From A Watch to Zed's dead, baby. Zed's dead.

December 9, 2011 9:11 AM

Pulp Fiction in Chronological Order (SLYT)
posted by fearfulsymmetry (125 comments total)

Wait, they have full length mainstream movies for free on YouTube? (e.g. Minority Report, Enemy of the State). How do they not get yanked?
posted by desjardins at 9:23 AM on December 9, 2011 [2 favorites]

I assume it's an oversight on the part of the copyright patrol and it's just a matter of time before the movies get yanked.
posted by rmd1023 at 9:28 AM on December 9, 2011

During some drunken conversations I've asked a few fellow movie fans to name what the first and last scene of Pulp Fiction would be chronologically and that really messes some people up. It's fun to watch them work it out in their head. Eventually most get the end with Butch and Fabienne on the chopper. But everyone (including me I just realized) gets the beginning wrong. I totally forgot to put the Christopher Walken flashback in the timeline.
posted by Slack-a-gogo at 9:30 AM on December 9, 2011 [6 favorites]

"Please no copyright infringement. I only put this up as a project."
posted by Nelson at 9:32 AM on December 9, 2011 [2 favorites]

And for a much more thoughtful take on copyright and this video, see Metafilter's own waxpancake's blog post. "What happens when — and this is inevitable — a generation completely comfortable with remix culture becomes a majority of the electorate, instead of the fringe youth?"
posted by Nelson at 9:36 AM on December 9, 2011 [6 favorites]

Aren't all the clocks in the movie stuck at the same time?
posted by gottabefunky at 9:43 AM on December 9, 2011

Wait, they have full length mainstream movies for free on YouTube?

I was able to watch the Made-for-TV mini-series-movie "Goliath Awaits" thanks to the new world of youtube movies, discovering it was a Mark Harmon vehicle, something my childhood memories hadn't bothered with back in the day.

I'm 99% sure the Pulp Fiction in order concept is a double; I have the DVD that some fan re-edit site put up, that was linked to on the blue a few years ago.

It really is interesting to watch and think back on my confusion when it first came out.
posted by nomisxid at 9:45 AM on December 9, 2011 [1 favorite]

When Pulp Fiction came out one of my contrarian friends insisted it was a mediocre film dressed up as art by messing with chronology. His theory it was just like going to the theater and having them mix up the reels. "You'd complain if some theater projectionist did it, but when Quentin Tarantino does it you think it's art". I don't think ever found anyone else to join his party.
posted by Slack-a-gogo at 9:52 AM on December 9, 2011 [5 favorites]

Goddammit Internet, I've got work to do today. I hope this gets taken down pronto.
posted by gwint at 9:54 AM on December 9, 2011

Please no copyright infringement.

I kinda wonder if there should be a message that pops up when people leave phrases like these in their Youtube descriptions. It suggests that the author knows very little about copyright (I assume they are equating it with plagiarism or reselling for a profit) and it's going to be upsetting to them when it gets yanked.

(I presume that it also makes it even easier for media companies to track down these videos, eh?)
posted by Clandestine Outlawry at 9:59 AM on December 9, 2011

This link sent me into a wikipedia swamp where I learned two things:

Huh, Tarantino is a lot older then I thought he was.

Wow Uma Thurman you have been in a lot of bombs.
posted by The Whelk at 9:59 AM on December 9, 2011 [2 favorites]

@slack-a-gogo I'll join that party; your friend is quite correct. I kinda think one day Tarantino won't be seen as being too cool to criticise and everyone will realise that Pulp Fiction is Mediocre. And that Jackie Brown was totally shit.

I do, however, quite like Reservoir Dogs.
posted by 13twelve at 10:01 AM on December 9, 2011 [2 favorites]

Wasn't watching the movie in chronological order an Easter egg on the DVD? I might be thinking of Memento.

Also, I've watched that movie regularly since age 13 or so and it really does evolve with a person. On my last re-watch a few months back, the Jack Rabbit Slims scene became my favorite, but only because I finally got my head around the fact that they were having a conversation while high on two drugs with completely disparate effects.
posted by griphus at 10:01 AM on December 9, 2011 [7 favorites]

"I kinda think one day Tarantino won't be seen as being too cool to criticise and everyone will realise that Pulp Fiction is Mediocre. And that Jackie Brown was totally shit."

And may such a blasphemous and ignorant day never come.
posted by Blasdelb at 10:03 AM on December 9, 2011 [12 favorites]

kinda think one day Tarantino won't be seen as being too cool to criticise and everyone will realise that Pulp Fiction is Mediocre. And that Jackie Brown was totally shit.

You shut your heathen hole!
posted by grubi at 10:04 AM on December 9, 2011 [4 favorites]

When Pulp Fiction came out one of my contrarian friends insisted it was a mediocre film dressed up as art by messing with chronology. His theory it was just like going to the theater and having them mix up the reels. "You'd complain if some theater projectionist did it, but when Quentin Tarantino does it you think it's art".

Pulp Fiction is out of order because that way the climax comes at the end.
posted by EmGeeJay at 10:04 AM on December 9, 2011 [7 favorites]

Quentin Tarantino has made a few of my favorite movies and I'm a fan, but "Jackie Brown" had more in common with a turd than a gem.
posted by Slack-a-gogo at 10:06 AM on December 9, 2011 [1 favorite]

"Jackie Brown" is his most straight-laced film and it has lots of amazing performances but oh does it draaaaag.

As usual the soundtrack was stellar.
posted by The Whelk at 10:07 AM on December 9, 2011

Jackie Brown is a good movie for middle-aged folks.

Which obviously so many of you are so not to say such things about it.
posted by PapaLobo at 10:09 AM on December 9, 2011 [1 favorite]

You know what? I don't WANT to see Pulp Fiction in chronological order! Hollywood movies had been—and continue to be—so obsessed with plot that "breaking" the plot by breaking strict chronology was a genius move that allowed characterization and setting and dialog to take the forefront. That's (one of) the points of Pulp Fiction, and changing it misses the point.

And Jackie Brown is the best movie QT ever made.
posted by vibrotronica at 10:10 AM on December 9, 2011 [9 favorites]

Huh. I was sure this was a double. I remember seeing at a year or two ago, but search doesn't bring up anything.

Anyway, this is an interesting project. There's something hilarious and incongruous about the Christopher Walken monologue leading into the theme music. It's also kind of interesting that when you look at the story chronologically, Bruce Willis becomes the central character.
posted by roll truck roll at 10:12 AM on December 9, 2011 [2 favorites]

That's (one of) the points of Pulp Fiction, and changing it misses the point.

I've never heard any interviews or anything with QT about Pulp Fiction, but that's not quite the point I took. To me, the movie is kind of like wandering through a stack of comic books (or, well, pulp fiction) reading little vignettes instead of going through sequentially. So you get little stories and snippets, but the big plot is still there and it's still central to the movie.
posted by roll truck roll at 10:15 AM on December 9, 2011 [6 favorites]

also, just 30 min, it's such a different movie played in this order, the episodic nature becomes really distracting, breaking it up into chunks where the viewer knows they're gonna see a little vignette and then move on uses the script structure way better.
posted by The Whelk at 10:17 AM on December 9, 2011

Wow. The movie is completely different.

The original is basically defined by its zippy intercutting, and when you take that out, it becomes slooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow. Not necessarily bad-slow, but slow. Not studio-friendly slow. It's the kind of movie that would be critically acclaimed, but get a ton of walkouts.

But it's much easier to follow. More like a collection of short stories than, well, a bunch of short stories thrown into a blender.

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if this was the original director's cut, and the studio forced the intercutting to pick up the pace.
posted by Sys Rq at 10:20 AM on December 9, 2011 [1 favorite]

One interesting thing is noting that in the cut-up version, all the really exciting sequences are bam bam bam right after one another in the first 45 min.
posted by The Whelk at 10:25 AM on December 9, 2011

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if this was the original director's cut, and the studio forced the intercutting to pick up the pace.

That would surprise me greatly.
posted by Terminal Verbosity at 10:29 AM on December 9, 2011 [12 favorites]

Yeah, the episodic nature seems built in from the start
posted by The Whelk at 10:32 AM on December 9, 2011

"You'd complain if some theater projectionist did it, but when Quentin Tarantino does it you think it's art".

I know! And that Kubrick! What the hell was his deal in The Killing?

Oh, wait, everybody agrees that's a great noir film. I see -- it's not a criticism we have here, but a lazy dismissal.
posted by Bunny Ultramod at 10:34 AM on December 9, 2011 [3 favorites]

It kinda breaks when you reach the diner scene with Pumpkin and HoneyBunny. If you'd never seen the movie before, you'd be all, "Who the hell are these people? Get back to the guys talking about bacon."
posted by ColdChef at 10:37 AM on December 9, 2011

"Jackie Brown" is his most straight-laced film and it has lots of amazing performances but oh does it draaaaag.

WTF? Is there some other "Jackie Brown" movie I don't know about?
posted by davebush at 10:40 AM on December 9, 2011 [5 favorites]

For me, Pulp Fiction's only flaw is QT's acting. His scene makes me uncomfortable.
posted by davebush at 10:43 AM on December 9, 2011 [6 favorites]

Maybe someone should rewrite Catch-22 in chronological order. Not.
posted by Mental Wimp at 10:45 AM on December 9, 2011

if you want uncomfortable QT acting may I direct you to From Dusk Til Dawn? Or Grindhouse?
posted by The Whelk at 10:46 AM on December 9, 2011

dave: Yeah I always think 90% of the section with with "The Wolf" is unnecessary and even without QT is blah and detracts from the rest of the film. Yes, it explains why they show up at Marcellus' & the diner later wearing 'dork'y outfits, but otherwise makes me want to edit it out somehow.
posted by bitterkitten at 10:48 AM on December 9, 2011

if you want uncomfortable QT acting may I direct you to From Dusk Til Dawn? Or Grindhouse?

All-American Girl FTW.
posted by Sys Rq at 10:49 AM on December 9, 2011 [3 favorites]

See, the scene with the watch shouldn't count because, unlike the other narrative shifts in the movie, its presented to us as Butch recalling it in a dream which he is having the night of the fight. Or, least, that's the inference from him starting awake at the end of the scene.
posted by dry white toast at 10:50 AM on December 9, 2011 [4 favorites]

From Dusk Til Dawn? Or Grindhouse?
Or Alias? Or anything?
posted by PapaLobo at 10:53 AM on December 9, 2011

Obligatory link.
posted by Sys Rq at 11:00 AM on December 9, 2011

Well, this saves me the trouble of ever needing to hunt down and capture the HI-8 tape I made back in the day, of the same idea. Have to check it out and see how it compares (mine cut the movie down to 2 hours due to length of tape - The Gold Watch took most of the cuts IIRC). Oh well.
posted by CyberSlug Labs at 11:01 AM on December 9, 2011

I saw this all the way through last night and being a huge fan of the original it made me....uneasy. I feel like I need to watch the original again as a palette cleanser.
posted by Awakened at 11:04 AM on December 9, 2011 [1 favorite]

I won't go so far as slack-a-gogo or 13twelve, but I do have this nagging voice in my head that says Tarantino gets away with a lot of style-over-substance posing.
posted by Thorzdad at 11:06 AM on December 9, 2011

Quentin Tarantino makes great movies but Jackie Brown was the only film he made. Maybe that's why lots of people can't stand it. I mean, if you feel Jackie Brown drags, don't ever see Uncle Boonmee, or Cries and Whispers, or Scenes from a Marriage, or Melancholia, or The Last Emperor, or...
posted by ReeMonster at 11:06 AM on December 9, 2011 [2 favorites]

I have seen all of those save Melancholia and Jackie Brown still feels badly paced.

and Kill Bill is the best superhero movie ever.
posted by The Whelk at 11:09 AM on December 9, 2011

why does tarantino always cast himself as a creep
posted by This, of course, alludes to you at 11:11 AM on December 9, 2011 [1 favorite]

"dave: Yeah I always think 90% of the section with with "The Wolf" is unnecessary and even without QT is blah and detracts from the rest of the film. Yes, it explains why they show up at Marcellus' & the diner later wearing 'dork'y outfits, but otherwise makes me want to edit it out somehow."

Yeah. It's in my top five films, probably, but that whole scene is not good. Tarantino's acting isn't right—I don't want to say that he's a bad actor (though he's not very good and I've seen several of his other performances) because I feel like that was a pretty decent take on that particular character. It's just not a very interesting version of that character. It's, in fact, an annoying and boring version of that character. The outburst about Bonnie coming home could have been among the many great bits of Tarantino dialog in the film, but it totally doesn't work with his performance.

And I love Keitel, too, and I don't like that particular performance at all. It's not just that it's a bit against type, though that's part of it. Maybe a lot of it, I don't know. He comes with so much baggage, that in that particular performance, I couldn't stop thinking of him as Keitel playing the character which Tarantino has said inspired this one, the "Cleaner" character from La Femme Nikita. Jean Reno played that role indelibly, really, and his performance in the later Luc Besson film was, in part, a reprisal of that role. He was much more frightening and less human in Nikita and while Keitel captured the high competence, the professionalism, of the character, his decision to go with the whole friendly avuncular vibe wasn't right. But Tarantino/Avary partly wrote the character that way. And so along with Jimmie Dimmick, those two performances just create a off-beat segment that is easily the worst of the film.

"Wait, they have full length mainstream movies for free on YouTube?"

I think there's a for-fee feature for content providers that removes the time-length restrictions from posted videos. People must be exploiting this.

YouTube seems to mostly rely upon an "automated fingerprint" system for copyright-protection. It works very well for music, less well for video because video can be only slightly altered to the eye but completely mess up the fingerprinting. It does a good job catching the network logo "bugs", in my own experience attempting to make a short scene from Parks & Recreation available. At least I assume that's how they caught it. Maybe it worked via pure video fingerprinting, I don't know. This is conjecture on my part, I don't actually know how their system works.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 11:12 AM on December 9, 2011

slack-a-go-go: i totally agree with your friend about Pulp Fiction. Have I met this friend? But I did think Bruce Willis was the central character the first time I saw it--everything else seemed unnecessary or precious or pandering. But then I just don't like Taratino movies, I guess.
posted by crush-onastick at 11:23 AM on December 9, 2011

why does tarantino always cast himself as a creep

Nearly all of the characters in his movies are creeps. He's just not a good enough actor to make a creep seem charming.

Nevertheless, he is probably my favorite director.
posted by The World Famous at 11:28 AM on December 9, 2011 [1 favorite]

I think there's a for-fee feature for content providers that removes the time-length restrictions from posted videos. People must be exploiting this.

I have no idea how they administer this, but I can post videos of any length. I got an email about a year ago that said they'd removed the limit on my account (or rather, that they'd upped it to 100 GB or some ridiculous number like that). I think it's kind of like Flickr: once they've assessed that you didn't sign up to post porn or plagiarism, they monitor your account less carefully.
posted by roll truck roll at 11:29 AM on December 9, 2011

I did not know that. *said in that voice*. Huh.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 11:32 AM on December 9, 2011

For me, Pulp Fiction's only flaw is QT's acting. His scene makes me uncomfortable.

Knock it off, davebush. I don't need you to tell me how fucking shitty my acting is, okay? I'm the one who directs it. I know how shitty it is. When Bonnie goes directing her acting's terrific. I do the wooden unexpressive stuff because when I direct it I want it to be SHIT.

But you know what's on my mind right now? It AIN'T the acting in my scene, it's the twisted chronology in my movie.
posted by gompa at 11:33 AM on December 9, 2011 [21 favorites]

YouTube catches copyrighted material with something they call ContentID. I don't know if this is still the case, but it has been fooled by mirror-imaging the video (which screw up subtitles but otherwise mostly goes without notice to human viewers), but apparently can detect instances "where the dimensions or colors are altered."
posted by exogenous at 11:38 AM on December 9, 2011 [1 favorite]

Having said that, I am genuinely curious about what stuff gets monitored more or less stringently. Like, Pulp Fiction seems like the kind of thing that would get auto-detected and removed super-quickly. Meanwhile, something like this lovingly recreated cut of The Thief and the Cobbler (which is under copyright, but who cares?) has to be split up into 11 parts. I had the great idea that I'd try to watch it on my Internet-connected Blu-ray player the other night, but gave up when I couldn't find Part 4 in the annoying on-screen navigation.
posted by roll truck roll at 11:38 AM on December 9, 2011 [1 favorite]

When Pulp Fiction came out one of my contrarian friends insisted it was a mediocre film dressed up as art by messing with chronology. His theory it was just like going to the theater and having them mix up the reels. "You'd complain if some theater projectionist did it, but when Quentin Tarantino does it you think it's art".

Well that argument seems to be making some of emperor has no clothes argument, that the people who enjoy the film are not in fact enjoying it but are just conditioned to associate art film qualities like unconventional chronological structure with good films. I don't think that's really accurate, because clearly a lot of people really do enthusiastically enjoy the film as it is for non-pretentious reasons. Even if you think the core narrative is bland and only becomes compelling with the cut up structure, that's a success in itself because it's difficult to take something bland and make a good film out of it. Reservoir Dogs is pretty much entirely based on that concept, taking the tired old cliche like a heist film and making it compelling by focusing on completely different aspects of the heist than are usually focused on. Recutting a mediocre film and making it into a great film is extremely difficult (see any fanedit ever), so if Tarantino did that with Pulp Fiction I would think that would be more impressive than just shooting a great film to begin with.
posted by burnmp3s at 11:42 AM on December 9, 2011 [1 favorite]

Man, I hate to say it, but some of you folks aren't very hip to this kind of movie at all. In fact, you're a bunch of (makes rectangle shape with fingertips).
posted by ColdChef at 11:43 AM on December 9, 2011 [9 favorites]

Quentin Tarantino makes great movies but Jackie Brown was the only film he made.

Fine, I'll bite: When does a movie become a film? What differentiates one from the other? Did Hitchcock, for example, make movies or films? Is everything Bergman did a film? Is anything Speilberg does? And by whatever criteria you're implying, what sets Jackie Brown apart?
posted by gompa at 11:54 AM on December 9, 2011

Man, I hate to say it, but some of you folks aren't very hip to this kind of movie at all. In fact, you're a bunch of (makes rectangle shape with fingertips).

AMEN. All of this fucking whining about The Wolf scene... it has some of the best lines and biggest laughs in the film! Are you all nuts? I mean, without even getting them all, there is..

- The Dead Nigger Storage bit
- The coffee speech
- "Pretty please, with sugar on top, clean the fucking car."
- The Wolf taking a sip of coffee and turning to smile at QT
- Jules and Vincent in the car, an amazing dialogue including:
- "I'm a mushroom cloud layin' motherfucker, motherfucker!"
- "The guy who said that never had to pick up little pieces of skull on account of your dumb ass.."
- "You're on brain detail!"
- The race car in the red bit
- "They look like a couple of dorks!" .... "Hahaha they're YOUR clothes motherfucker.."

It's a great kitschy scene, overall.
posted by ReeMonster at 11:56 AM on December 9, 2011 [5 favorites]

Well, I suppose it's unlikely to be any less execrable and hateful than Pulp Fiction the way it was released.
posted by Decani at 11:58 AM on December 9, 2011

why does tarantino always cast himself as a creep

I believe the term is "typecasting".
posted by Decani at 11:59 AM on December 9, 2011 [3 favorites]

Kill Bill is the best superhero movie ever.

Nope. Torque.
posted by adamdschneider at 11:59 AM on December 9, 2011 [1 favorite]

The thing that bothers me the most about the Wolf scene has never been QT. I mean, he's annoying, okay. But the worst line is The Wolf saying, "Well, let's not start sucking each other's dicks just yet." It seems...uncharacteristic. Unclassy. Man's wearing a tux, for goodness sake.
posted by ColdChef at 12:02 PM on December 9, 2011 [2 favorites]

Fine, I'll bite: When does a movie become a film? What differentiates one from the other? Did Hitchcock, for example, make movies or films? Is everything Bergman did a film? Is anything Speilberg does? And by whatever criteria you're implying, what sets Jackie Brown apart?

It's so open to interpretation anyway, so I think everyone makes their personal distinction. It's an argument nobody could ever win. I love cinema so I'll refer to anything as a film (even Spaceballs..) but some films are more like "movies"..big pieces of filmed entertainment that you enjoy for fun and which can sometimes make you think and be really deep at the same time. Jackie Brown, for me, stands out as a "film" more so than any QT flick because it doesn't rely as much on the gimmicky stuff QT is known for. Even in Basterds he couldn't resist the urge to make it a bit like a comic book. Jackie Brown takes its time (like Kill Bill 2) and has a more "adult" feel to it, for some reason. It's all opinion anyway. I love Jackie Brown but thought Kill Bill 2 overall was a snoozer. Go figure.
posted by ReeMonster at 12:02 PM on December 9, 2011 [1 favorite]

Aren't all the clocks in the movie stuck at the same time?

Don't think so. It seems to the watch in the chronologically first scene shows two very different times in different shots.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 12:04 PM on December 9, 2011

Man's wearing a tux, for goodness sake.

haha but that's only because he came from a communion or a graduation or whatever the hell he came from. and that's another of the great lines in that scene! for precisely that reason. he's making a vulgar joke because corny QT is fawning over it: "i can't believe this is the same car!!"
posted by ReeMonster at 12:04 PM on December 9, 2011

Man, I hate to say it, but some of you folks aren't very hip to this kind of movie at all. In fact, you're a bunch of (makes rectangle shape with fingertips).

It always annoyed me that she made a rectangle with her fingers in that scene, and that they even went through the effort of adding in the rectangle drawing. Don't be a ...rectangle? Would it have been that much more work to get a cut with an actual square drawn? Or did he really mean for it to be a rectangle??
posted by mysterpigg at 12:05 PM on December 9, 2011 [1 favorite]

Don't be a ...rectangle? Would it have been that much more work to get a cut with an actual square drawn? Or did he really mean for it to be a rectangle??

I'm pretty sure it was done to annoy squares.
posted by burnmp3s at 12:08 PM on December 9, 2011 [16 favorites]

"...it has some of the best lines and biggest laughs in the film. [...] The coffee speech [...] Jules and Vincent in the car, an amazing dialogue..."

I agree that it's well-written, mostly. The Wolf's and Jimmie's lines are great. I just don't think the scene works very well, especially compared to its potential as written. And I think it's primarily because of Tarantino and Keitel. Notice that more than half the stuff you list is just between Vincent and Jules, and mostly in the scene where they're by themselves in the car.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 12:08 PM on December 9, 2011

"I'm pretty sure it was done to annoy squares."

I think you may be right, genuinely. At least in some respect. I think the irony was deliberate, although it probably arose in post and Thurman was not instructed to draw it that way but just did.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 12:11 PM on December 9, 2011

I've always assumed QT ripped off that "don't be a square" thing from some 70's cartoon. I'm sure I saw that in some Flintstones or Jetsons episode. Did I?
posted by davebush at 12:11 PM on December 9, 2011

Betty Rubble says "Don't be a square".
posted by cazoo at 12:13 PM on December 9, 2011 [4 favorites]

Jackie Brown, for me, stands out as a "film" more so than any QT flick because it doesn't rely as much on the gimmicky stuff QT is known for. Even in Basterds he couldn't resist the urge to make it a bit like a comic book.

Think I catch your drift, but I disagree with your distinction. A bit like saying only stories done in the mannered style of the 19th C. fiction count as novels or whatever.

To me, what makes Tarantino great - an artist, I guess - is that he takes that pulpy comic book stuff and makes it work cinematically on its own terms. That's why Pulp Fiction is, to my mind, his best film: It's not like Roy Lichtenstein winking at his own reframed comic panel so you know he's still highbrow at heart and you can feel highbrow too while you're slumming it. No, it's a trashy pulp novel run through a cartoon blender, twisted and bloody and pulpy still, with cartoonish bits and outlandish characters and dime-novel dialogue (run through the Tarantino pop-riff-o-meter).

It's artful without being condescending to its source material. It finds the art in the trash, if you will, instead of "making" art of trash.
posted by gompa at 12:13 PM on December 9, 2011 [7 favorites]

Ree: the Wolf section might be kitschy, absurd, whatever, but I still think it was weak. Like I said, 90% of it, not good (imho), particularly taking the rest of the film into consideration. But hey, everything can't be 100% golden. Ivan makes a good point; the stuff they do all before they get to Jimmy's it still a-ok.
posted by bitterkitten at 12:16 PM on December 9, 2011

I've grown fond of the scene with the Wolf, but now that I look back to it, yeah, it's a bit out of place. However, I think the character and the world-building around him are amazing. Everything from the fact that he is called away from a Fancy Party and, therefore, spends his scene in a tux, to the Junkyard Owner's Daughter straight out of Dukes of Hazard by his side at the end and the punny exit line. He's calm, he's cool, he's hyper-competent, he has absolutely no ego to speak of -- he says please to Vincent with not an issue about it -- and he's unlike anyone else in that movie. He's a walking Deus ex Machina, but done in such a fun way that I find him irresistible.
posted by griphus at 12:18 PM on December 9, 2011 [9 favorites]

And I just spent much too long looking up and re-reading the Pulp Shakespeare thread.
posted by rewil at 12:21 PM on December 9, 2011 [1 favorite]

I like the scene at Jimmie's largely because it reminds the watcher that these choppy narratives are meant to be woven into the real world. You've got one guy who doesn't want to jump around all over the place, whose life is not dominated by the narrative structure of a comic book, and who just has to keep plodding forward in time while everybody else bounces back and forth. Despite everything else that happens in terms of incident, that chapter is called The Bonny Situation for a very good reason.
posted by howfar at 12:22 PM on December 9, 2011 [1 favorite]

What I wanna know is, exactly what is the Wolf doing at the time he is called away to help Vincent & Jules? It's like 6:30 am I believe, he is indeed wearing a tux, and it appears that he's already a party (not getting ready to go to a party, if I remember correctly).

Not that it's really important, just always wondered. Maybe if he flew in from a couple time zones over...
posted by bitterkitten at 12:27 PM on December 9, 2011 [2 favorites]

I kinda think one day Tarantino won't be seen as being too cool to criticise...

It's rare to see mention of him where he isn't criticized, so I'm not sure what this even means.

I saw Pulp Fiction in college having never heard of Tarantino (although I'd seen and liked Reservoir Dogs and True Romance). It was awesome. It still is. The fact that it was told out of order was irrelevant -- it was really the dialog that worked for me. At the time it was pretty rare for people in major movies to talk like real people, rather than just constantly advancing the plot. Pulp Fiction helped make it commonplace (even annoying, as so many people started aping Tarantino after Pulp Fiction's success).

Have to agree about Jackie Brown being boring, though.
posted by coolguymichael at 12:34 PM on December 9, 2011 [1 favorite]

he strikes me as a really fun guy to be around probably
posted by This, of course, alludes to you at 12:45 PM on December 9, 2011 [1 favorite]

To me, the single, most annoying feature of the Wolf's scene is QT's acting, which IMO just isn't up to snuff when he shares the screen with Keitel, Jackson, and Travolta. He sounds forced and unnatural at times, and it really stands out to me. Apart from that, I absolutely love this movie -- everything else about it works for me, and IMO it's easily the best film of the 90's. I still think it's a crime that Jackson didn't get the Academy Award for his performance.
posted by mosk at 12:48 PM on December 9, 2011 [1 favorite]

I don't get all the dumping on the Winston Wolf scene. I think it's my favorite part of the movie. I am particularly partial to "Let's not start sucking each other's dicks just yet" and really enjoy QT as Jimmy.
posted by hwestiii at 12:58 PM on December 9, 2011

What I wanna know is, exactly what is the Wolf doing at the time he is called away to help Vincent & Jules? It's like 6:30 am I believe, he is indeed wearing a tux, and it appears that he's already a party (not getting ready to go to a party, if I remember correctly).

That unanswered question is one of my favorite things about the character/scene, and I think one that makes it absurd enough to work for me; The Wolf is mysterious, but in a preposterous way. (Especially if you assume that if he's sophisticated enough to be wearing a dinner jacket, he must have been at a party that started the night before; otherwise, he would be wearing a morning suit!)
posted by usonian at 1:00 PM on December 9, 2011 [3 favorites]

Hollywood movies had been—and continue to be—so obsessed with plot that "breaking" the plot by breaking strict chronology was a genius move that allowed characterization and setting and dialog to take the forefront. That's (one of) the points of Pulp Fiction Citizen Kane, and changing it misses the point.

FTFY.
posted by mediated self at 1:01 PM on December 9, 2011 [1 favorite]

THANK YOU BITTERKITTEN. Nobody ever asks that question, but I think it's something that should be asked.

Tarantino was interviewed once where he explained that all of his movies take place in one of two (or maybe three) universes. True Romance, Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction were in his "Real" universe, while Natural Born Killers, From Dusk til Dawn, and Kill Bill were in the "Movie" universe. And that there was only one character who could cross over between universes: Winston Wolfe.

So I always figured that Wolfe had been at a dinner party in the movie universe (where it was evening), when he got called by Marsellus Wallace to solve a problem in the real universe (where it was morning.)
posted by nushustu at 1:02 PM on December 9, 2011 [9 favorites]

The Wolf episode makes a lot more sense once you realize that it's actually supposed to be part of a Wes Anderson movie and you play an old Kinks track over it.
posted by The World Famous at 1:03 PM on December 9, 2011 [2 favorites]

It bugs the shit out of me that Tarantino says "nigger" 500 times, He shoehorned that in like a motherfucker, also his pasty coked-up giant man in the moon face makes me nauseous. Other than that I love the movie.
posted by Divine_Wino at 1:04 PM on December 9, 2011 [2 favorites]

Heh.

nushustu - I'm pretty sure you can tell from the scene that where Wolf is it's definitely daylight coming in from one side, but I like the alternate-universe idea.
posted by bitterkitten at 1:06 PM on December 9, 2011

So I always figured that Wolfe had been at a dinner party in the movie universe (where it was evening), when he got called by Marsellus Wallace to solve a problem in the real universe (where it was morning.)

I assumed he'd been at a party that was so cool it was still going the next morning AND he was so perfect at keeping things clean, that he still looked like he was getting ready to go.
posted by nomisxid at 1:08 PM on December 9, 2011 [4 favorites]

What I wanna know is, exactly what is the Wolf doing at the time he is called away to help Vincent & Jules? It's like 6:30 am I believe, he is indeed wearing a tux, and it appears that he's already a party (not getting ready to go to a party, if I remember correctly).

I semi-remember hearing something semi-official about that being the end of an all-night gambling party.

***

Yeah-- youtube kids these days. "please no copyright infringement" means "please don't call me on my copyright infringement" and "no copyright intended" means "copyright infringement intended." #getoffmylawn
posted by herbplarfegan at 1:17 PM on December 9, 2011

This is apropos of nothing, but my favorite piece of Pulp Fiction lore is the idea that Marcellus Wallace has a bandaid on the back of his head because that's where they extracted his soul (to put in the suitcase).
posted by diogenes at 1:31 PM on December 9, 2011

I dunno if it has been pulled or maybe it is very popular and the server is getting hammered, but either way the link seems to lead to an error message now.

Anyway, I looked at it earlier and noticed that this dude has excised some connective tissue. In the script, we have:

JULES
If you find my answers frightening,
Vincent, you should cease askin'
scary questions.

VINCENT
I gotta take a shit. To be continued.

Vincent's line seemed to be gone from the recut version. I was looking for it because I wanted to see if it synced up right with the shot from two-plus hours earlier when Honey Bunny and Pumpkin are still talking in their booth and we see Vincent (from behind, out of focus, in the background) heading for the john.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 1:55 PM on December 9, 2011

"To be continued" is still in there. Look around 49:15.
posted by roll truck roll at 2:01 PM on December 9, 2011

Ah, so it is. And there he is ambling past at 49:30.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 2:11 PM on December 9, 2011

Tarantino is not an actor and he sucks when he isn't essentially playing himself. His worst acting? His bit part in Sukiyaki Western Django.

what sets Jackie Brown apart?

It's set apart because it was a follow-up to Pulp Fiction. That was a big noticeable difference, and especially the pacing. It was also played a lot straighter than his other films, but it was still from the same playbook. The big difference I can see is that for the most part he updates and plays with his genre films in order to bring out aspects to legitimize them in a way, but he didn't really need to do that with a Blaxploitation film. I mean there was a lot hokeyness in those early 70's films, but there was a reason they were well liked beyond the fact that they were made for a specific audience. There is a lot of undertones that resonated with people and some of them were actually played seriously. If you really want to give a serious look at it, then I suggest clearing a night and doing a double feature of Superfly, or maybe Coffy ('tho I think the former is a better choice), and Jackie Brown. It might give a better impression of what he was actually trying to do.
posted by P.o.B. at 2:52 PM on December 9, 2011

I personally like the Wolfe scene but always wondered if part of the gag was supposed to be that he didnt really do much but tell them to clean the car.
posted by Senor Cardgage at 2:53 PM on December 9, 2011 [1 favorite]

He also cleaned them up and got rid of the car/evidence. Not a small feat.
posted by P.o.B. at 2:59 PM on December 9, 2011

"It's set apart because it was a follow-up to Pulp Fiction. That was a big noticeable difference, and especially the pacing. It was also played a lot straighter than his other films, but it was still from the same playbook. The big difference I can see is that for the most part he updates and plays with his genre films in order to bring out aspects to legitimize them in a way, but he didn't really need to do that with a Blaxploitation film."

Well, I'm not sure if he didn't really need to do it, but I think it's a fine film and the second-best adaptation of an Elmore Leonard novel after Soderbergh's Out of Sight.

I guess I'm partly influenced by the fact that I love Elmore Leonard and Tarantino, and I think Tarantino was a good fit. (Though, clearly, Soderbergh and especially Clooney was even better.) But I also greatly appreciate Pam Grier and especially Robert Forster's peformances, to whom I think Tarantino did that magic he does with half-forgotten hard-working actors proving that they are far more talented than many people thought. Or he's just got some black-magic mystery way with these sorts of actors, I don't know. But I think both performances are great.

Not to mention De Niro. I find that one of the most interesting takes on De Niro's typecasting I've seen. It deconstructs it, partly, and does to De Niro, as a criminal, what Leonard does to criminals: shows that they're usually just stupid and violent. De Niro has no magnetism in that role, which is the point and it's a brilliant collaboration between him and Tarantino.

Also, I think that Tarantino got a notably better performance out of Michael Keaton as Ray Nicolette than did Soderbergh did in Out of Sight.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 3:05 PM on December 9, 2011 [4 favorites]

Totally agree that the acting in that film makes is what makes it fantastic. Maybe because nobody bleeds out or is slashed up people don't know what to make of it as a Tarantino film. I think you kind of see Deniro get shot, but there are no onscreen deaths and maybe people at least need that to justify lack of action.
posted by P.o.B. at 3:13 PM on December 9, 2011 [1 favorite]

The whole reason that Jules and Vincent had to call in the Wolfe was that they (and, to some extent, Jimmy) were "blood simple", which is also the title of the first Coen Bros. film, which you should watch if you haven't already. The idea is that people who are caught off guard by violent situations* can do some amazingly stupid** things. Aside from having a place to get rid of a car with a body in the trunk, permanently and confidentially, there wasn't anything that the Wolfe directed the three guys to do that they couldn't have done themselves, theoretically, but they're all on the trembling verge of having a major freak-out (as Jules so eloquently states when they're cleaning the car) that they really need someone to keep them focused and on task. Also, that someone had to be able to deal with two very upset and heavily-armed men without having them throw down.

*I know you're saying to yourself, but HJ, these are experienced hitmen, why would they be caught off guard? Well, I'm thinking that they're probably used to doing the job and leaving the mess for someone else to clean up, not have to deal with all this gore and crap in the middle of LA traffic.

**And Vincent Vega is capable of being pretty stupid on his best days. He's not totally hopeless--witness his conversation with Jules regarding foot massages , which shows some emotional intelligence, and he's courteous almost to the point of being courtly--but Pulp Fiction would be much shorter and more boring if Vincent had an ounce of common sense, starting with his not checking out the rest of the apartment while Jules had the three guys in the front covered (after he and Jules had had a conversation which established that they didn't know how many guys were in there--and don't say that he was looking for the briefcase, either, because he really wasn't; Brett had to tell him where it was), and ending with his displaying just what he'd learned from the earlier incident (armed man behind a closed bathroom door) by putting his loaded automatic weapon down on the kitchen counter (in an apartment that he's staking out purely on the chance that Butch might return), going into the bathroom and closing the door. Ever wonder what Vincent did that was so bad that he had to go to Amsterdam for a while?
posted by Halloween Jack at 3:17 PM on December 9, 2011 [18 favorites]

Wait a minute, wait a minute--you're telling me that, in the scene after the credits, it takes John Travolta and Samuel Jackson like seven minutes to get from the street to the dudes' apartment, and that when they knock on the door and walk in the white dude's got an almost completely untouched, and to all appearances, still fresh, cheeseburger still in front of him for Samuel Jackson to eat? Where's the script girl? Where's continuity? This is obviously a terrible movie. I give it a 2.1.
posted by Zerowensboring at 3:19 PM on December 9, 2011

when they knock on the door and walk in the white dude's got an almost completely untouched, and to all appearances, still fresh, cheeseburger still in front of him for Samuel Jackson to eat?

That was his ninth cheeseburger. It took him seven minutes to eat the first eight.
posted by The World Famous at 3:31 PM on December 9, 2011 [1 favorite]

What I wanna know is, exactly what is the Wolf doing at the time he is called away to help Vincent & Jules? It's like 6:30 am I believe, he is indeed wearing a tux, and it appears that he's already a party (not getting ready to go to a party, if I remember correctly).

Is this amatuer hour?! I mean really people...

Sigh... for those who have only watched the film a couple of dozen times: It's an all night-poker game. You can clearly see and here it going on the background.
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 3:33 PM on December 9, 2011

I think there's a for-fee feature for content providers that removes the time-length restrictions from posted videos.

Any partner, and any non-partner account "in good standing", can post unlimited videos now. Basically, if you create a new YouTube account, initially you are limited to 15 minute videos.

The claiming/copyright system is complicated but basically has 2 parts: ContentID matching and copyright holder policing. Under the DMCA, a copyright holder can file a claim notice on content (which can then be appealed by the uploader). ContentID uses a database of uploaded copyrighted content which the owners have indicated their preferences on (monetize it, take it down, etc) and does this automatically for certain content.

Claimed content can be taken down, but it can also just be tracked or it can be monetized, in which case the uploader gets to keep it up, but the revenue goes to the content owner.

(So basically, a given video has an uploader and possibly also a content owner, which may or may not be the same as the uploader. Revenue goes to the content owner)
posted by wildcrdj at 3:51 PM on December 9, 2011 [2 favorites]

The script says craps game btw... always thought it looked like they are sat around a table in the background playing cards - I've heard baccaratt as a suggestion that fits the dialogue / high-roller atmosphere. It's some sort of all-night unofficial casino/gambling thing.

The real question was whether Wolf was a player or organising / supervising it for Mr W
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 3:52 PM on December 9, 2011

The presence of kids running around there is what threw me when added to the other stuff.
posted by bitterkitten at 4:21 PM on December 9, 2011

I gotta take a shit. To be continued.

Does the movie address whether or not he completed his crap at the restaurant, or are Amanda Plummer and Tim Roth ultimately responsible for his post-poop death at Butch's?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 5:32 PM on December 9, 2011 [2 favorites]

Does the movie address whether or not he completed his crap at the restaurant

On Day 1, Vincent and Jules shoot Brad and have the Bonnie Situation, then they go to the restaurant for breakfast (and a crap), then they see Butch at the strip club, then Vincent scores some heroin, and then Vincent takes Mia out to dinner etc. that night.

The boxing match is on the evening of Day 2 (which could be more than one day after Day 1). Mia is up and about and mentions that she never did thank Vince for dinner.

Butch goes back to his apartment for the watch and kills Vincent on the morning of Day 3.

So the shortest possible time between the two craps is somewhere around 48 hours. I'm not sure who would consider a crap on Day 1 and a crap on Day 3 to constitute two parts of a single crap.
posted by The World Famous at 5:44 PM on December 9, 2011 [9 favorites]

Aren't all the clocks in the movie stuck at the same time?

I think that's a little urban legend that stems from the fact that all the clocks on the wall in the pawn shop are set to the same time.
posted by EmGeeJay at 6:51 PM on December 9, 2011

Claimed content can be taken down, but it can also just be tracked or it can be monetized, in which case the uploader gets to keep it up, but the revenue goes to the content owner.

Yeah, I've noticed Channel 4 does this when their shows get uploaded there.

It's a great solution. They get paid, and I get to watch Peep Show in Canada for free.

Plus, there's no futile game of whack-a-mole, which achieves nothing but a steady bleed of the copyright holder's resources and an alienated audience.
posted by Sys Rq at 7:24 PM on December 9, 2011 [2 favorites]

Does the movie address whether or not he completed his crap at the restaurant

This is a guy who keeps gear for shooting up on his person.

heroin = no poopy!
posted by Sys Rq at 7:28 PM on December 9, 2011 [1 favorite]

I'm not sure who would consider a crap on Day 1 and a crap on Day 3 to constitute two parts of a single crap.

Almost ten years as a logged in member and longer than that as a reader and dammit I have never been prouder. Best Website Ever.
posted by Divine_Wino at 7:46 PM on December 9, 2011 [1 favorite]

I totally forgot to put the Christopher Walken flashback in the timeline.

Slack-a-gogo, that was Christopher Walken's role. Do you know what Christopher Walken went through to get that role?
... I don't wanna get into it right now... but he went through a lot.
Now all the rest of the film, you could of set on fire, but...!
*throws post against the wall*
*calms down*
Ok, if you did forgot to put it in the timeline it's not your fault. There were a lot of scenes. It was a good scene but Christopher Walken didn't illustrate how personal the role was to him.


I saw pulp muppets a bit ago. That could be done right. I mean, right voices, the right muppets in the right roles, it could work well if done with care.
...not by me, but someone with y'know, talent could do it though.
posted by Smedleyman at 9:04 PM on December 9, 2011

I personally like the Wolfe scene but always wondered if part of the gag was supposed to be that he didnt really do much but tell them to clean the car.

There's kind of a gag like that there, but it's way more inside (if I'm interpreting this correctly) than that.

Wolfe does quite a few things in this sequence which none of the principles could have done on their own. Halloween Jack handled this discussion well, but to iterate them:

1. He immediately takes charge. This is a funny sequence in part because two hit men just brought a headless body into the home of a hopeless schlub and the schlub has all of the authority such as anyone in the scene has any authority) at the start of it. But in reality, Jimmy has no idea what to do, and just wants them out of there before Bonnie gets home, but this isn't his problem and he wants nothing to do with it. Jules is asking Jimmy for a massive favor, and has slipped into a sycophantic defferential mode, and Vincent is responsible for the mess to begin with, and is a weak character throughout the movie, as we see.*

Wolfe is brought in because basically everyone agrees than when he shows up, they will be happy to have him be their leader. So that's number one.

2. He not only instructs and motivates them, but keeps them on a tight schedule. He doesn't lose his shit, has the authority to make Jules and Vincent strip to their bare asses and take the cold-ass hose-shower, knows how Jimmy's home is likely set up, which linens to use and which to avoid, etc. It's simple knowledge, yes, but he has it on hand so that they don't lose any time making any more stupid mistakes.

3. He has the money and authority and charisma to talk Jimmy through it all, including getting the linens from him. He brokers a deal with the formerly petulant homeowner which makes Jimmy feel pleased and a part of the gang at the end of it.

4. He's got the connect with Monster Joe.

Basically... he's a producer. More specifically, he's a good producer, which is an important distinction to make here. Producers come and go, but the good ones, as Tarantino and anyone else who has worked in film or tv knows, are to be cherished. And what they do is take charge, motivate, keep things to a schedule, handle diplomatic issues with pissed off third-parties, handle the money, and deal with connections. All while almost always in crisis-mode, because a film is rarely not in crisis mode.

So that's the joke, as I see it. I'd like to think Wolfe was an homage to Lawrence Bender, but I don't know.

*This is actually something I didn't consciously recognize until recently, how weak Vincent is. He has no idea of how to handle himself in the Bonnie situation, or out with Mia, he gets sold in an instant on buying Lance's most expensive shit just based on some simple bald pandering, he's too stupid to handle himself correctly in Butch's apartment, and it takes the full force of his will just to get Lance to give into giving a shot to a dying woman. Watch how often in the movie he is making plays for some kind of respect from anyone he's around, and how childish he appears when he does so.
posted by Navelgazer at 9:56 PM on December 9, 2011 [9 favorites]

That Vincent is kind of terrible at his job is my favorite part about Pulp Fiction,.
posted by The Whelk at 10:11 PM on December 9, 2011 [1 favorite]

Let me be the lone voice to say, I loved "Jackie Brown" and I still consider it his best film. And it is slow, because it lets his characters develop and interact. That film is about relationships and about gaining and losing trust and that can't be rushed.

And if you want to talk about boring, nothing can beat "Kill Bill Vol 1." where Uma Thurman stares at her feet for 10 minutes to make them move...riveting cinema!
posted by ExitPursuedByBear at 7:33 AM on December 10, 2011 [2 favorites]

the Pulp Fiction square: a brief history
posted by kirkaracha at 8:09 AM on December 10, 2011 [6 favorites]

I like Jackie over Pulp.
posted by wrapper at 9:08 AM on December 10, 2011

I'm sorry, ExitPursuedByBear, but did you just use Kill Bill Vol. 1 and "boring" in the same sentence? Never mind that it wasn't ten minutes--maybe not even one--but did you leave before the Bride took on the Crazy 88s? What do you consider not boring?
posted by Halloween Jack at 11:51 AM on December 10, 2011

Vol 2 somewhat made up for it, but one of my reactions to Kill Bill Vol 1 was "gosh, I think Quentin may not like women very much"

Although that certainly goes with it being a superhero movie -- certainly, disturbingly sexualized violence against women keeps ending up in the stories and backstories of a whole lot of female superheroes/supervillains.
posted by rmd1023 at 12:02 PM on December 10, 2011

And I certainly used certainly too many times in that comment. YAY FAILED COMMENT EDITING ON MY PART.
posted by rmd1023 at 12:03 PM on December 10, 2011

Whenever I watch Pulp Fiction I can't help but think QT has asked Travolta to impersonate Columbo all the way through it, the rhythm of his speech and the way he gesticulates. But where Columbo's mannerisms put people off the scent that he was really smart Vince's mannerisms distract from realising he's really dumb.
posted by pmcp at 8:14 PM on December 10, 2011

I'm sorry, ExitPursuedByBear, but did you just use Kill Bill Vol. 1 and "boring" in the same sentence? Never mind that it wasn't ten minutes--maybe not even one--but did you leave before the Bride took on the Crazy 88s?

I thought Kill Bill was boring, too, especially the Crazy 88s bit. What do I consider not boring? Broad question, but I liked Equilibrium, among many other things. Die Hard. Kill Bill was just...ridiculous, and not in a good Steel Dawn or Vampire's Kiss kind of way, either.
posted by adamdschneider at 12:49 PM on December 11, 2011

The thing that bothers me the most about the Wolf scene has never been QT. I mean, he's annoying, okay. But the worst line is The Wolf saying, "Well, let's not start sucking each other's dicks just yet." It seems...uncharacteristic. Unclassy. Man's wearing a tux, for goodness sake.

ColdChef, Wolfe is a gangster. Classic high-echelon gangster - not a Boss, but high-up.

He wears tuxedos, or tailored suits, and in the summer sometimes, Italian laceless shoes sans socks. He cusses freely for shock, or when speaking to the muscle, but can convince a nun to let him meet all the newly-arrived orphans, if he needs to. He takes Holy Communion, his good pal Joey is a Heeb (and he tells him so every time they meet), and his nose has been broken repeatedly.

He is not classy. He just wears the sheepskin well.
posted by IAmBroom at 8:54 AM on December 12, 2011 [1 favorite]

BTW, all this arguing proves a point to me I already was decided upon:

Quentin Taorontino is a brilliant director and writer, and Pulp Fiction is a masterpiece.

The subject of this entire thread is the worthiness of the film, his film oeuvre, and individual moments in the film. No two people seem able to agree on what is great and what is worthless.

Thus, it is an utterly new thing to each person who views it. A rare avis in each moment: to this person, the briefcase's glowing, unseen contents are a cheesy effect; to that person, a brilliant emphasis-by-omission.

Nothing shallow or "easy" could have produced this much diversity of opinion, scene-by-scene.
posted by IAmBroom at 9:01 AM on December 12, 2011

That's it. I'm referring to myself as a Torontino from now on. Take heed, 'Torontonians'!
posted by Sys Rq at 9:18 AM on December 12, 2011

Taorontino is my new cults name. It involves watching Pulp Fiction to attain enlightenment. Winter season new student signups will be available in the new year.
posted by P.o.B. at 10:13 AM on December 12, 2011

Heh, the funniest part is that I got to "Taorontino" via the spelling of "Tristan Taormino"...
posted by IAmBroom at 11:48 AM on December 13, 2011