Roger Ebert's Pulp Fiction Secrets.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Found this today, check it out...
It goes in depth with the story of Pulp Fiction, imagery and other neat stuff.

It's a broken link...

yeah it's not working.

maybe you can copy and past the story here for us.

its cos he added a double "http"
if that don't work, here it is:
I shortened the article in terms of chapters I already mention in other cathegories of my homepage, such as the ezekiel passage.
An excellent article.
by Roger Ebert

For four days we sat in the dark, tiptoeing through "Pulp Fiction" one scene at a time, using a laserdisc machine so you could freeze a frame or slowly creep through the movie. There were about 300 of us, and democracy ruled: Anybody could make an observation, and we'd stop and discuss it. Our mission: to take a VERY close look at this labyrinthine film.

Of course there are people who intensely dislike "Pulp Fiction." It is possibly the most unpopular movie ever to gross $100 million at the American box office. I've received mail from those who hate the movie. They say it is too violent, too graphic, too obscene, or "makes no sense." Many say they walked out after 20, 30 or 60 minutes. (Given its circular time line, of course it made no sense to them; this is literally a movie where you have to wait until you can say, "This is where we came in."wink

Among those who admire it, however, QuentinTarantino's film is the most passionately loved and obsessed-about film of recent years; the discussions about its smallest details have reached the same pitch as the furor over Kubrick's "2001," which inspired a book that transcribed even the directions for the Zero Gravity Toilet. On campuses and among younger viewers, there is no other recent film approaching its appeal.

We were analyzing "The Fiction," as it is sometimes called, at the University of Virginia, where I was spending a week as the first Kluge Film Fellow. Patricia Kluge, founder of the Virginia Festival of American Film, sponsors the fellowship on Thomas Jefferson's beautiful campus (although what Jefferson would have thought about Vincent Vega and Honey Bunny is hard to imagine).

I've done shot-by-shot analyses of dozens of films, from "Citizen Kane" to "The Silence of the Lambs," and I find that when you gather a lot of serious film people in the dark and invite them to talk during the movie, somebody will have the answer to every question.

At Virginia, for example, one of the voices in the dark was unmistakably that of a young boy; he sounded about 11. I wondered if he should be watching this R-rated film. That was before he started citing specific line references from the screenplay, which he had downloaded from the Internet. It was his 12th viewing (and, yes, he was accompanied by a parent).

At the end of the four days, my own admiration for the movie had only deepened. It is more subtle and complex than at first it seems; the Oscar-winning screenplay, by Tarantino and Roger Avary, turns out to contain the answers to mysteries that baffle viewers in a first viewing, and it makes connections that only occur to you after time.

The film tells interlocking stories, which unfold out of chronological order, so that the movie's ending hooks up with the beginning, most of its middle happens after the ending, and a major character is onscreen after he has been shot dead. Why is the movie told in this way? For three reasons, perhaps: (1) Because Q.T., as his fans call him, is tired of linear plots that slog wearily from A to Z; (2) to make the script reveal itself like "hypertext," in which "buttons" like the gold watch or "foot massage" lead to payoffs like Butch's story or Vincent's date from hell; and (3) because each of the main stories ends with some form of redemption. The key redemption -- the decision by Jules(Samuel L. Jackson) to retire from crime after his life is saved by a "miracle" -- is properly placed at the end of the film even though it doesn't happen at the end of the story.

The first time I saw the movie, in May 1994 at the Cannes Film Festival, I thought it was very violent. As I saw it a second and third time, I realized it wasn't as violent as I thought -- certainly not by the standards of modern action movies. It SEEMS more violent because it often delays a payoff with humorous dialogue, toying with us. Our body count at Virginia turned up only seven major deaths. (Read no further if you do not want to know major plot details.) The dead:

-- Three guys in the apartment -- one in the chair, one on the couch, and one in the bathroom -- are killed by Vincent (John Travolta) and Jules (Jackson).
-- Marvin, the fourth guy from the apartment, is accidentally killed while sitting in the backseat of Jules' and Vincent's car.
-- Vincent Vega is killed by Butch (Bruce Willis).
-- Two men are killed at the pawn shop: Maynard, the store owner, and his friend Zed.
-- In addition, there are two unseen or implied deaths, of the boxer killed in the ring by Butch, and of "the Gimp," dressed in leather in the pawn shop basement.

Against this body count, there are several people who are saved in the movie. Mia (Uma Thurman) is brought back from the dead after an overdose; Marcellus Wallace (Ving Rhames) is saved by Butch in the basement; and many potential victims in the coffee shop are saved after Jules talks Honey Bunny (Amanda Plummer) and Pumpkin (Tim Roth) into calling off their stickup. And, of course, the lives of Jules and Vincent are saved, when a volley of shots in the apartment misses them. Jules chooses to call this a miracle, a sign from God, and retires from crime. Vincent shrugs it off, and pays the price. There is also an important, hilarious, subplot about the saving of Butch's gold watch.

One thing we kept noticing during our shot-by-shot odyssey was that much of the violence is off-screen. When the guys in the apartment are shot, the camera is on Jules or Vincent, not on the victims. When the hypodermic needle goes into Mia's chest, the camera cuts away at the last instant to a reaction shot (instant comic relief from Rosanna Arquette, who is into body-piercing, and is delighted to have witnessed the ultimate piercing). The gunshot in the backseat of the car is offscreen. The violence in the pawn shop basement is graphic, but within the boundaries of standard movie fights.

The more you watch the movie, the more you're convinced that there is a hidden spiritual level in the plot. Much has to do with the famous briefcase which belongs to Marcellus Wallace, and which Jules and Vincent capture in the apartment. We never see its contents, which emit a golden glow. There have been countless theories about what's in it ("an Egg MacGuffin," said somebody at Virginia), but of course we will never know. What we can notice is that the combination to its lock is "666" -- the sign of Satan. That has led to speculation that the Band-Aid on the back of Marcellus' neck conceals the number "666." Is Marcellus the devil? That's unknowable, but reflect that Jules, who believes he has been saved by God, lives -- while Vincent, the scoffer, dies.

He's shot by Butch as he comes out of the bathroom (lots of things happen in this movie while people are in the john). A detail that escaped me the first time, however, is that Butch uses a gun belonging to Marcellus, who left it on the counter of Butch's apartment while going to get coffee and doughnuts. (Marcellus has joined Vincent in the stakeout for Butch because, of course, Jules has already resigned.) "The guys who wrote this screenplay weren't lazy," someone said at Virginia; "it's interesting how they worked all this detail in even though most people will miss it."

A theme running through the movie is that many of the weapons do not work or are not used as they are intended (the gun that misses Jules, the gun that kills Vincent, the gun that accidentally kills the guy in the backseat, the guns in the coffee shop robbery, the guns belonging to the pawn shop guys). After Jules is converted, his own gun PREVENTS violence in the coffee shop.

On the film's less significant side, there are also many secrets to discover. In Jack Rabbit Slim's, for example, the waiter playing Buddy Holly (Steve Buscemi) was Mr. Pink in QT's "Reservoir Dogs." Three other cast members from "RD" (Tim Roth, Harvey Keitel and Tarantino) are also in "PF." There is a Vic Vega in "RD," perhaps related to Vincent Vega.

As Butch sneaks up on his own apartment, the words "Jack Rabbit Slim's" emerge from an open window he walks past. One particularly neat bit of continuity happens in the pawn shop, where there is a neon sign for Killian's Red beer. Some of the letters are burnt out, so the sign says only "Kill Ed." Later, when Butch escapes on Zed's motorcycle, he looks at the key-ring, which has a big metal "Z." Add the Z to the sign and you get "Kill Zed," which is what happened. The motorcycle has the word "Grace" painted on its gas tank, and as Butch escapes -- well, there, but for the grace of God ...

There were two visual touches we discussed a lot. One is the golden glow which mysteriously suffuses the screen as Jules and Vincent open fire in the apartment; is it connected somehow with the briefcase? Does it link the devil's case with the devil's work? Another is a curious head-on shot of Bruce Willis, who looks straight at the camera while Marcellus Wallace instructs him to fix a fight. The lighting is used to shadow exactly half of Willis' face; a line runs down his forehead, nose and chin. Or ... is it lighting? The line of demarcation between light and shadow is so sharply defined that we wondered if makeup was used to augment the effect. We looked at the scene repeatedly using freeze frames, but were unable to decide.

&lt;editted for message limit&gt;

My fault. Sorry.

no problem, i fixed it happy

I wish Gene Siskel was still alive. sad

I'm sure he would have love Kill Bill.

Stormy Day
yeah how come ebert changes critics all the time?

He doesnt. Siskel died. and now its roeper.

I don't like Roeper that much. I dunno but sometimes he sounds like he is trying to be funny. He is not funny.

Roeper's too damn arrogant.

For a short time he had different critics on to test them out. Kind of like how Regis tested out co-hosts before choosing Kelly Ripa. It has been Ebert & Roeper for a while now.

Yeah, but Roeper just thinks he's way too smart. And Ebert seems to love everything unless it's downright awful. They make a very odd pairing. Does anyone else think it looks like Ebert either a) got his stomach stapled or b) had a stroke lately?

I don't have a clue what you're on about smile

He looks very thin and lopsided all of the sudden.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.