jules) manage to escape the loop, while those who continue along their violent path, the path dictated by their pulp genre origins, are trapped within the endless cycle. It's such a fulfilling union of style and content when thought of that way, though I know most people tend to look at <i>Pulp Fiction</i> as just a fun, trashy thrill ride.Ed Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18014222247676090467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-56490863636153612572010-04-20T18:21:04.785-04:002010-04-20T18:21:04.785-04:00I don't want to get mired in another debate wi...I don't want to get mired in another debate with Ed over this, or you for that matter, since I respect each of you and PULP FICTION is a movie I kind of like. But essentially, Bill, you just stated what I think of the film. Its resonance is derived from the use of this narrative device, and the film's emotional weight diminishes without it. To me, that's a gimmick. The story doesn't inherently carry this emotional heft on its own without the gimmick like Tarantino's better films do.<br /><br />I'll contrast it with another film I once thought used a similar gimmick, MEMENTO. I also thought the power of that film was strictly attributable to its device of telling the story in reverse. But after seeing the chronological version included in the film's special edition DVD (an easter egg of all things), I sand corrected. If anything, that version is just as good if not better for the moral implications it casts on Guy Pearce's character, who essentially sets himself up to murder Joey Pants, a detail not altogether clear in the theatrical version.<br /><br />In MEMENTO's case, the film works both ways on emotional and intellectual levels. In PULP FICTION's case, not so much. I won't belabor the point because I know I should judge what's on the screen, not what isn't. But I'd be lying if I said it didn't remind me of similar "tricks" pulled by fellow film students when I was back in college (pre-PULP FICTION), tricks which became less astounding because of their ubiquitousness and their underlying desire to impress.Tony Dayoubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04632329277519635858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-87637853938730080942010-04-20T17:12:07.647-04:002010-04-20T17:12:07.647-04:00Ed and Tony, I'll be honest -- I did not think...Ed and Tony, I'll be honest -- I did not think I was taking any kind of controversial stance here. If the film had been told chronologically, then the ending woulf have been Butch and Fabienne riding off on Zed's chopper. Not a bad ending, but a bit flippant, and hardly resonant. As Ed says, the chronology is essential to film's themes, and it would have little to no weight without it. Not that you wouldn't be able to pick up on Jules' fate as contrasted with Vincent's, but it would feel...I don't know, tossed off, inessential.<br /><br />I guess the argument could be made that the story could ve rejumbled so that the events happen at the same point in the film, but plays out in a linear fashion, by rewriting the whole script, but, again, I feel like it becomes less thoughtful, and asks less of the audience, if you take that route.bill r.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17748572205731857892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-64044712230620335972010-04-20T16:16:25.876-04:002010-04-20T16:16:25.876-04:00Thank you! I've long argued (like in my Tarant...Thank you! I've long argued (like in my Tarantino discussion with Jason Bellamy) that the non-chronological narrative in <i>Pulp Fiction</i> is far from the cheap gimmicry that so many people seem to dismiss it as. It's essential to the film's themes: Jules' final speech wouldn't have nearly the resonance it does in a chronological movie, where we wouldn't have yet seen the consequences, the fact that Jules escapes his violent life while Vincent, who laughs at his partner's spiritual awakening, dies as he lived. That's what's brilliant about the film to me, not the uncomfortable laugh-inducing violence when Marvin gets shot. It's also brilliant that Jules' paraphrased Bible speech is initially just a bit of badass fluff, something cool to say before he kills someone, but eventually it becomes the route to his redemption once he thinks about the actual words he's saying — and forces the audience to rethink things, too. <br /><br />And yes, Tarantino's done better work since, but this is still quite a good film.Ed Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18014222247676090467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-7223818871577987722010-04-20T16:13:13.738-04:002010-04-20T16:13:13.738-04:00This is one of the best arguments yet I've eve...This is one of the best arguments yet I've ever heard for the non-linear chronology of PULP FICTION. But I'm still not convinced it was truly necessary.<br /><br />Regardless of my opinion, I think you and I are in agreement that JACKIE BROWN and now, INGLORIOUS BASTERDS represent a certain maturation in Tarantino.Tony Dayoubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04632329277519635858noreply@blogger.com