In case there is any confusion, you are required to answer BOTH of the questions listed below. You answers (combined) should be a minimum of 200 total words. (This was also the case for Monday's questions. However, since I understand that it may have been unclear, you will not be penalized if you answered only one question).1) Referring to the torture scene in Reservoir Dogs, Jim McLellan (in Woods, pgs. 53-60) states:
"With its vertiginous shift from bouncy comedy into horrified fascination with the way it exhausts the viewers' guilty laughter then threatens to just keep on going, it's almost like an encapsulation of Tarantino's directorial method."
Do you agree with McLellan's characterization of Tarantino's "directorial method"? Discuss how you see Tarantino employing this method in Pulp Fiction.
2) After completing all of the assigned articles on Pulp Fiction in the Woods book, discuss 3 recurring comments/observations that the authors make about Tarantino and/or the film.
Reminder: You are required to screen Four Rooms for Wednesday's class (on reserve at the library). Please come to class prepared to discuss the film, and with three ideas about common traits/characteristics running through all of the Tarantino "products" (films both written and directed by Tarantino) that have been included in the course thus far.
26 comments:
1. Tarantino is a very clever writer. He incorporates pop culture and comedy into even the most gruesome scenes. In the torture scene in Reservoir Dogs, Tarantino mixes light-hearted comedy with brutal violence. He makes you laugh, but then makes you feel bad for laughing during a scene like that. I believe this is a major technique Tarantino uses, but I don’t believe it is his entire directorial method.
Tarantino uses many techniques in his movies. Not every scene is violent, and not every scene is funny. Some are neither one. Tarantino is just great at putting violence into a movie but making the audience laugh so the scene doesn’t appear as bad. I think Tarantino would be a little offended if he read the quote from Jim McLellan. The torture scene in Reservoir Dogs is somewhat long. It makes the audience feel a little uneasy. They don’t know what is going to happen or how bad it is going to get. As one critic put it, “it’s as if Tarantino is the bopping torturer and the audience the terrified cop, transfixed in his seat, wondering what’s coming next.”
Pulp Fiction includes many scenes that are violent but funny at the same time. They do make the audience feel guilty and the can get long as well. The scene where Vincent shoots Marvin in the head on accident during a conversation is humorous. After he shoots him, he looks at Jules and says that he just shot Marvin in the face. He seems very calm about it at first. It becomes amusing because he is so calm about the accident. When Vincent gets shot coming out of the bathroom, I laughed a little. I also think the scene where Jules and Vincent are supposed to kill the boys is humorous and is long. Jules takes forever to get the job done, and he takes a bite of the boy’s burger. He then drinks all of his soda. I found many of the violent scenes somewhat funny in Pulp Fiction, which made me feel guilty.
2. Pulp Fiction was a major movie. Everyone has heard of it, and most have seen it. After reading the articles, I found that most authors mentioned what big stars were cast in that movie. Bruce Willis, Samuel Jackson, John Travolta are just a few that star in Pulp Fiction. This wasn’t a big budget film either. The big stars decided to do the movie because they loved the script, not for a paycheck. This helped the movie become so great. Everyone loved the story so they put their all into it.
The second thing that most of the articles mentioned was how bold Tarantino is. He takes risks with his movies. He shows brutal violence and people doing drugs. He writes racist, sexist, and homophobic dialogue. He doesn’t care. He even risks making a two and a half hour movie with three different but intertwining stories. Tarantino does what he believes is best, not what critics and audiences want. Tri-Star was originally going to promote Pulp Fiction, but they through a fit about the heroin use. Tarantino told them too bad it’s staying, and got another company to promote the movie.
The final thing most of the articles mentioned is the fact that Tarantino may show drug use and violence in his movies, but that doesn’t mean he agrees with it. According to Tarantino, “To say I get a big kick out of violence in movies and can enjoy violence in movies but find it totally abhorrent in real life- I can feel totally justified and totally comfortable with that statement. I do not think one is a contradiction of the other. Real life violence is real life violence. Movies are movies.” It’s important to be able to separate the two.
1) Tarantino links the comedy of Blonde's dance to "Stuck in the Middle with You" with the sadistic torture of the cop so closely that there is as McLellan writes, a guilty laughter that carries over from one to the other. We laugh as Blonde two steps across the warehouse floor, then without realizing it, find ourselves still laughing as he slices the cops face. McLellan argues that this encapsulates Tarantino's directorial method. Yet this use of comedy in the midst of drama is by no means a new technique: Shakespeare used comedic relief in his tragedy Hamlet. Comedic relief was used as a means to release tension that had built up as a result of drama, and also to distract the audience from what was coming. Tarantino does the same thing in Reservoir Dogs, offering us Blonde's humorous dance as a way for the audience to release some of the emotional tension that has built up over the course of the narrative before surprising us by cutting off the cop's ear. He uses the same technique again in Pulp Fiction; one such example occurs following Butch's close encounter with Vincent. Butch is rocking out in his car--we are relieved and we are laughing, and then caught off guard when Butch hits Marcellus with his car. I do think that Tarantino uses a calculated relationship between comedy and tragedy, but he is by no means the first to do so.
2) Genre, recycling, time
The critics all discuss in some capacity three recurring ideas about Pulp Fiction: genre, recycling, and time. Tarantino is a cinephile, and brings influences from many genres to Pulp Fiction. Several of the critics call the film a sort of noir, one notes the similarity between the freeze frame with Pumpkin and Honey Bunny and a scene in The Wild Bunch (a western), and yet another cites blaxploitation influence. Perhaps the best way to describe the combination is to quote Geoffrey O'Brien: "Pulp Fiction is more a guided tour of an infernal theme park decorated with cultural detritus." Tarantino recycles these ideas and repackages them in a new and interesting way: just as he recycles the three stories of the film and uses a briefcase out of Kiss Me Deadly, he two repackages different eras of pop culture, referencing Madonna and Happy Days. He recycles his idol Martin Scorsese's actor Harvey Keitel, and John Travolta's history of dancing on screen. Time also plays a big part in Pulp Fiction, several critics note. From the significance of Butch's family watch, to the retro diner that houses, and the film's soundtrack, the film seems to have no conventional sense of time. He brings 70's icon John Travolta and 80's icon Bruce Willis back. Even the way that Tarantino tells the story, deliberately out of order, defies time.
To say that Tarantino’s directorial style is incorporating comedy into horror, would be a pretty bold and bland statement since not all of Tarantino’s frames are full of guilty laughter and torture scenes. A good example of a scene full of guilty laughter is in Pulp Fiction when Mia is overdosing and Vincent has to stab her with an adrenaline shot but none of the characters present has ever given anyone an adrenaline shot before. This scene in itself made me cringe and want to cover my eyes; yet, the conversation going on was hilarious! Although some of his most intense scenes does make the viewer unsure of which emotion to feel, many scenes are either funny or horrific. I think Todd McCarthy(Woods) puts it perfectly when he says, “When his[Tarantino] characters draw guns, as they so frequently do, one never knows if they’re going to blow other’s heads off, make a funny speech…, have the tables turn on them, or make an honourable, peaceful exit.” Therefore, to plainly say that Tarantino is one-sided in his directorial method would probably be a little offensive because he is very dynamic and usually doesn’t give the viewer what they expect to see.
As someone who has never seen any Quentin Tarantino films, there are three things that are prevalent observations/comments in all of his films thus far. The actors/actresses that Tarantino has involved in each movie are a brilliant blend of very big stars and some not-so-well-known stars. Each character strongly performs their scenes and makes them magnificent whether they are a small star or an A-list actor/actress. Secondly, the way Tarantino arranges the scenes. The scenes usually do not go in the order in which they occur, yet, start at some point in the film—going back and forth between the present and the past. Pulling the viewer in to piece each piece of the storyline, as well as how everyone is connected fits together. Thirdly, Tarantino’s borrowing and enhancing ideas/references from others is very typical in many of his films. For example, his storyline and ending in Reservoir Dogs is very similar to that of City on Fire by Ringo Lam. But, what is unique is that Tarantino takes each story, and takes an odd, unexpected twist with them; “so that the ‘old chestnuts’ are recycled into something new.”. Overall, Tarantino’s films are expected to be unexpected.
In Pulp Fiction I think you see your self guilty laughing more than you would think. Some of these scenes in other settings or situations in other movies would get gasps and hisses from the crowd. I think that it just blind sides you and your like what the fuck is going on and it just makes you laugh because its so out there. I am refering mostly to the gimp scene, i had to laugh and keep laughing no matter how serious the subject got I wanted to start laughing at the scene were the Boss shoots the pedestrian but restrained because it all hadn't built up in me till Zed calls his guy over. More scenes offering the same direction would be the overdose scene. A very serious situation but that is one in another situation that everyone is waiting to laugh about when he comes out of the bathroom. Your thinking inside omg whats going to happen to this girl at the same time laughin at the dialoug from the guys on the phone. Ive noticed this a lot with reservoir dogs also the dialog is so true its funny. I will answer last weekes questions and the seond part of this one whenmy books get here from amazon ~
1. I wouldn’t say that Tarantino’s directorial method is the unexpected switch from comedy to horror as Jim McLellan suggests in his article, “Tarantino on the Run.” If that were anybody’s “method” I would give it to the Coen Brothers with “Blood Simple,” “Raising Arizona,” “Miller’s Crossing,” and “Barton Fink” all coming out before “Reservoir Dogs.” However, Tarantino does use this plot ploy well. Mr. Blonde’s happy, up-beat dance in “Reservoir Dogs” right before he dismembers the police officer is extremely comical. We laugh because we are uncomfortable and as caught off guard by the silliness as we are by the grotesque. This untimely cathartic release only enhances the brutality of Mr. Blonde hacking off the right ear of the poor rookie cop. Similarly, in “Pulp Fiction” Jules and Vincent bickering like a married couple while the clean the “little bits of brain and skull” out of the car makes light of the gravity of what they are doing; as does Vincent’s joke about Lance telling him to stab Mia three times in the chest while she is passed out, O.Ded on the floor. Although Tarantino masterfully creates scenes that evoke inappropriate laughter from his audience I have a hard time saying that it is his “directorial method.”
2. There were many reoccurring comments and themes in the eight reviews of “Pulp Fiction” presented in Paul Woods book, “Quentin Tarantino: The Film Geek Files.” Three I found most interesting were the distinct similarities between “Reservoir Dogs” and “Pulp Fiction” discussed in McLellan, O’Hagan, McCarthy, and Websters’ articles; “Pulp Fiction” as a moral film; and the use of non-linear storytelling.
As many authors have pointed out there are a myriad of similarities and references to “Reservoir Dogs” in “Pulp Fiction.” For instance, the hit men, Jules and Vincent, are wearing black suits, white shirts, and thin black ties. This is the exact uniform that the thieves in “Dogs” wear. They are both gangster movies. Tim Roth, Steve Buscemi, Quentin Tarantino and Harvey Keitel are in both movies playing similar roles with the ironic exception of Steve Buscemi as a waiter. They are both films filled with references to other times and other movies. Finally, they are both moral films.
In “Reservoir Dogs” none of the bad guys get away. Also, the morals of loyalty and honesty are showcased by the relationship between Mr. White and Mr. Orange. In “Pulp Fiction” the character of Jules and the story of his redemption is inherently a moral story. His religious quest and the decision he makes to walk away from his gangster life shows that crime doesn’t pay (especially when he gives all his money to Pumpkin).
Peter Chumo eloquently describes the genius of non-linear storytelling in “Pulp Fiction” as a metaphor for the film director. This is not a gimmicky, cool, way to tell stories as some of the other authors make it appear. Rather than it being a novelty, this method, aids in character development and plot. If the events were to happen in chronological order the impact, as Chumo points out, Jule’s epiphany would carry little weight and Butch’s story would have little to no place. The entire meaning of the movie would change.
1) I would say that Jim McLellan is fairly accurate with his description of Tarantino’s “directorial method”. All of the Tarantino movies I have been exposed to seem to thrive on the idea of intertwining humor with horror – which the viewer may or may not feel guilty about laughing about (depending on whether he or she does). This juxtaposition of two seemingly opposite emotional states is one of the ways that Tarantino quotes he can: “…make a left turn in the narrative and suddenly you’re in a whole new movie.” (Woods, 62). My favorite example is in “Pulp Fiction”, when Jules and Vince survive an onslaught from the man who was, unbeknownst to them, hiding in the bathroom. In a ten second segment, the audience recoils at the thought of the possible murder of our humorous heroes in an extremely intense scene. They are then thrust immediately into laughter as the two check each other for bullet wounds. A brutal rampage follows up this light-hearted gesture, as both of them successfully wreak vengeance against their opponent. The audience cringes, laughs, and then questions why they were laughing at all. In Tarantino’s words: “A comedy can turn into a nightmare in one scene and the audience are going ‘Holy shit, man, what’s happenin’?’” (Woods, 62). This juxtaposition of humor and horror is common in all (that I am familiar with) of Tarantino’s work, and I think it is a fair description of his “directorial method”.
2) One of the main observation in all of the articles offered on “Pulp Fiction” is that overall, the movie actually carries very positive undertones. This is especially evident when the authors critiqued the character of Jules. He ultimately rejects the gangster life, and leaves the movie starting anew. His business associate, Vince, condemns this decision, and pays for it shortly after. As Tarantino puts it: “Pulp Fiction is ultimately a film about forgiveness and mercy, albeit in a hard and brutal world.” (Woods, 63). He also states: “[‘Pulp Fiction’] has an overly comic spirit, pretty much from the beginning to the end.” (Woods, 57).
Another regular comment is the copious amount of pop culture that was thrown into “Pulp Fiction”. The movie is a “…guided tour of an infernal theme park decorated with cultural detritus…” (Woods, 72). With references to everyone from “The Fonz” to Kaine from “Kung Fu”, the film is littered with allusions to popular culture icons.
The last observation I noticed being reiterated in many of the articles was the authors’ surprise at how much Tarantino was able to do with a relatively small budget. Not only did he have such a stellar cast (many of whom signed on simply after reading the script), but he also built incredible sets, such as “Jackrabbit Slim’s”. Tarantino states: “I wouldn’t let them rent out a real Fifties restaurant, I wanted to do it from scratch.” He was able to cast A-list actors such as Bruce Willis, even though the entire movie budget of eight million dollars was, “…less than Willis’ single acting fee on ‘Die Hard 3’” (Woods, 49). This fact alone tells you that actors, among others in the movie industry, love and respect his writing and direction skills.
1.) Yes, I do agree with the idea that Woods put forth. The torture scene is a microcosm for Tarantino’s writing and directorial style. He pushes you as for as you can go and you never can predict what’s coming next. According to Woods “He returns to this primal scene twice Pulp Fiction, early on when a hit man delays killing his squirming seated target to ponder which type of burgers are the best, and later when a boxer and a mobster find themselves bound and gagged and being doused with petrol by a pair of hillbilly creeps.” These scenes represent Tarantino’s style as a director and the escalation is his film manifesto.
2.) Glamorizing violence is a reoccurring topic in each of the articles. Tarantino takes criticism from what people believe is the way he makes violence look “cool”, and entertaining. Tarantino argues that it’s okay for Movie violence to be entertaining, because for the simple fact, it’s a movie. He believes there is a difference between movie violence and real life violence, and he doesn’t like real life violence, but loves movies violence. The articles also discuss the many pop culture references in Pulp Fiction, which is part of what the appeal the movie ha to many movie goers. The last observation is the influence of noir movies and novels had on the storyline, style, and mood of Pulp Fiction.
Tarantino is definitely a master at combining violence with laughter and music. He has an ability to make the audience laugh and cringe within seconds. Violence sells and comedy sells so he uses them. I think the comedy also takes a little edge off of the violence and allows the audience to make it through the film. His scenes are also unforgettable. I will never forget Mr. Blondes little dance before and during the torture of the cop. I think of it every time I hear that song. The shooting scene in pulp fiction where he shoots Marvin in the face is also unforgettable. It was very unexpected and very messy and problematic for the characters.
I would agree that the ability of Tarantino to attract big name stars stand out. Actors obviously love to star in his movies and his movies have definitely furthered some of their careers. Uma Thurman is a good example of this. He has made her career. The next point that seems to come up is his ability to take others ideas and projects and turns them into his own. He uses the works of others and takes them to the next level improving on them all the way along. It also stands out that the bad guys never win in his films to this point. They either die or quit
Well, that may be overstating things a bit, but I guess it is a legitimate point. In the torture scene, Tarantino uses “Stuck in the Middle With You,” and Madsen’s dance for amusement and humor and then dashes us into the depravity of the ear-cutting and torture. Both “Reservoir Dogs” and “Pulp Fiction,” do indeed share a mélange of pop-culture humor, musical memory, and inevitable shocking violence. If McClellan is just trying to make this point, I agree, but I believe it falls short as an overarching summation of Tarantino’s directorial method. He likes this mix, but his method is more than just the juxtaposition of shock and humor.
Examples from “Pulp Fiction” include, the foot massage debate followed by the apartment massacre, Jack Rabbit Slim’s followed by the nightmare in Lance’s apartment, Vincent caught sitting on the toilet and then is blown away, the Statler Brothers singing “Flowers on the Wall” followed by the adventure with Zed and Maynard. There are, of course, many other examples – but this Tarantino technique does not extrapolate to an all-encompassing methodology. Tarantino does not torture the audience. We are not like that cop sitting on the chair waiting to see what comes next. Neither “Pulp Fiction” nor “Reservoir Dogs” tortures the audience – if they did, we wouldn’t be talking about them today. Only someone whose sensibilities have been shocked by something altogether new could reach that conclusion.
I’m not suggesting the article is primarily negative, but I do believe that it does an inadequate job of capturing the gestalt of this film and the reasons for its dramatic impact on the viewing public. Sean O’Hagan is more on target when when he writes, “…Pulp Fiction announces the presence of a singular, and singularly precocious, major-league talent… Tarantino constructs a contemporary film noir that is by turns, hilarious, surreal, and shocking.” Of course, O’Hagan also goes on in his article to try and Bring Tarantino down a notch or two. With the passage of time, I suspect that McLellan, O’Hagan and other shell-shocked critics of the new have revised their opinions of this classic film.
But yes, he does use both violence and humor and the combination creates an entirely new kind of cinematic rollercoaster.
A FEW COMMON THEMES FROM WOODS
1. He writes great dialogue.
2. He takes old genres and turns them into something fresh and contemporary.
3. He is a film and culture geek who laces his films with resonantly effective references to past music, film and culture.
4. He combines humor and violence in a shockingly effective new way.
5. He coaxes great performances out of actors and is capable of reviving careers.
6. There is an entire mythology that has been built up around Tarantino and his personal history.
1. I believe that Jim Mclellan is right, in that Tarantino uses comedy and violence together. He does this so the audience is not too disturbed by the violence. This happens a few times in Pulp Fiction. One example is when Vincent accidentally shoots Marvin in the face and his response is "Whoa! Oh man, I shot Marvin in the face." Then Jules responds with "Why the fuck did you do that!" So even though a man was just shot in the face, you still kind of have to laugh at their reaction to it.
2. One observation that most of the authors talked about, was how Tarantino was able to get such a great cast with only a 8 million dollar budget for the movie. This shows that lots of actors respect Tarantino and will work on his movies for less money because they know they are going to be great films.
Another recurring observation made about Tarantino, is that the bad guys never win. In Reservoir Dogs the audience is kind of rooting for the bad guys to get away, like Larry for example. Yet Tarantino has every one of them die by the end of the movie. Another example of this is in Pulp Fiction. Vincent ends up dieing and Jules survives, but the only reason that Jules survives is because he stopped being a gangster and decided to live a better life.
Finally, a third observation shared by some of the authors is how Tarantino uses non-linear story telling. In both movies Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction Tarantino takes you back and forth from the present to the past. These movies are never in chronological order and I believe it makes them better movies. It makes you wonder more about what is going on, for example when Jules and Vincent walk into the bar wearing shorts and a T-shirt you are curious on why they are wearing that. It keeps you interested in the movie, having to wait to find out why certain things happened.
Ronnie Dhaliwal
1.) I agree with McLellan's characterization of Tarantino's directorial method that it shifts from bouncy comedy to horrified fascination and guilty laughter. In Reservoir Dogs, Tarantino uses the song "Stuck in the Middle with You" and Mr. Blonde's dancing to offset the violence of the torture scene and make us laugh guiltily. The length of the scene keeps us hanging on, nervously awaiting what happens next. Tarantino does the same thing in Pulp Fiction in the scene where Marvin gets shot. Vincent Vega's cool and calm personality immediately following the shooting adds a comedic twist to a pretty bloody and violent scene. The same situation occurs in the scene when Samuel L Jackson and Travolta's characters go to retrieve Macellas Wallace's brief case. The eating of the burger, drinking the Sprite, and the resiting of the bible verse put a comedic spin on another violent scene.
2.) Three things that reoccur in Tarantino's films are that he uses big name stars such as, Travolta, Jackson, and Willis in Pulp Fiction. He uses sexism, homophobia, and violence to enhance the characters in his movies and he is not afraid to show other things that society looks down upon such as drug use.
-Robert Mueller
i do agree with the description of Tarantino's directing and cinematic style addressed in question 1. His number 1 gift is his style. The audience is like the helpless victim, sitting in our seats, knowing, but never REALLY knowing what will happen next. The most direct relation that i could make to PULP FICTION in this way is when bruce willis and marcellus are tied down in the basement and at first you think that they will be physically tortured, well, not like getting fucked in the ass ISNT, but the viewer doesnt expect the rape to happen, they more expected them to be burnt, because of the gasoline, or other things like that. He finds a way to set us up and them out of nowhere something that nobody could ever expect, it's really smart.
2)
1: in jim mclellan's and sean o'haggan's short writings, they both mention the violence and drug use in his films. Tarantino responds both times saying simply and clearly: movies are movies. Violence in real life is terrible. And that is really all the explanation he needs to give.
2: They cite tarantino in at least two of the articles saying he likes using the "old chestnuts" and recycling them into something new. EX. the mobster that takes out the boss's wife, but don't touch her...etc. He adds twists to classics.
3: Every article that talks about his passion for movies is why people love working with and for him. he loves movies. he LOVES movies. Loves them. love love love love. Can't stop talking about them. A film geek in every regard.
1.) I mostly agree with McLellan’s characterization of Tarantino’s directorial style, but with one big exception. In his likening of Tarantino to Mr. Blonde I agree the most. In the scene, Blonde has an inevitable goal, but the paths to reach it are undetermined. What he does to the cop is on his whim and for no other reason but his own gratification. Tarantino does the same with his films. He has a main story to tell, but he lets the intricacies and details unfold as he goes. Where I strongly disagree with McLellan’s characterization is that the audience is the cop. Yes, while watching the movie we are somewhat captive and subjected to graphic violence, but the most important deference is that the cop is not enjoying it. It would be much more fitting to compare the audience to The Gimp. Also restrained and subjected to violence, he however finds pleasure in watching. Tarantino has said many times in response to the violence question that violence in movies can be cool, and audiences agree. We like to watch it.
2.) One comment that almost very article makes his how valuable Tarantino’s history as an actor is and helps him to direct. Webster, McLellan, and O’Hagan comment on this on pages 50, 54, 59 and 64 respectively. Another theme that these articles point out is how his films, despite their dark and violent narratives, somehow come to a moral/happy ending. This is brought up about Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs by Mclellan on p. 57, and echoed by Chuno II on p.87, O’Hagan on p.63, and O’Brien on p.74. Another less obvious, but more intriguing theme is how Tarantino will, despite the character’s out of the ordinary circumstances, still make them subject to real world rules. This is talked about by on pages 68 and 71.
1. Referring to the torture scene in Reservoir Dogs, in which Mr. Blonde cuts off the ear of the captive cop. in scene this there was huge part violence, by showing the captive cop getting punch and knockout by Mr. White, Mr. Pink, and Mr. Blonde. Basically tell the character is really (sorry for my French!)Piss off about the situation during the heist. When Mr. Blonde and the captive cop were left behind from other, there was comedy relief when he was dancing around the captive cop with the surrounded music from the 70’s. making the audience laugh during that and drifting the camera always from the scene, so they won’t pay attention about the cutting of the ear, but our imagination and how it feel the plain of the captive cop.
2. The 3 recurring comments/observations that the authors make about Tarantino and/or the film. Those most comments or observations is when the authors keep mention about Genre, recycling, time. For prime example this was mention in both books (Woods and Gallafent), in Pulp Fictions some of the scene keep repeated itself during each of the story. Meaning the same concept of violence, the drug using, and sexuality about the character. In each of the story it tells about the different character s and it situation, some the story has similar concept of using genre, recycling, time. For example with John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson character both of them or hit man for hire, one has a drug problem, but he try to keep it and one has a divine intervention. In the beginning of the movie and toward to the end of the movie using genre, recycling, time.
-Tony -
First of all, I am not sure if I understand the passage in the blog. My interpretation of what I understand from Tarantino's method with the violence and comedy is that he combines two different things in a new way that was barely seen before. Violence and comedy together was not as successful as Tarantino's Pulp Fiction, especially in the way he was using the bible Jules gives a person before killing them. Tarantino wants to show violence in a humors way, not like the bad and negative way that violence really is. Obviously, violence is funny to Tarantino but he wants the viewers to find it funny too. He decided to put humor in violence to make it comedy for the viewers to be able to accept the violence in an easier way. For example, the scene from Pulp fiction where Vincent accidently shot a head in the car. Then The Wolf arrived to help solve the problem. How The Wolf handled it was comical. In the end, Jules and Vincent dressed up like going to a volleyball game. The transformation of Jules and Vincent, from gangster to volleyball players, was of course violent but at the same time comical. Tarantino just wants to convince his viewers to see violence in comical way, like he does.
The obvious thing that the authors discussed about was the timeline Tarantino set in Pulp Fiction. We saw a part of the story in the beginning at the coffeeshop then again at the end but never in the middle. Tarantino plays with the idea of a time machine with various scenes that help relate all of them together in the end. That is his style with other films as well, not only Pulp Fiction.
Second thing, Bruce Willis and John Travolta acted in Pulp Fiction. Most of the articles discussed about how Tarantino got famous well-known actors to act in his films for cheap (compared to Bruce in Die Hard 2). The actors mentioned about how they loved the script and want to act for Tarantino. Tarantino ended up with a great crew. The articles also mentioned how well things went on the stage with the crew. That rarely happens with any directors. Tarantino is not just lucky. He knows what he wants and convinced others to work with him by reading his script.
Third thing, the script itself. Or should I say, Pulp Fiction, has a lot of film noir and other stolen techniques from films from before that gave twists to Pulp Fiction. There are way too many of them that appeared in Pulp Fiction to name them all. One example is Saturday Night Fever where there is dancing going on at a club with Travolta. In Pulp Fiction, there is a scene where Mia and Vincent dance in the 1950's restaurant. Tarantino used the dancing idea from the Fever in his film and gave it the different aspect of being in a restaurant instead of a club. Tarantino was well known for stealing ideas from other films but at the same time, he does change the ideas into his own.
1. I do agree with McLellan’s assessment of Tarantino’s directorial method. The torture scene in Reservoir Dogs has humor to it, yet it is very graphic and violent subject matter. The song “Stuck in the Middle With You” is playing in the background and Mr. Blonde is dancing his way over to the cop to torture him. There is a sense of guilt for laughing but it is hard not to. Tarantino definitely employs this technique in the movie Pulp Fiction. The most obvious scene that comes to mind is the incident that happens where Jewels accidently shoots the guy in the back seat of their car. There is somewhat humorous dialog going on and then something horrific and graphic happens, but it is still a very funny moment. This is one of my favorite aspects of Tarantino films. He is able to make violence humorous.
2. One of the aspects that the authors talk about in the readings was the fact that Pulp Fiction had so many big names in it. The cast wanted to do this movie because of how strong the script was. Another aspect the author talks about is in fact the effective way in which Tarantino combines violence and humor. Finally the timeline in which Pulp Fiction was shot was mentioned a great deal. The recycled circumstances that are kept being brought back but from different characters perspectives.
-Alex Sokovich
1) McLellan's quote about Tarantino's directorial methods i believe accurately sums up his style. Tarantino's directing of these movies especially Reservoir Dogs can at the same time make you laugh and then make you feel guilty for laughing. Even through his other films, Tarantino gets the audience to eventually feel guilty for laughing. This type of script writing challenges the viewer to question the pleasure they receive when watching. It is of course true, or at least in my opinion, that Tarantino isn't in any sense trying to provoke real life violence or promote it. In Woods, Tarantino stated, " Real life violence is real and movies are movies."
Tarrantino does successfully make us feel all the above, which is a true mark of his transcended cinematic scenes to the viewing audience. One critic said, "Tarantino is the bouncy torturer and the audience is the terrified cop waiting for what is next." His scripts can really twist the viewer 360 degrees and make us change our opinion.
2) Recurring comments/observations that appear in Wood's book are, the cast, violence, and scriptwriting. Tarantino was successful enough with Reservoir Dog that his cinematic possibilities boomed. With actors such as John Travolta, Samuel L. Jackson, Uma Thurman, and Bruce Willis, Tarantino was able to improve his script, work of his previous success and eventually because and A List celebrity. Tarantino directing skills and techniques in his films allows the actors to improvise and Tarantino is constantly changing the script with that.
The next recurring topic was violence. Like Reservoir Dogs, Tarantino did not shy away from violence in Pulp Fiction. As always violence plays a major part in the character of Tarantino films in so doing he views this as a necessity. Tarantino is always pushing the walls of cinema and does so repeatedly with drug use, sex and violence.
The last recurring topic is his scriptwriting. Quentin Tarantino has a very definitive style in cinema with directing, but he is also know for is scriptwriting. Tarantino's use of pop culture, sexism, racism, and homosexuality continually show themselves in his scripts. His style of making you laugh in the worst situations still causes confusion in film for its effect on humor.
1) I believe McLellan’s thoughts on Tarantino’s method of directing are very accurate. For me a man who can’t get enough dark humor, I find Tarantino’s films quite enjoyable. Tarantino’s use of “guilty laughter” accompanied with the violent/controversial imagery and overall direction which evokes anticipation, most might not comprehend and also go as far as to offend some. In Pulp Fiction the scene that stands out to myself as quite funny is the one in which Bruce and Ving become hostages in a crazy redneck sex dungeon. The beginning of this scene we are shown Brue and Ving bloody gagged and bound along with the shop owner and a cop. At first sight of this bloody mess we feel shocked at what is to come, maybe another ear is going to be cut off? But the unexpected happens through dialogue what McLellan refers to as “guilty laughter” we hear the cop say “Bring out the gimp.” Tarantino has a way with timing his off the wall humor, throughout the rest of this scene in which is constantly shifting seamlessly from funny to violent, we can see how Tarantino crafts his perfect balance of comedy, action, horror and thriller.
2) Violence, small budget big cast, overall message of renewal are just some of the recurring ideas of Pulp Fiction. First off everybody mentions the violence that Tarantino brings to the screen how it’s unrealistic and at times unnecessary. Tarantino makes a comment about violence and movies that sums up what most people can’t/wont over come “Real life violence is real life violence. Movies are movies. I can watch a movie about the Hindenburg disaster and get into it as a movie but still feel it’s a horrible real life tragedy. It’s not the same thing at all.” (Woods, p56) I agree with Tarantino on this because for the most part take what they see to literally because film does have the power to make someone feel things they never would or want to feel. It is just a movie and that’s why you go see them to experience something you never would before.
You can see how Tarantino’s filmmaking is one in which people appreciate by just looking at the budget and than the extremely talented cast. Pulp Fiction was made for eight million dollars, which was the same amount as Bruce Willis’ paycheck for Die Hard 3. Throughout the superstar cast we hear mention of Jackson who has been in the industry for many years and say “I sat down, read the script straight through, which I normally don’t do, took a breath, then read it again, which I never do, just to make sure it was true. That was the best script I’d ever read.”(Woods p39 You can see that Tarantino’s style is irresistible actors would sacrifice their paychecks to be apart of his films.
As for Jules the man who gives up his criminal life for belief of a miracle, for the first time and unexpectedly we are encountered with the theme of hope. Good verse Evil a common battle in many stories but within the same character is special we see a man who is a paid killer and recites a passage from the bible before completing his job. Along with undertones such as the combination of the case “666” we are shown evil, and Jules to over come that evil. Some say his film is immoral but Tarantino says other wise “Pulp Fiction is ultimately a film about forgiveness and mercy, albeit in a hard and brutal world.” (Woods p63)
1) I definintly agree with McLellan on this idea. Tarantino’s work does go from “bouncy comedy to horrified fascination”. I believe this is one of his methods primarily because viewers then cannot always predict what will happen. This is also the case in the scene from True Romance where Cliff is explaining that Sicilians are “spawned from niggers”. They all share a laugh on screen and them, boom, Cliff is shot three times in the head. In Pulp Fiction, I could see this method in action in the scene at the very end of the movie in the diner. It goes from being very serious and nerve-racking when there are guns pointed among the main characters and a drawn-out conversation that could either end in bloodshed or it could end peacefully. With the latter being the ultimate scenario, the next few seconds of the film is funny in that it shows the two macho, typically suit-wearing men in gym shorts and t-shirts packing their guns into their gym shorts. I think this is a very good characteristic of Tarantino’s work.
2) The first thing that most authors had to say about reoccurrences in Tarantino’s work is genre. It is no secret that he steals/pays homage to ideas or genres from other films and puts a contemporary/witty spin on it. The next is that his dialogue is so sharp. Tarantino makes characters come to life in his films. Take Pulp Fiction for example and the scene where Travolta and Jackson are talking about foot massages on the way to a major shoot down. This scene would not be nearly as funny or as believable if it wasn’t for his unique dialogue. The last reoccurrence is time. Tarantino usually tells his stories out of chronological order. This is also evident in Pulp Fiction.
I agree that McLellan’s description of Tarantino’s directional method is true in many scenes in Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction; however for me the torture scene seemed to be all horror and no comedy. I didn’t see Mr. Blonde’s dancing to 70’s music as very funny because I was caught up in the torture aspect. His dancing made his character seem very psychotic, but I didn’t find it funny, and I already thought he was psychotic. It didn’t give me a feeling of “horrified fascination” as described by McLellan because a torture scene is kind of common and predictable in movies with a lot of violence and crime. Mr. Blonde’s character’s history of killing innocent people made this scene seem kind of a predictable thing to do. The way that it was filmed in real time and how he used I guess “original” ways to torture the cop didn’t make the movie more thrilling or inventive for me, it just made me not want to watch that part. I was glad when the torture scene was over, not only because I don’t like watching grotesque violence, but because it got back to the interesting twists of the rest of the script like Mr. Orange being a cop and the other cop knowing about it and not saying anything.
Tarantino used this directional method of switching from comedy to horror and sometimes combining them many times in Pulp Fiction. One that stood out to me was when Vincent accidentally shot Marvin in the car and how they handled the situation. It made me laugh but I didn’t really want to because this comedy and horror together made it seem like accidentally killing someone wasn’t a big deal.
One comment about Tarantino that is commonly made by the authors in the readings on Pulp Fiction is that he grew up watching a lot of movies, loved all kinds of movies, worked in a video store, and knows a ton about movies. Chumo mentions this when he says “a love of movies since childhood and the most famous former videostore clerk in America, Quentin Tarantino has displayed an almost encyclopaedic knowledge of movies…” (Woods 75). I think the authors mention this to show that he did not have the traditional film school education that many directors have and where his knowledge and authority on the subject of movies came from.
An aspect of Tarantino’s films that is often mentioned is his use of shifts in time, and how he selectively tells different parts of the story so the audience does not know exactly what is going on. This is discussed in Chumo’s article, and also when McCarthy says, “Overall structure come clear only after the two-hour mark with launch of the final stretch, which dovetails beautifully back to the beginning…” (Woods 52).
His relationship with the actors in his films is also discussed frequently. Webster describes how Tarantino attracted many famous actors to be in his films when he was very much unknown when she says, “Reservoir Dogs may have had an impressive cast for a first movie, but for Pulp Tarantino has pushed out the boat.” It is also often mentioned that he has a unique directional style and relationship with his actors partially due to the fact that he is an actor himself, and knows how to get the performance that he wants from his actors while giving them a lot of flexibility with their roles.
I do agree with McLellan’s characterization of Tarantino’s directorial method. He mixes bits of humor with violent episodes. In Reservoir Dogs, he has Mr. Blonde dancing to “Stuck in the Middle with You,” and then cuts off a captured cop’s ear. In Pulp Fiction, Jules delays killing a young man by discussing the quality of burgers, and then murders 3 kids. I believe Tarantino does this to give us a better understanding of the characters and to tell us what they are all about.
All of the authors talk about the big names in the film Pulp Fiction, John Travolta, Bruce Willis, Samuel L. Jackson, etc. The film wasn’t a huge budget film yet it attracted these A-list actors because of the quality of writing in the script. Samuel L. Jackson said that he read the whole script straight through, took a breath, and read it again. That is something that he doesn’t usually do, according to him.
Another thing the authors mention is how he takes risks with violence, drugs, racism, and sexism. He incorporates all of this into his movies and at times mixes them with humor. This is a big risk because most are a little edgy when discussing or viewing these topics. Those are topics most people avoid at all costs because of differing opinions. Tarantino puts them in his movie for cinematic and character development but doesn’t necessarily agree with those topics.
The last common thread between the authors in the Woods book is that he constantly references old movies, music and culture and does it successfully. He borrows from old movies, re-works the material and makes it his own while incorporating fads of the time period.
1.) If any director has the capability to swing an audience’s emotions drastically throughout the whole duration of a film it’s Tarantino. His dialogue is quick, real, gritty and fun, full of pop-culture references and risqué topics. For teen, male audiences especially, this is more than enough to keep one laughing and on his toes. Right when we feel comfortable with the characters Tarantino presents to us, he switches gears, plummeting us into a realm of vivid violence. This violence, Tarantino claims, is in no way related to the realm of real-life violence. Part of the fun he experiences in creating film is playing with the idea of watching a film. The audience never knows what to expect, be it laughable or a moment in which we cringe. Since dedicated film viewers watch film to be surprised by what they see, this method is extremely effective. The emotional aspects of Tarantino’s films have a humor to them, a reflexivity, that make them more interesting to feel, leaving an audience wondering why they could laugh during a certain scene in which they are used to feeling uncomfortable. In the case of Pulp Fiction, this works to the benefit of the whole idea of filmmaking. This film takes us through short vignettes, out of order, in order to make our minds think differently about the chronological sequence of events. Since Tarantino already has his audience thinking differently about the way they watch films, what more could he do than play with the idea of thinking about films. We are introduced to two gangsters in a comical setting right off the bat in order for us to be able to relate to hardened criminals. Since that was our introduction, seeing them brutally murder almost a whole flat worth of people, accompanied by some dark humor, is much more tolerable and almost just sheer excitement instead of fear and sympathy. The film follows this pattern, juxtaposing humor with many life-threatening situations, making the violence of the film purely smut and nothing deeper. To Tarantino, smut is an escape from reality and an enjoyment of the unbelievable, not grotesque exploitation. The fact that this man can create a fun world full of close-to-real life situations yet keep them in the context of film is a large testament to storytelling.
2.) A common occurrence in these essays is the opinion that Tarantino’s films are so successful because it is fun for people to work with the man. He treats actors the only way he knows how, as an actor, catering to their individual styles and allowing them freedom in their roles. Also, being a man who knows film up and down, he knows what he and other film geeks love about film: anticipation, surprise and intrigue. His films hit home so well because the love and care of pure cinematic filmmaking is extremely apparent. Part of the allure to the cult-like collection of Tarantino’s films if the story of Tarantino himself and how he got where he is today. His life is almost like a success story film in and of itself. Something film viewers really adapt to is a personality that they can attach to the films of the creators they love. Tarantino makes films in a completely new and unique style that only he is famous for and it’s the idea that dedicated moviegoers can latch onto the actual physical embodiment of the ideas and images in their favorite films. Tarantino’s love for cinema really reaches its viewers and infects them with the same love for cinema in order for us to really see his true visions really are.
1) McLellan's characterization of Tarantino's directorial method proves to be more than accurate with every instance the director has encapsulated onscreen. From the off-kilter characters that fuel his narratives to the lavishly violent scenes that unfold, with an almost superseding undercurrent of satirical wit, Tarantino manages to not only "shift from bouncy comedy into horrified fascination," as McLellan states, but to intertwine the two elements extrapolating and entirely new form of guilty and exhaustive audience viewing and/or identification.
