Join 3,377 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Do You Read the Bible, Mickey?
August 8, 2010 6:48 PM   Subscribe

Descwibe what Mawcewwus Wawwus wooks wike (SLYT).
posted by WCityMike (31 comments total) 8 users marked this as a favorite

 
WHAT
posted by dunkadunc at 6:51 PM on August 8, 2010 [1 favorite]


Saturday was yesterday.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:54 PM on August 8, 2010


I still jump with Goofy accidentally blows Pluto's head off.
posted by leotrotsky at 6:55 PM on August 8, 2010


when
posted by leotrotsky at 6:56 PM on August 8, 2010


Say what again!
posted by FfejL at 6:57 PM on August 8, 2010


(I grew up reading Donald Duck comics without ever watching the cartoons, so he never had a squawky voice for me.)

For me, Donald is the true everyman- fallible, sympathetic, not always nice but usually has good intentions- an avian Philip J. Fry if there ever was one. Mickey Mouse, on the other hand, has always been too one-dimensional, too damn goody-goody, too damn Disney. Could Don Rosa have done much with Mickey? I doubt it.

At any rate, Mickey Mouse being gunned down by Donald is kind of awesome in my book.
posted by dunkadunc at 6:58 PM on August 8, 2010 [7 favorites]


I have to agree. Speech-impediment Donald is not the one, true Donald. That Donald would have had a long, introspective soliloquy before realizing he could throw the gun away and be the better (duck/man/whatever) for it. And then there would have been a deus machina that would have probably involved the nephews.
posted by yhbc at 7:19 PM on August 8, 2010 [1 favorite]


I was expecting something much, much better than this. :(
posted by reductiondesign at 7:41 PM on August 8, 2010


I came in expecting this to be a re-cut of old Looney Tunes clips featuring Elmer Fudd.

It wasn't and now I'm sad.

If someone out there has the wherewithal to put this together, you will be my hero forever.
posted by phunniemee at 7:45 PM on August 8, 2010 [1 favorite]


Amazing how adding some hilarious cartoon voices makes a repulsive, mindlessly violent movie so much more... hilarious.
posted by monospace at 7:46 PM on August 8, 2010 [1 favorite]


I know it makes me a bad movie fan, but I could never get into that scene in Pulp Fiction. What's the point of a long speech designed to scare the Career Opportunities guy if they're just going to kill everyone in the room anyway? They don't seem like they get off on violence anywhere else in the movie. They're just doing a job. So why the speech?

And Pluto could never say, "Man, I don't even have an opinion." Maybe Phil Lamarr could be Foghorn Leghorn.
posted by monkeymadness at 8:09 PM on August 8, 2010


What's the point of a long speech designed to scare the Career Opportunities guy if they're just going to kill everyone in the room anyway? They don't seem like they get off on violence anywhere else in the movie. They're just doing a job. So why the speech?

It's a legitimate question, but since the climax of the film hinges on (do we need a spoiler warning here?) our two protagonists confronting this very question and coming to two separate and one might even say wildly divergent opinions on the matter, I think the speech and the violence and the indulgence is more than justified, narratively speaking.

God damn but Samuel Jackson's monologue to Tim Roth about what he says and why and what it has finally come to mean may well just be that man's finest moment ever on the screen.

This? I giggled, I admit it. But I didn't watch it until the end. So.
posted by kipmanley at 8:37 PM on August 8, 2010


I enjoyed the idea more than its realization. I closed it out after a little less than a minute.
posted by TwelveTwo at 8:50 PM on August 8, 2010


Adult Swim did this set of New Year's Eve bumper segments several years ago where Brak & Meatwad restaged this scene with puppets. It was pretty good.

Ah, here it is.
posted by anazgnos at 9:38 PM on August 8, 2010 [2 favorites]


What's the point of a long speech designed to scare the Career Opportunities guy if they're just going to kill everyone in the room anyway?

I'm not sure they actually did intend to kill everyone in the room. They only shot everyone when the kid jumps out of the cupboard and opens up; the one survivor they take for a ride. It's possibly they were just going to murder the ringleader as payback/an example.
posted by rodgerd at 9:46 PM on August 8, 2010 [1 favorite]


I think you meant "SWYT."
posted by DoctorFedora at 1:02 AM on August 9, 2010 [1 favorite]


kipmanley: "God damn but Samuel Jackson's monologue to Tim Roth about what he says and why and what it has finally come to mean may well just be that man's finest moment ever on the screen."

And you just know he actually carries a wallet that says "BAD MOTHERFUCKER" on it.
posted by bwg at 1:17 AM on August 9, 2010


If it was a real Disney scene it would have been a whole lot more violent.

Jules would have shot Mr. Flock of Seagulls with both barrels of a double-barreled shotgun, stuffed a bomb in his mouth, set him on fire, thrown him over a cliff, stuffed and then dropped an anvil on him.
posted by three blind mice at 2:02 AM on August 9, 2010 [1 favorite]


Wouldn't that be more Warner Brothers than Disney? Bugs confuses Daffy so that Daffy says "What?" one too many times, Elmer shoots Daffy in the face with a shotgun, and when the smoke clears you see Daffy with his beak on backwards?
posted by pracowity at 3:22 AM on August 9, 2010 [1 favorite]


"You're... despicable, motherfucker."
posted by e.e. coli at 3:53 AM on August 9, 2010


WHAT DOES SCROOGE MCDUCK LOOK LIKE?
posted by PlusDistance at 3:54 AM on August 9, 2010 [1 favorite]


rodgerd: He also shot the guy on the couch, and Phil Lamarr's character was their "man on the inside". I think the only one left was the crazy dude who jumps out at the end, and they didn't know he was there.