Tarantino, in context with McLellan's characterization, remarks that Pulp Fiction, "has an overtly comic spirit, pretty much from beginning to end." The most concrete examples in the film spur from the actions of the two hit-men, Jules and Vincent. McLellan states that, "He returns to this primal scene twice in Pulp Fiction, early on, when a hit man (Jules) delays killing his squirming seated target to ponder which type of burgers are the best." From their conversations about fast food and foot massages to a comedic argument about what constitutes a "miracle," the two men seamlessly move through occasions of brutal violence without leaving that infectious comedic realm so distinct to Tarantino. This characterization holds up through even the final moments of the film; with guns feverishly pointed at three different heads threatening to explode into a recalling of Marvin's death, words from Vince, "If you give him $1,500 I'll shoot that motherfucker on principal alone," or Jules' return request for a wallet stamped with "Bad Mother Fucker," brilliantly fuses a so-called "horrid fascination" with unrelenting comedic elements. And not to be forgotten is the eclectic assemblage of editing, dialogue, and pure circumstance throughout Mia's overdose. Close up shots of each individual in Lance's living room directly prior to an adrenaline needle is stabbed through the breast plate of a comatose Uma Thurman illustrates perfectly, through actor expression and cut sequences, how Tarantino Juxtaposes comedy and terrifying moments to create an unprecedented variety of lightheartedness in a world submerged with complex violence, drug abuse, and sexuality.
2) After completing all of the assigned articles on Pulp Fiction in the Woods book, discuss 3 recurring comments/observations that the authors make about Tarantino and/or the film.
2) One observation which seems to follow every discussion of Tarantino is his "stealing" or compiling of narrative and aesthetic elements from throughout world cinema history. Geoffrey O'Brien draws a broad range of similarities between Pulp Fiction and iconic pop culture elements such as Fonzie, The Twilight Zone, Once Upon A Time In The West, Dick Dale, and he even goes so far as to compare Mia's overdose to a zombie resurrection reminiscent of Sam Raimi's cult classic The Evil Dead. Along these same lines Peter N. Chumo relates the metaphorical and dual purpose representation of John Travolta's fading away celebrity status to Wilder's early noir Sunset Boulevard, a film which he states, "explicitly deals with the loss of celebrity." From Jean-Pierre Melville's ideology behind wardrobe choice to Godard's incorporation of spontaneous musical, which never quite suffices the viewers palate, the inspiration and "stealing" is never ending; an issue that goes hand in hand with a discussion as Taratino as director.
The "upbeat" note which seems to finalize all of his films is another recurring element discussed by many of the authors. While the end of each film may pervade in a simulated sense of justice or light hearted tones every story told in Pulp Fiction resolves in a very Hitchcockian manner of ambiguated resolve. Marsellus says to Butch when asked if everything he is OK, "No, I'm pretty fucking far from Okay." When Butch and Fabienne drive off on the chopper we never know if they made it to their train on time, and the audience is never alerted to the actual fate of Jules. The narrative ends consistently on what would appear to a general audience as a happy and sufficient resolve but underneath the exterior of these conclusions lies a constant realm of the unknown.
Another point, Hitchcockian as well, remarked upon by a number of the authors is the self reflexivity Tarantino brings to filmmaking. Positioning himself onscreen and constantly referencing previous works draws attention to the medium of film itself and the entire filmmaking process. As Chumo states, "Tarantino directs his actors and, Jimmie directs his guests so that the creation of the film and the narrative itself suddenly meet. Loosely connected is also his relationship with actors about which he says, "I can talk to actors in their language about their sort of problems... I understand the whole process because I've been through it." His uncompromised view and intimate relationship with his characters, as well as the art of acting, allows for vivid and believable performances in even the smallest of supporting roles.
Yes, Tarantino's six years of acting classes along with his studying of films have enabled him with the skills to tell a story to the audience in ways to keep them on the edge of their seats. He is able to pull out the performances he desires from his actors and actresses because he has been one and knows how to relate to them. Tarantino also relies on the audience wanting the forbidden fruit--that is, the gruesome violence, sex and drugs (sensationalism in a nutshell) that morally speaking shouldn't be watched, definitely shouldn't be enjoyed and yet somehow still worms its way inside of audiences to keep the rooted to their seats. He does this by taking everyday life instances (such as the heroin shooting up scene in Pulp) and blowing them up on the big screen, creating an effect that's similar to watching a car crash: it's horrible and you know you shouldn't, but you just can't look away. Of course, Tarantino is a good director. And as a good director, he knows it is important to prey on the audience's vulnerability--their emotions' are in his hands. So he plays with them for his own amusement and to move the story along while getting across whatever "moralistic" point he is trying to make.
Of all the articles, the three observations that the authors had about Pulp Fiction were the acting, the drugs and Travolta's dancing. Each article mentioned how terrific and/or cool each actor's performance was, and how Tarantino's dynamic dialouge was brought to life by the likes of Samuel L. Jackson and John Travolta. There was a discussion about the drug usage, where each author is some way found the scenes (especially Uma Thurman's drug scare) both harrowing and comic, and Travolta's dancing--an obvious homage to his earlier peformances in Saturday Night Fever and Grease along with several layers of cultural references in Jack Rabbit Slim.
1. I feel like mixing violence and humor is part of what makes Tarantino the kind of director he is. This is more evident in Reservoir Dogs than Pulp Fiction, as PF has more scene’s that start out violent and end funny, or are resolved in some kind of way. RDs is more a depiction of a situation that goes from bad to worse. Any humor involved is in the form of a momentary reprieve from the violence and tension surrounding the story. Stylistically this seems like the motions of a director that has found his style and is learning how to hone his craft.
2. By and large the general consensus was that this movie achieved a level of brilliance enough to propel both Tarantino and Miramax films into the stratosphere. Every writer had lots to say about how well timed the dialogue was and lots of applause was given to Samuel Jackson in his role as Jules. There was a few twitters about Tarantino’s use of the “N” word again, but I rest with the argument that, if Tarantino was a racist he would not have been able to write such a complex and insightful character as Jules.
Post a Comment