kip: Sure, it's important to the film, but it's just not something I think the characters would have done.
posted by monkeymadness at 3:59 AM on August 9, 2010


a repulsive, mindlessly violent movie

I thought we were talking about Pulp Fiction.
posted by shakespeherian at 7:13 AM on August 9, 2010 [3 favorites]


Holy shit. I had no idea Marvin was Hermes Conrad. But yes, they shot the dude on the couch for basically no reason at all. It's not entirely clear why they took Marvin with them, maybe because they were just shaken up and there hd been enough shooting for one day?
posted by adamdschneider at 8:05 AM on August 9, 2010


adam: One of them mentions their guy on the inside, who I presume is the guy who leaves his head in the car.
posted by monkeymadness at 9:55 AM on August 9, 2010


Ah, it's been a while since I saw it. Should watch it again.
posted by adamdschneider at 10:01 AM on August 9, 2010


In order to get that monologue you have to give Tarantino credit for being a subtle, sophisticated director, one of the best in recent decades. Though he deals with and clearly loves violence — rather, he loves violent movies, and there's a distinction — his best work is an examination of that violence rather than a mere declaration. What provokes the violence? What is its justification?

This is why he delivered us Kill Bill, which has an excessive first half that promises a mindless second, but instead ends up a quiet, thoughtful film that fleshes out the caricatures of the first. The violent finale we're promised lasts a second and a half. Tarantino is a master of climax and dénouement. 

Pulp Fiction, which is titled deliberately after the violent excessive pulp novel, is a character study of Jules and Vincent, two seemingly mindless bloody hit men. This violent scene follows a lengthy, witty, intelligent conversation between the two. We're shown that they are complex people who are capable of looking at mob politics with nuance and deliberation. Then they "get into character", enter the room, and become thugs. 

Why? Because it's a thrill to be violent. 

We get a kick out of violence. We're desensitized to its horror and see it only for the excitement. Especially in movies, which are violent as the norm. Directors don't show the horrific aftermath usually. Just the fun part. 

So yeah, Jules delivers that monologue. It's not for Gary. It's for himself. It's why we talk to ourselves playing violent video games, delivering a narrative that makes the horror even more engrossing. (Erm, at least I do that.) Jules wants to be a badass motherfucker. His wallet says badass motherfucker on it. Do real badasses have wallets that say that? Of course not. Jules is a pretender. He's a wimp who's been given a suit, an afro, and a gun. 

The reason Pulp Fiction is nonlinear is that it wants to play with your expectations. We open with the two petty thieves starting their stick-up. "Oh," we say, "this movie is about pointless nihilistic violence." We don't see the aftermath, in which Jules the wannabe badass gives the robbers his wallet to prevent a death, until the final scene of the film. We don't see the aftermath of this scene here until after Vincent takes Marcellus Wallace's wife to dinner, saves her life, and gets shot by Bruce Willis. Why? Because Bruce is depicted as a sociopath with a taste for violence. We go into his act thinking he's a soulless man. So he shoots Vincent, and we've been seeing Vincent as a thoughtful, courteous man (save the heroin). Soulless. But then, given the choice, he saves Marcellus Wallace's life, even though Wallace was just trying to kill him. And he leaves town, free of the violent cycle, free to live with his wife who he loves deeply. 

Then we see Vincent show no guilt over accidentally killing a teenager. Jules is horrified. Vincent treats it as business. This is his life. Jules wants out. And he realizes that he isn't living his monologue. Something has to change. 

Then the ending scene, which almost made me cry when I first saw it. I don't know why it doesn't affect other people so much. Jules says goodbye to Vincent, who we know will soon be killed in the toilet for no reason. He's seen the horrors of his life and wants to be, at long last, delivered. For Vincent, his best friend, there is to be no such salvation. He is damned by his own actions. 

It's one of the most meticulously crafted films I've ever seen. It's wonderfully clever. 
posted by Rory Marinich at 10:34 AM on August 9, 2010 [13 favorites]


Someday, random mashups will seem old and tired and pointless. Oh sorry, that happened last year. Maybe two years ago.
posted by charlie don't surf at 10:36 AM on August 9, 2010


rodgerd: He also shot the guy on the couch,

You know, I've watched that film a bunch of times over the years, and I always see it as him shooting beside him, not into him, but I realise that's probably wrong. It's an excuse for another look, anyway.
posted by rodgerd at 2:43 AM on August 10, 2010


What I noticed about this scene that I thought was particularly crafty was how the preceding scene with Vince and Jules walking up the apartment is shot without any cuts. The camera follows them as they walk slowly to the apartment. It's a calm mood the whole time; it doesn't feel ominous or have any hints of the horror of what is about to happen (this is the sense I got of it the first few times I saw Pulp Fiction).

Then they get in the room and the camera starts to cut from character to character; slowly. It moves and pans slightly and just gets going, gaining momentum. The volume of the scene goes slightly up, and then it all starts going pretty fast and BOOM Jules just shot Brett(?) in the shoulder and CUT CUT CUT it's ends with a one-two shot of Jules and Vince shooting at him. The rhythm and cutting is so jarring that it almost takes one by surprise...

This is one of the many little brilliant ways that Tarantino uses his medium. Oh man I could go on and on... I love this movie.
posted by fantodstic at 11:50 PM on August 12, 2010 [1 favorite]


Full Metal Disney! He hires/does a great Donald..
posted by cavalier at 2:17 PM on September 7, 2010


« Older Every day in August 2010, the chin-scratching blog...  |  Random Acts of Kindness... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments