Exploration of Independent Cinema – A case study of `Pulp Fiction`

1 Exploration of Independent Cinema – A case study of ‘Pulp Fiction’ By Shivani Trehan PGDM (C) (2006‐2008) Submitted to MICA In partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Post Graduate Diploma in Management (Communications) Dissertation Supervisor: Prof. A.F.Mathew Faculty MICA Mudra Institute of Communications, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad March 2008 2 © Copyright by Shivani Trehan, Mudra Institute of Communications, Ahmedabad (MICA) 2008 3 Executive Summary This dissertation is an analysis of contemporary Independent Cinema and as a following act, its torchbearer for the post modernist 90s era, Quentin Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction. A case study methodology has been adopted for the same analysis. The literature review studies the meaning of Cinema and delves into understanding the nuances of what makes cinema Independent. For this the historical and aesthetical aspects of Independent Cinema has been researched thoroughly and its roots identified in Quentin Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction. The film has been analyzed by looking at cultural factors, psychoanalysis, religious motifs, past movie history and genres. All these factors were deemed an integral part of the fabric of the movie Pulp Fiction. For the analysis, the movie has been broken into units termed as “sequences” which denote a specific occurrence in the movie. Each sequence consists of scenes and all these sequences laid out together give form to the complete understanding of the film. 4 Acknowledgements I would like to thank Professor A.F.Mathew for his constant support and guidance. A special mention: the man ‘Quentin Tarantino’ himself, for making a movie which has enthralled me every time I have watched it. Lastly I would like to thank Vikas, without his valuable contribution this thesis wouldn’t have been possible. 5 Table of Contents Topic •
•
•
Page No. Introduction 7 Literature Review -
What is Cinema 11 -
American Cinema – Hollywood 17 -
Independent Cinema 32 -
Quentin Tarantino 41 Methodology -
The Study 52 -
Objectives 52 -
Types of Research 53 -
Characteristics of Qualitative Research 53 -
Misconceptions about Qualitative Research 54 -
The Case Study Method 55 -
Advantages of Case Study Method 56 6 -
Disadvantages of Case Study Method 57 -
Why the Case Study Method 58 -
Why Quentin Tarantino 58 -
Why Pulp Fiction 61 •
Analysis •
Conclusion •
Bibliography •
Appendix 65 94 99 102 7 Introduction “Each of the arts has its own poetic meaning, and cinema is no exception. It has a particular role; its own destiny‐it came into being in order to express a specific area of life, the meaning of which up till then had not found expression in any existing art form. Everything new in art emerged in answer to a spiritual need and its function is to ask those questions which are supremely relevant to our era.” – Andrey Tarkovsky Films as a medium had always been a prime source of never ending fascination for me. I watched my first English movie, Aliens when I was in the fifth standard. Though the details were lost on me, the images stayed with me, blurry but intriguing. It was a movie, which when compared to the usual fare which was available on Television, was radically different in its look and approach. It was well structured, well shot, very scary, seemed glossier and “well made” than the commonplace Bollywood fare. That enticed me into watching English language movies form then on. I was hooked. I had always enjoyed reading books and the manner in which I read books connected with how movies made sense to me. While reading prose, one always tries to construct imagery in one’s own mind, giving textual characters shape and form in any imaginable way possible, constructing houses and streets and putting all the mental machinations together and making them act out the story. Movies seemed like an easier undertaking than reading because it eliminated the need for self visualization which actually proved to be more entertaining as the energies devoted in those mental machinations can be divested in actually enjoying the story and scenes unfolding on the screen. As a kid, you tend to have a simplistic view on things around you. As you keep learning and growing, your views are modified as you start making sense of it all. This is very well known as the process of maturation of an individual. The process of growing up involves a lot of self‐
introspection where you tend to look back on things, apply rules, break situations and then derive life lessons out of it. What prompts you in this endeavor is the influence and 8 introduction of ideas. The fertile source of ideas around us is our daily settings, where we live, our families, communication mediums like the newspaper and television. Now a decade ago, when television with its hundred odd channels weren’t available, the prime source of fresh new ideas was books. Secondary sources included self‐driven observation of our surroundings and influencers like the people in our families. Such sources were not “alive” in a sense and the possibilities of new ideas emerging from them was either laden with exacting effort (reading literature) or severely limited (family and surrounding). This is where movies came in to the rescue. Watching Aliens was akin to being transported to futuristic settings which was unlike ever imagined for me. Watching it was like watching the Discovery Channel for that era. This was followed by E.T – The Extra Terrestrial, Cocoon, Edward Scissorhands, The Never Ending Story and other fantasy and sci‐fi flicks that simply proved to be a leap of imagination for me as a kid. As I grew up, it was the uncensored movies which I watched on video that brought realism knocking to my doors of perception. Movies screened in India and Television is basically censored media (as with most media and forms of expression in India) and Newspapers provide limited visualization and often limited news with no rough edges. But it wasn’t the case with movies available on Video on VHS. Being realistic is what defines the growing up age. I had always been a hard hitting realist, seeking things that open up the world in front of me. The need for realism automatically transforms itself into the choice of movies or shows that I love to watch or books that I love to read. For e.g. gritty dramas instead of soap operas, tragic or unusual unexpected endings rather than mundane happy conclusions, dark wit and humor instead of slapstick forced laughs and movies with a nerve for the current social context rather than escapist song and dance laden masala entertainers. Thus, as a consequence, movies with unconventional substance appeal to me. This is where Independent Cinema has always provided a delectable buffet of films to choose from. Movies like El Mariachi (1992), Run Lola Run (1998), The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974), The Blair 9 Witch Project (1999), Drugstore Cowboy (1989), Happiness (1998), Blood Simple (1984), Sex, lies, and videotape (1989), Night of the Living Dead (1968), Clerks (1994), Mean Streets (1973), Slacker (1991) had been my perennial favorites. When I look back and list out my favorite movies, Pulp Fiction invariably surfaces as a shining star. This was a movie that introduced me to a bagful of fresh ideas, genres and pop culture. Until I saw Pulp Fiction, I hadn’t had awareness of the exploitation, blaxploitation genre, the grindhouse movies and even non chronological story telling was a first for me. From Reservoir Dogs to Grind house: Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has enthralled me. Tarantino’s movies have this bag full of chocolates feel to them, where you can dig deeper and deeper and find a varied collection of tasty offerings. The only condition is you have to dig. As for the digging to be done in this thesis, there is no better offering from Tarantino than Pulp Fiction and this is exactly what we would be delving into in the following pages. 10 11 Literature Review What is Cinema? Introduction “Film is a dramatized reality – David Lean” Film or Cinema is a collage of captured images which move and when it does, it records, transmits and conveys messages; it entertains, forms opinion, informs and creatively engages the human mind. Films are usually produced by recording images from the world with cameras, or by synthesizing images using animation techniques or special effects. Films are cultural artifacts created by specific cultures, which reflect those cultures, and, in turn, affect them. Film is considered to be an important art form, a source of popular entertainment, and a powerful method for educating or indoctrinating citizens. The visual elements of cinema give motion pictures a universal power of communication. The origin of the name "film" comes from the fact that photographic film (also called film stock) had historically been the primary medium for recording and displaying motion pictures. Many other terms exist for an individual motion picture, including picture, picture show, photo‐play, flick, and most commonly, movie. Additional terms for the field in general include the big screen, the silver screen, the cinema, and the movies.1 Film is strongly pictorial, which is why films are collected more often in art museums than in libraries; it also has a much stronger narrative element than any of the other dramatic arts, a characteristic recognized by film‐makers ever since D. W. Griffith, who pointed to Charles Dickens as one of his precursors. And because of its clear, organized rhythms‐as well as its soundtrack‐it has close connections with music. Finally, in its more abstract incarnations, film is strongly environmental as well: as display technologies mature, architects increasingly integrate filmed backgrounds into their more tangible structures. 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page 12 There are three main divisions into which any art form can be categorized: 1. The performance arts, which happen in real time; 2. The representational arts, which depend on the established codes and conventions of language (both pictorial and literary) to convey information about the subject to the observer; 3. The recording arts, which provide a more direct path between subject and observer: media not without their own codes but qualitatively more direct than the media of the representational arts.2 Film is an art from which is mainly representational in nature. But at the same time it has elements of performance arts as it’s a collection of recorded performances that were performed in real time and also the representational art, in the sense that it can stem from literary sources and provides a representation of established codes and conventions of language. Films manipulate time and space, these cinematic images move into our imagination in a pattern similar to the way we mentally record images of the actual world. All film narratives have a few basic functions: 1. They are a means of symbolizing events that situate the viewer in different space‐time perspectives. 2. They also become “experiences of experience”, giving expression to different cultural identities or representations of the other. Film narratives also allow us to revisit and recapture the past, re‐evaluate the present, and project into a future world that imaginatively extends our abilities to function as human beings. 2
http://www.readfilm.com/HTRbook.html 13 Film appears magically to satisfy a wish, a wish we may not even have recognized as our own: the wish for the world re‐created in its own image, which is also the wish to be able to view the world unseen, free from responsibility. And by appearing to satisfy this wish film seems to us to confirm something already true of our existence.3 Why is Cinema important? Music, painting, sculpture, poetry‐as they are now sought by artists of major ambition, artists devoted to the making of objects meant as the live history of their art‐are not generally important, except pretty much for the men and women devoted to creating them. This simply means that all these art forms tend to focus exceedingly on the art of the creator. For understanding these art forms, one needs to have some sort of engagement with the arts, a sort of background or some training to really appreciate them, thus creating isolation between the audience and the produced art relic. The arts will differ in the extent of their isolation from audience and in the extent to which they suffer from this isolation. But rich and poor, those who care about no (other) art and those who live on the promise of art, those whose pride is education and those whose pride is power or practicality‐all care about movies, await them, respond to them, remember them, talk about them, hate some of them, are grateful for some of them. The movie seems naturally to exist in a state in which it’s highest and its most ordinary instances attract the same audience. Anyone ought to be able to rise to the occasion of recognition at the end of City Lights, to the eloquence of Garbo’s moods, to the intelligence and manliness of Olivier’s Richard the Third, to the power of justice in Henry Fonda’s Young Lincoln, to Carole Lombard’s wit, to Emil Jannings’ despair, to Marilyn Monroe’s doomed magnetism, to Kim Stanley’s sense of worthlessness, to the mutual pleasure and trust William Powell and Myrna Loy give one another, to Groucho’s full and calm acceptance of Harpo’s raging urgencies, to the heartbreaking hesitations at the center of an Astaire routine. 3
Cavell And Film Theory 14 Thus the popularity and hence, the importance of cinema is that it is the most accessible of all the arts. Cinema can be enjoyed at multiple levels and presents itself to be understood by the most common denominator. The reach and impact of Cinema is unparalleled amongst the arts. Why Study Cinema? Cinema was arguably the major art form and entertainment of the twentieth century and shows no signs of giving up this status in the twenty first century as well. Most of us have been watching cinema since childhood and have consequently developed an informal literacy in the language, grammar and syntax of cinema. Studying cinema can help to formalize and deepen this informal cineliteracy, as well as broadening the medium’s entertainment value. The increasing popularity of academic and specialist film journals, as well as of TV programmes and documentaries about the making of films, indicates this. Studying films can also help an understanding of production techniques, how films communicate meaning, how we as audiences both respond to films and influence the types of films made, and how the industry functions in terms of ownership, control, finance, marketing and exhibition.4 Films can be studied within three key but interrelated areas: industry, text and audiences. Films can be studied as cultural products, texts that carry particular values and beliefs which are open to a number of different interpretations. They can powerfully affect or influence us, their audience, while satisfying our desires. Films can also be regarded as an integral part of the global media industry and thus are central to the economic activities of an increasingly concentrated range of multinational conglomerates. Studying Cinema aims to stimulate appreciation, enjoyment and an understanding of a wide range of different types of films together with an awareness of nature of cinema as a medium, art form, and social and economic institution. It aims to encourage an understanding of the nature of personal responses to film and to deploy the critical languages that have been developed to analyze the ways in which films and spectators construct meaning. It also helps in providing a critical and informed sense of the contexts in which films are and have been 4
Studying Film by Nathan Abrams, Ian Bell and Jan Udris 15 produced, disseminated and consumed, within both mainstream and alternative cinema. It aims to instill a thorough knowledge of the critical and technical terms used in film production and practice. Finally, it helps to develop a critically informed sense of the history and development of film conventions.5 Film Criticism: Understanding Cinema Film criticism is the analysis and evaluation of films. In general, these works can be divided into two categories: academic criticism by film scholars and journalistic film criticism that appears regularly in newspapers and other media. An understanding of film depends upon the interplay of two significant characteristics. 1. Aesthetic dimension: An awareness of the structural design or form of the audiovisual elements employed by filmmakers and how they give these elements meaning and relative expressiveness. This may be called the aesthetic dimension.6 2. Historic dimension: A consideration of why people were depicted in the past in different situations and places in relation to the myths and ideologies that informed them about themselves and their contemporary world. This may be called the historic dimension. As historical perspectives shift from generation to generation, life experiences and beliefs embedded in these past periods will reveal familiar traits and actions that define the visual and aural spectacle as a mode of representation. These vary as to accuracy and verisimilitude as the filmmaker chooses definite images in this recreation of past narratives for present‐day audiences. Thus, to interpret a particular film one must consider not only the artistic sensibilities and point of view of the director, but also the social and political character of the period under depiction. These two frames of reference unite the director’s command of film techniques within a genre or constructural base with a personal or ideological narrative. Belief systems found in any social, economic and political circumstances, are incorporated invisibly within every film 5
6
Studying Film by Nathan Abrams, Ian Bell and Jan Udris An Introduction to World Cinema ‐ by Aristides Gazetas 16 narrative, exerting an influence on character motivations and personalities and these invisible characteristics can be seen clearly by a careful analysis of film. Also film needs to be considered as a phenomenon very much like language. It has no codified grammar, it has no enumerated vocabulary, it doesn’t even have very specific rules of usage, so it is very clearly not a language system like written or spoken English; but it nevertheless does perform many of the same functions of communication as language does. Film may not have grammar, but it does have systems of “codes.” It does not, strictly speaking, have a vocabulary, but it does have a system of signs. It also uses the systems of signs and codes of a number of other communication systems. Any musical code, for instance, can be represented in the music of film. Most painterly codes, and most narrative codes, can also be represented in film.7 Studying films forces us to think out of the box: it asks us to question. For example, how are class, race, ethnicity and sexuality represented on the screen, and investigate why this might be different from country to country, or from period to period. It asks us to think about film production in terms of international commerce, and probes the impact of practices and regulations such as censorship, cultural policy, industry awards, and international distribution. It invites us to think critically and theoretically about media practices, and to anchor this understanding in a framework that is both intellectually rigorous and culturally relevant. Film Studies gives us the tools to prove what we already know – that film matters in today’s world. 7
http://www.readfilm.com/HTRbook.html 17 American Cinema – Hollywood Hollywood History Hollywood movies are key cultural artifacts that offer a window into American cultural and social history. A mixture of art, business, and popular entertainment, the movies provide a host of insights into Americans' shifting ideals, fantasies, and preoccupations. Like any cultural artifact, the movies can be approached in a variety of ways. Cultural historians have treated movies as sociological documents that record the look and mood of particular historical settings; as ideological constructs that advance particular political or moral values or myths; as psychological texts that speak to individual and social anxieties and tensions; as cultural documents that present particular images of gender, ethnicity, class romance, and violence; and as visual texts that offer complex levels of meaning and seeing.8 The Pre‐History of Movies The first successful photographs of motion were taken by a photographer named Eadweard Muybridge who lined up 24 cameras along the edge of a race track, with strings attached to the shutters. When the horse ran by, it tripped the shutters, producing 24 closely spaced pictures. In 1887, Thomas Edison and William K.L. Dickson developed a motion picture apparatus called the kinetoscope. It was a huge success and it appeared in hotels, department stores, saloons, and amusement arcades called nickelodeons. In 1894, the Lumiere brothers introduced the portable motion picture camera and projector. In 1896, Edison unveiled the Vitascope and presented the first motion pictures on a public screen in the United States. Competition in the early movie industry was fierce. Moviemakers turned to the courts and launched patent infringement suits to force their competitors out of the industry. Edison and a number of his competitors cooperated and established the Motion Picture Patents Company to protect their profits. Members of the trust agreed that only they had the right to make, print, or distribute cameras, projectors, or films. 8
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/ 18 The independent distributors and exhibitors filed a restraint of trade lawsuit under the Sherman Anti‐Trust Act. A court ruled in the independents' behalf in 1915. The independent moviemakers succeeded in defeating the trust with two potent weapons: the introduction of longer films that told complex stories and the emergence of the star system. The formation of the movie trust ushered in a period of rationalization within the film industry. Camera and projecting equipment was standardized; film rental fees were fixed; theaters were upgraded; and the practice of selling films outright ended, which improved the quality of movies by removing damaged prints from circulation. This was also a period intense artistic and technical innovation, as pioneering directors like David Wark Griffith and others created a new language of film and revolutionized screen narrative. While earlier directors had used such cinematic devices as close ups, slow motion, fade‐ins and fade‐outs, lighting effects, and editing before, Griffith's great contribution to the movie industry was to show how these techniques could be used to create a wholly new style of storytelling, distinct from the theater. Griffith's approach to movie storytelling has been aptly called "photographic realism."This is not to say that he merely wished to record a story accurately; rather he sought to convey the illusion of realism.9 Star System By focusing the camera on particular actors and actresses, Griffith inadvertently encouraged the development of the star system. As one industry observer put it, "In the 'star' your producer gets not only a 'production' value...but a 'trademark' value, and an 'insurance' value which are...very potent in guaranteeing the sale of this product." The salaries started soaring after the emergence of the star system. Mary Pickford’s salary increased from 400$ a week in 1914 to 10,000$ a week in 1916. 9
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/ 19 Meanwhile, an influx of feature‐length films from Europe, which attracted premium admission prices, led a New York nickelodeon owner named Adolph Zukor to produce four and five reel films featuring readily identifiable stars. By 1916, Zukor had taken control of Paramount Pictures, a movie distributor, and had instituted the practice of "block‐booking" requiring theaters to book a number of films rather than just a single film. Within a few years, Zukor's company had achieved vertical integration ‐ not only producing films, but distributing them and owning the theaters that exhibited them. People like Laemmle and Zukor started dominating the movie business in 1920s. They were more willing to experiment with innovations like the star system and feature‐length productions since they were less conservative than the American‐born producers.10 Silent Era Some film historians have argued that early silent films revolved around characteristically working class settings, and expressed the interests of the poor in their struggles with the rich and powerful. Other scholars talked about how these early movies drew largely from conventions, stock characters, and routines derived from vaudeville, popular melodrama, Wild West shows, comic strips, and other forms of late nineteenth century popular entertainment. American films were born in an age of reform, and many early silent movies took as their subject matter the major social and moral issues of the Progressive era: birth control, child labor, divorce, immigration, political corruption, poverty, prisons, prostitution, and women's suffrage. The tone of these films varied widely ‐ some were realistic and straightforward; others treated their subjects with sentimentality or humor; and many transformed complex social issues into personal melodramas. Yet there can be no doubt that many silent films dealt at least obliquely with the dominant issues of the time. Although many Americans today think of the films of the silent era as relics of a simpler, more innocent age, in fact more serious social and political themes lurked "behind the mask of 10
http://www.rocw.raifoundation.org/masscommunication/BAMC/DevelopmentofContemporarymedia/ 20 innocence." Many early silent films were preoccupied with such broad issues as the sources of crime, the nature of political corruption, shifting sexual norms, and the changing role of women. The silent screen offered vivid glimpses of urban tenements and ethnic ghettoes; the screen was filled with gangsters, loan sharks, drug addicts, and panderers and provided a graphic record of "how the other half lives." Many films of the early silent era dealt with gender relations. Movie screens were filled with salacious sexual imagery and risque humor, drawn from burlesque halls and vaudeville theaters.11 Movies – Censor Board The drive to censor films spread from Chicago to other states, after a 1915 Supreme Court ruling that movies were not protected by the First Amendment because they “were a business pure and simple, not to be regarded as part of the press of the country or as organs of public opinion." Eager to combat the trend toward local censorship, movie manufacturers worked with moral reformers in New York to establish the voluntary Board of Censorship of Motion Pictures in 1909, to review the movies' treatment of violence, drugs, prostitution, and, above all, sexual immorality.12 The Rise of Hollywood The film industry was initially based out of the nation’s theatrical center, New York and films were shot in New York, New Jersey, Chicago and Florida. In 1908, many filmmakers relocated in southern California because of cheap land and labor and the ready accessibility of different scenery. The climate was also ideal for year round outdoor filmmaking. By the early 1920s, Hollywood had become the world's film capital. It produced virtually all films shown in the United States and received 80 percent of the revenue from films shown abroad. During the '20s, Hollywood bolstered its position as world leader by recruiting many of Europe's most talented actors and actresses, like Greta Garbo and Hedy Lamarr, directors like 11
12
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/ http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/ 21 Ernst Lubitsch and Josef von Sternberg, as well as camera operators, lighting technicians, and set designers. By the end of the decade, Hollywood claimed to be the nation's fifth largest industry, attracting 83 cents out of every dollar Americans spent on amusement. Hollywood had also come to symbolize "the new morality" of the 1920s‐‐a mixture of extravagance, glamour, hedonism, and fun. During the 1920s, movie attendance soared. By the middle of the decade, 50 million people a week went to the movies ‐ the equivalent of half the nation's population. In Chicago, in 1929, theaters had enough seats for half the city's population to attend a movie each day.13 The Arrival of Sound Warner Brothers film Don Juan (1926) was the first film with a synchronized film score. The Jazz Singer became extremely famous when it was released in 1927 and the popularity of sound soared as well. Within a year, 300 theaters were wired for sound. Movie attendance also witnessed a sharp upsurge, because of the arrival of sound. It jumped from 50 million a week around 1924‐25 to 110 million in 1929. But it also produced a number of fundamental transformations in the movies themselves. As Robert Ray has shown, sound made the movies more American. Distinctive American accents and inflections quickly appeared on the screen, like James Cagney's New Yorkese or Gary Cooper's Western drawl. The introduction of sound also encouraged new film genres ‐ like the musical, the gangster film, and comedies that relied on wit rather than slapstick. In addition, the talkies dramatically changed the movie‐going experience. As one film historian has observed: "The talking audience for silent pictures became a silent audience for talking pictures."14 13
14
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/ http://www.wikipedia.org/ 22 Studio System In the 1920s and 1930s, a small group of film companies consolidated their control. Known as the "Big Five" ‐ Paramount, Warner Brothers, RKO, 20th Century‐Fox, and Lowe's (MGM) and the "Little Three" ‐ Universal, Columbia, and United Artists, they formed fully integrated companies. With the exception of United Artists, which was solely a distribution company, the "majors" owned their own production facilities, ran their own worldwide distribution networks, and controlled theater chains that were committed to showing the company's products. Cinema during the Great Depression In 1934, Will Hays, head of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors Association, said that "No medium has contributed more greatly than the film to the maintenance of the national morale during a period featured by revolution, riot and political turmoil in other countries." During the Great Depression, Hollywood played a valuable psychological and ideological role, providing reassurance and hope to a demoralized nation. Even at the Depression's depths 60 to 80 million Americans attended the movies each week, and, in the face of doubt and despair, films helped sustain national morale. Although the movie industry considered itself Depression‐ proof, Hollywood was no more immune from the Depression's effects than any other industry. To finance the purchase of movie theaters and the conversion to sound, the studios had tripled their debts during the mid‐ and late‐'20s to $410 million. As a result, the industry's very viability seemed in question. By 1933, movie attendance and industry revenues had fallen by forty percent. To survive, the industry trimmed salaries and production costs, and closed the doors of a third of the nation's theaters.15 15
http://www.imdb.com/ 23 Wartime Hollywood Hollywood's greatest contribution to the war effort was morale. Many of the movies produced during the war were patriotic rallying cries that affirmed a sense of national purpose. Combat films of the war years emphasized patriotism, group effort, and the value of individual sacrifices for a larger cause. They portrayed World War II as a peoples' war, typically featuring a group of men from diverse ethnic backgrounds who are thrown together, tested on the battlefield, and molded into a dedicated fighting unit. Hollywood, like other industries, encountered many wartime problems. The government cut the amount of available film stock by 25 percent and restricted the money that could be spent on sets to $5,000 for each movie. Nevertheless, the war years proved to be highly profitable for the movie industry. Spurred by shortages of gasoline and tires, as well as the appeal of newsreels, the war boosted movie attendance to near‐record levels of 90 million a week. To encourage the industry to provide more acceptable films, the Bureau of Motion Pictures issued "The Government Information Manual for the Motion Picture." This manual suggested that before producing a film, moviemakers consider the question: "Will this picture help to win the war‐" It also asked the studios to inject images of "people making small sacrifices for victory‐‐ making them voluntarily cheerfully, band because of the people's on sense of responsibility." During its existence, the Bureau evaluated individual film scripts to assess how they depicted war aims, the American military, the enemy, the allies, and the home front. Post‐War Hollywood The film industry changed radically after World War II, and this change altered the style and content of the films made in Hollywood. After experiencing boom years from 1939 to 1946, the film industry began a long period of decline. Within just seven years, attendance and box receipts fell to half their 1946 levels.16 16
http://www.xiangtan.co.uk/usamovies.htm 24 Then, too, especially after 1950, television challenged and surpassed the movies as America's most popular entertainment form. In 1940, there were just 3,785 TV sets in the United States. Two decades later, nine homes in every ten had at least one TV set. For preceding Americans, clothing styles, speech patterns, and even moral attitudes and political points of view had been shaped by the movies. For post‐World War II Americans, television largely took the movies' place as a dominant cultural influence. The new medium reached audiences far larger than those attracted by motion pictures, and it projected images right into family's living rooms. Meanwhile, Hollywood's foreign market began to vanish. Hollywood had depended on overseas markets for as much as 40 percent of its revenue. But in an effort to nurture their own film industries and prevent an excessive outflow of dollars, Britain, France, and Italy imposed stiff import tariffs and restrictive quotas on imported American movies. With the decline in foreign markets, movie making became a much riskier business.17 Then an antitrust ruling separated the studios from their theater chains. In 1948, the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision in the Paramount case, which had been working its ways through the courts for almost a decade. The court's decree called for the major studios to divest themselves of their theater chains. In addition to separating theater and producer‐ distributor companies, the court also outlawed block booking, the fixing of admissions prices, unfair runs and clearances, and discriminatory pricing and purchasing arrangements. With this decision, the industry the moguls built‐‐the vertically integrated studio‐‐died. If the loss of foreign revenues shook the financial foundation of the industry, the end of block booking (a practice whereby the exhibitor is forced to take all of a company's pictures to get any of that company's pictures) shattered the weakened buttress. One result of the Paramount decision and the end of the monopoly of film making by the majors was an increase in independent productions. Yet despite a host of innovations and 17
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/ 25 gimmicks‐‐including 3‐D, Cinerama, stereophonic sound, and cinemascope‐‐attendance continued to fall.18 New Directions in Post‐War Film During the 1940s, a new film genre‐‐known as film noir‐‐ arose, which gave tangible expression to the psychic confusion of a nation that had won the largest war in history but faced even greater uncertainties in peacetime. Though film noir received it’s named from French film critics and was heavily influenced by German expressionist film making techniques, it stands out as one of the most original and innovative American movie genres. World War II had produced far‐reaching changes in American life: it accelerated the mobility of population, raised living standards, and profoundly altered race relations and the roles of women. Film noir metaphorically addressed many anxieties and apprehensions: the disorientation of returning GIs, fear of nuclear weapons, paranoia generated by the early Cold War, and fears aroused by the changing role of women. Characterized by sexual insecurity, aberrant psychology, and nightmarish camera work, film noir depicted a world of threatening shadows and ambiguities‐‐a world of obsession, alienation, corruption, deceit, blurred identity, paranoia, dementia, weak men, cold‐ blooded femme fatales, and inevitably murder. Its style consisted of looming close ups, oblique camera angles, and crowded compositions that produced a sense of entrapment. The film's narratives were rarely straightforward; they contained frequent flashbacks and voice‐overs. 19 After the war, Hollywood's audience not only shrank, it also fragmented into distinct subgroups. An audience interested in serious social problem films expanded. During the postwar period Hollywood produced a growing number addressing such problems as ethnic and racial prejudice, anti‐Semitism, sufferings of maltreated mental patients, and the problems of alcohol and drug addiction. 18
19
http://www.rocw.raifoundation.org/masscommunication/BAMC/DevelopmentofContemporarymedia/ http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/ 26 Although the early postwar period is often regarded as the golden age of the American family, the popular family melodramas of the 1940s and 50s reveal a pattern of deeply troubled family relationships. These films depicted sexual frustration; anxious parents; cold, domineering mothers; alienated children; insensitive or fretful fathers; defiant adolescents; and loveless marriages. Films of the early postwar period laboriously repeated the theme that sexual frustration inevitably led to neurosis and that harsh, neglectful, or uncomprehending parents produce alienated children. It was a far cry from the soothing and funny fare available on TV. At the same time that it turned out serious social problem films about drugs and family life, Hollywood produced movies that explored disturbing changes in the lives of American youth. Films such as The Wild One (1954), Blackboard Jungle (1955), and Rebel without a Cause (1955) portrayed adolescents as budding criminals, emerging homosexuals, potential fascists, and pathological misfits‐‐everything but perfectly normal kids. On close inspection, cultural critics concluded that something was indeed wrong with American youth, who like Tony in I Was a Teenage Werewolf (1957) seemed closer to uncontrollable beasts than civilized adults.20 In fact, these fears were grossly overstated. During the late '40s and '50s, for example, juvenile delinquency was not increasing. But changes were taking place, and popular movies suggest some of the responses to these broader social transformations. In retrospect, it appears that the proliferation of juvenile delinquency films reflected adult anxieties and also the growth of a distinct youth market. During the 1950s, a new youth culture began to arise, with its distinctive forms of music (rock‐and‐roll), dress, and language, as well as a deep disdain for the world of conventional adulthood. 21 The growing popularity of science fiction thrillers also reflected the emergence of the youth market and the spread of a certain paranoid style during the Cold War years. As Nora Sayre has shown, science fiction films of the '50s can be viewed as allegories of the Cold War, reflecting broader social concerns with domestic subversion, infiltration, and the 20
21
http://www.imdb.com/ http://www.universalpictures.com/ 27 pressures for conformity in a mass society. Unlike the cheerful, humorous, quasi‐religious science fiction of the 1970s and '80s, the films of the 50s conveyed an atmosphere of paranoia and foreboding, and dealt with themes‐‐like mind‐control and the after‐effects of atomic bomb tests‐‐that tapped into deep‐seated anxieties of the period.22 The "New" Hollywood As the 1960s began, few would have guessed that the decade would be one of the most socially conscious and stylistically innovative in Hollywood's history. Among the most popular films at the decade's start was Doris Day romantic comedies like That Touch of Mink (1962) and epic blockbusters like The Longest Day (1962), Lawrence of Arabia (1962), and Cleopatra (1963). Yet, as the decade progressed, Hollywood radically shifted focus and began to produce an increasing number of anti‐establishment films, laced with social commentary, directed at the growing youth market. By the early 1960s, an estimated 80 percent of the film‐going population was between the ages of 16 and 25. At first, the major studios largely ignored this audience, leaving it the hands of smaller studios like American International Pictures, which produced a string of cheaply made horror movies, beach blanket movies‐‐like Bikini Beach (1964) and How to Stuff a Wild Bikini (1965)‐‐and motorcycle gang pictures‐‐like The Wild Angels (1966). Two films released in 1967‐‐Bonnie and Clyde and The Graduate‐‐awoke Hollywood to the size and influence of the youth audience. 23 A number of most influential films of the late '60s and early '70s sought to revise older film genres‐‐like the war film, the crime film, and the western‐‐and rewrite Hollywood's earlier versions of American history from a more critical perspective. Three major war films‐‐Little Big Man, Patton, and M*A*S*H‐‐ reexamined the nineteenth‐century Indian wars, World War II, and the Korean War in light of America's experience in Vietnam. Francis Ford Coppola's The 22
23
http://www.rocw.raifoundation.org/masscommunication/BAMC/DevelopmentofContemporarymedia/ http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/ 28 Godfather (1972) revised and enhanced the gangster genre by transforming it into a critical commentary on an immigrant family's pursuit of the American dream. During the mid‐ and late‐70s, the mood of American films shifted sharply. Unlike the highly politicized films of the early part of the decade, the most popular films of the late 1970s and early 1980s were escapist blockbusters like Star Wars (1977), Superman (1978), and Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) ‐‐ featuring spectacular special effects, action, and simplistic conflicts between good and evil‐‐inspirational tales of the indomitable human spirit, like Rocky (1976)‐‐
or nostalgia for a more innocent past‐‐like Animal House (1978) and Grease (1978). In 1966, Gulf and Western Industries executed a takeover of Paramount and the conglomerization of the film industry began. In 1967, United Artists merged with Transamerica Corporation; in 1969 Kinney Services acquired Warner Brothers. In one sense the takeovers were logical. Conglomerates wanted to acquire interests in businesses that serviced Americans' leisure needs. The heads of the conglomerates, however, had no idea how to make successful motion pictures. Too often they believed that successful movies could be mass produced, that statisticians could discover a scientific method for making box office hits. A trend toward the creation of interlocking media companies, encompassing movies, magazines, and newspapers, and books accelerated in 1985 when the Department of Justice overturned the 1948 anti‐trust decree which had ended vertical integration within the film industry. As a result, many of the major studios were acquired by large media and entertainment corporations, like Sony, which purchased Columbia Pictures, Time Warner (which owns Time magazine, Simon & Schuster publishers, and Warner Brothers), and Rupert Murdoch, whose holdings include HarperCollins publishers, the Fox television network, and Twentieth Century Fox. At the same time that these large entertainment conglomerates arose, many smaller independent producers like Lorimar and De Laurentiis, disappeared. 24 24
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/ 29 Nevertheless, important issues continued to be addressed through film. Many films focused on problems of romance, family, gender, and sexuality‐‐aspects of life radically changed by the social transformations of the 1960s and early 1970s. At a time when politicians and news journalists were neglecting racial and urban issues, movies like Boyz in the Hood, Grand Canyon, Do the Right Thing, and Jungle Fever focused on such problems as the racial gulf separating blacks and whites, the conditions in the nation's inner cities, the increasing number of poor single parent families, police brutality, and urban violence.25 Ironically, the most controversial issue of the 1960s and early 1970s, the Vietnam War, only began to be seriously examined on the screen in the late '70s. Although many films of the late 60s and early 70s embodied the bitter aftertaste of the war, the conflict itself remained strikingly absent from the screen, as Hollywood, like the country as a whole, had difficulty adjusting to the grim legacy of a lost and troubling war. During the conflict, Hollywood produced only a single film dealing with Vietnam‐‐John Wayne's The Green Berets. Modeled along the lines of such World War II combat epics as The Sands of Iwo Jima and earlier John Wayne westerns like The Alamo, the film portrayed decent Americans struggling to defend an embattled outpost along the Laotian border nicknamed Dodge City. During the 1970s and '80s, the returning Vietnam War veteran loomed large in American popular culture. He was first portrayed as a dangerous killer, a deranged ticking time bomb that could explode at any time and in any place. He was Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver (1976), a veteran wound so tight that he seemed perpetually on the verge of snapping. Or he was Colonel Kurtz in Apocalypse Now (1979), who adjusted to a mad war by going mad himself.26 25
26
http://www.rocw.raifoundation.org/masscommunication/BAMC/DevelopmentofContemporarymedia/ http://www.rocw.raifoundation.org/masscommunication/BAMC/DevelopmentofContemporarymedia/ 30 Hollywood Today In a 1992 bestseller Hollywood vs. America, Michael Medved, co‐host of public television's Sneak Previews, described Hollywood as a "poison factory," befouling America's moral atmosphere and assaulting the country's "most cherished values." Today's films, he argued, use their enormous capacity to influence opinion by glamorizing violence, maligning marriage, mocking authority, promoting sexual promiscuity, ridiculing religion, and bombarding viewers with an endless stream of profanity, gratuitous sex, and loutish forms of behavior. Where once the movies offered sentiment, elegance, and romance, now, Medved contends, ideologically‐
motivated producers and directors promote their own divisive agenda: anti‐religion, anti‐
family, anti‐military. In fact, the picture is more complicated than Medved suggests. As film critic David Denby has observed, abandonment of the Production Code in 1966 did indeed increase the amount of sex, violence, and profanity on the screen; but particularly in the 1980s and '90s, Hollywood has also increased the amount of family entertainment it offers, including feature‐length cartoons like Aladdin and Beauty and the Beast; family comedies, like Honey I Shrunk the Kids; and positive portrayals of the teaching profession, like Dead Poet's Society and Stand and Deliver. At the same time that some films merely exploited history as a backdrop for action and adventure, like the Indiana Jones or the Back to the Future trilogies, there has also been a revival of serious historical films like Glory and Malcolm X. Meanwhile, independent directors released a growing number of idiosyncratic and inexpensive films, like The Crying Game, while within Hollywood itself female movie makers, like Penny Marshall and Susan Seidelman, and African‐American film makers, like Spike Lee, have received unprecedented opportunity to bring fresh viewpoints to the screen. Nevertheless, as the movie industry enters its second century, many Americans worry about Hollywood's future. Medved is not alone in complaining that "they don't make movies like they used to." A basic problem facing today's Hollywood is the rapidly rising cost of making and marketing a movie: an average of $40 million today. The immense cost of producing movies has 31 led the studios to seek guaranteed hits: blockbuster loaded with high‐tech special effects, sequels, and remakes of earlier movies, foreign films, and even old TV shows. 27 Hollywood has also sought to cope with rising costs by focusing ever more intently on its core audiences. Since the mid‐1980s, the movie going audience has continued to decrease in size. Ticket sales fell from 1.2 billion in 1983 to 950 million in 1992, with the biggest drop occurring among adults. With the decline in the size of the adult audience, the single largest group of movie‐goers now consists of teenage boys, who are particularly attracted to thrills, violence, and crude laughs. And since over half of Hollywood's profits are earned overseas, the industry has concentrated much of its energy on crude action films easily understood by an international audience, featuring stars like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone. For a century, the movie industry has been the nation's most important purveyor of culture and entertainment to the masses, playing a critical role in the shift from Victorian to distinctively modern, and consumer values; from a world of words to a visual culture; from a society rooted in islands of localities and ethnic groups to a commercialized mass culture. The movies taught Americans how to kiss, make love, conceive of gender roles, and understand their place in the world. Whether film will continue to serve as the nation's preeminent instrument of cultural expression (reflecting and also shaping values and cultural ideals) remains to be seen. 27
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/ 32 Independent Cinema The Concept of Independent Cinema Independent cinema is a concept which introduces a certain degree of difficulty in the act of defining it. For the majority of people, independent filmmaking consists of low‐budget projects made by (mostly) young filmmakers with a strong personal vision away from the influence and pressures of the few major conglomerates that control tightly the American film industry. Far from the clutches of big film production studios like AOL Time Warner, Sony Columbia and Viacom Paramount, which are mainly in the business of producing expensive star vehicles and special‐effects‐driven films that bring larger profits from DVD sales and merchandising than from theatre admissions, independent filmmakers create films that stand against the crass commercialism of mainstream fare while often pushing the envelope in terms of subject matter and its mode of representation. As film critic Emmanuel Levy put it, ‘ideally, an indie is a fresh, low‐budget movie with a gritty style and offbeat subject matter that express the filmmaker’s personal vision.”28 Independence can be defined in terms of three main points of orientation: The position of individual films, or filmmakers in terms of (1) Their industrial location (2) The kinds of formal/aesthetic strategies they adopt and (3) Their relationship to the broader social, cultural, political or ideological landscape. Strategies vary, at each level. Some films customarily designed as ‘independent’ operate at a distance from the mainstream in all three aspects: they are produced in an ultra low budget world a million miles from that of the conventional blockbuster; they adopt formal strategies that disrupt or abandon the smoothly flowing conventions associated with the mainstream Hollywood style; and they offer challenging perspectives on social issues, a rarity in Hollywood. 28
American Independent Cinema: An Introduction ‐ by Yannis Tzioumakis 33 Others exist in a closer, sometimes symbiotic relationship with the Hollywood behemoth, offering a distinctive touch with more conventional frameworks. In between are many shades of difference. A degree of distance, industrially, from the Hollywood studio system often appears to be a necessary condition for substantial formal or socio political departure from the dominant forms. Lower budgets and less marketing driven film making generally permit greater license. But this can be relative. Some lean towards anartistic form and content, merging at one end with works usually defined as experimental or avant garde. Others are more avowedly political or polemical in intent. The artistic and the political are far from separate categories, however. Formal experiment and departure from dominant conventions is potentially a major resource for the deconstruction of dominant ideologies. Other examples of American independent cinema are less lofty in their ambitions, taking up the inheritance of lower budget exploitation cinema, for example, or seeking to carve a niche through the creation of quality, stylish, cultish or offbeat films, the primary goal of which remains the provision of profit generating entertainment. Independent cinema exists in the overlapping territory between Hollywood and a number of alternatives: the experimental avant garde, the more accessible art or quality cinema, the politically engaged, the low budget exploitation film and the more generally offbeat or eccentric. The versions of independent cinema that came into prominence from the mid 1980s with the appearance of milestone films such as ‘Stranger than Paradise’ (Jim Jarmusch, 1984), Sex, Lies and Videotape (Steven Soderbergh, 1989) and Clerks (Kevin Smith, 1994). The terms ‘independent’ or indie – the latter often used to distinguish this particular version of independence – are primarily used in the sense in which they became established in the wider culture in this period, rather than according to a more fixed and literal definition.29 29
American Independent Cinema by Geoff King 34 Independent Cinema’s early days At its earliest the term ‘independent’ was used to describe producers operating in the shadows of the three companies – Edison, Biograph and Vitagraph – that dominated the film business in the 1890s and the 1900s. Early independents faced a constant threat of legal action, control over the industry in this period being exerted partly through the ownership of patents that sought to restrict access to key aspects of film technology. From this early age, the term ‘independent’ gained romantic connotation, signifying the brave effort of rebels fighting against a powerful trust. Independent production in this era is given the credit for a number of landmark developments, including the shift of the centre of gravity of the film business to California and the initiation of the star system, although both claims owe more to myth than reality. The independents formed their own alliance in opposition to the patents company and, Janet Staiger suggests, used a number of similar strategies; the result was the division of the industry into two rival blocs. 30 The patents company was declared to be an illegal restraint of trade and dissolved in 1915. It was soon replaced, however, by what was to become the Hollywood studio system, a vertically integrated operation in which the five major studios dominated the production, distribution and exhibition of features in the USA and much of the rest of the world. The studio system underwent substantial reorientation from the 1950s, in the face of further federal regulation and broader social change, but its dominance has remained largely in place. Low vs. High Budget In the context of an industrial regime dominated by Hollywood, independent activity has tended to fall into one of the two general categories: either inside or outside the orbit of the majors. Within the gravitational pull of the studios independent production has been found at both the lower and upper ends of the business. Low budget independent outfits such as republic and monogram, and many smaller entities, helped to serve the demand of the system for the production of ‘B’ movies, to fill the bottom half of double bills, during the 1930s. At the 30
Independent Cinema by D K Holm 35 same time independent producers such as David Selznick and Sam Goldwyn produced expensive ‘A’ features, borrowing stars and leasing studio space from the majors and supplying prestige films such as Gone with the Wind (1939) and Rebecca (1940) that profited the studios by playing in their important first run theatres. The most high profile ‘A’ list move into independence from the studios was launched earlier, in 1919, with the founding of United Artists, a distribution company created to handle the films of Mary Pickford, Charles Chaplin, Douglas Fairbanks and D.W.Griffith.31 The success of Selznick, in particular, as an independent producer working closely with the studios, pointed the way towards what was to be the future structure of Hollywood production, which became increasingly organized on a contracted‐out basis from the 1950s onwards. The studio production‐line system gave way to the package system, in which individual film projects were put together on a one‐ off basis. A great deal of Hollywood production today can he described as ‘independent’ in this sense, in that projects are often initiated and pursued by entities that exist formally beyond the bounds of the majors. These include production companies set up by producers, directors and stars, often working closely with one studio or another, and some larger independent companies. In most such cases the films that result belong solidly to the Hollywood mainstream. Hollywood remains the principal source of funding and distribution, even when only a relatively small proportion of production is conducted entirely in‐house. Technically independent productions include Hollywood blockbusters such as Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991) and Basic Instinct (1992), produced by the independent Carolco in an alliance with TriStar Pictures. As with the likes of Selznick, arrangements with independents such as Carolco, Castle Rock and Morgan’s Creek in the 1 990s gave the studios extra flexibility, to work in partnerships that reduced their risks, especially at the higher‐budget end of the 31
American Independent Cinema by Geoff King 36 spectrum. It is clear that formal independence of this variety in the industrial domain is, in itself, no guarantee of independent qualities of other kinds.32 The Unconventionality of Independence If some forms of independent production have worked closely in unison with Hollywood, others have operated in areas in which Hollywood has chosen not to tread, sometimes teaching valuable lessons to the dominant institution. Necessity has often driven independent operators to be the pioneers of American cinema, exploring new avenues in their search for territories not already colonized by the major studios. The early independents took cinema to parts of rural America, including the gold camps of Alaska, which were not served by the big companies. Technological innovations have also come from independent sources in some cases: the development of widescreen processes and 3D in the 1950s, for example, originated outside the control of the studios. Both historically and today, independent producers have often served specialized, niche audiences of one kind or another. A good example during the classical Hollywood studio era is low‐budget independent black‐oriented filmmaking, which, although often white owned and financed, catered specifically for black audiences from the silent era until the Second World War. The most significant audience for which Hollywood failed to cater in the immediate post‐war decades, and which created the basis for some of the most important strains of independent production, was the youth audience. Hollywood was very slow to respond to demographic and other social changes during the 1950s and 1960s that created a large audience receptive to material targeted at teenage viewers. Into the gap stepped a number of independent producers, the best known being American Independent Pictures (AlP), supplying the teen audience with a range of low‐budget horror, hot‐rod, biker and beach‐blanket movies. Such films tended to be in ‘disreputable’ genres unfavoured by Hollywood. They were sold using ‘exploitation’ tactics, sensational tides and posters giving the impression of more lurid thrills 32
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_film 37 than were usually delivered by the low‐production‐value material actually presented on ‐
screen.33 Avant Garde Independent Cinema If this was a version of independence that was nakedly commercial in intent, the independent scene of the later 1950s and 1960s also saw a flowering of more ‘artistic’ and in some cases ‘avant‐ garde’ independent filmmaking. The birth of something akin to an ‘American New Wave’, to match those of contemporary European cinema, was announced in the early 1960s. The more narrative‐ and character‐led manifestations of this development — films such as John Cassavetes’ Shadows (1960) — can be seen as direct predecessors of the indie scene of the 1980s and 1990s. Examples from the avant‐ garde end of the spectrum, in some cases dating back to the 1940s, include formalist experimentation by filmmakers such as Maya Deren and Stan Brakhage and the ‘underground’ films of Andy Warhol. The avant‐garde remained largely isolated, as in almost all cases a strictly non‐commercial and rigorously independent undertaking. 34 The strands of ‘exploitation’, ‘art’ and ‘underground’ cinema sometimes came closer together, however, jointly forming important sources for the Hollywood ‘Renaissance’ of the late 1960s to the mid to late 1970s, a period in which a financially struggling Hollywood finally began to come to terms with its changed demographic and social context. The commercial success of independent youth‐oriented pictures such as those of AIP was matched by that of some more edgy and disturbing independent productions in the same generic territory, especially horror. Films such as Night of the Living Dead (1968) and The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) proved highly successful at the box office, pushing back the boundaries of conventional exploitation‐ horror material and combining this with a more negative portrait of American society that resonated with contemporary angst and unrest in the era of events such as racial uprising, the Vietnam war and Watergate. 33
34
Journal of American Studies (2003), Cambridge University Press American Independent Cinema by Geoff King 38 The response of Hollywood was to embrace some of this material. A landmark move was the decision by Columbia to distribute Easy Rider (1969), a project originally destined to become another biker picture for AIP. The success of Easy Rider helped convince the studios to invest in a new generation of filmmakers seen to be more in touch with the youth audience affected by the 1960s counterculture. Rise of the Grindhouse and other genres Hollywood learned other lessons from the independents in this period. Along with a number of foreign imports, independent features demonstrated the box‐office appeal of more racy, controversial or ‘adult’ material encouraging the adoption by Hollywood of the ratings system, which widened the bounds of what could be offered to audiences from 1968. Examples ranged from gory low‐budget horror to the sexploitation films of Russ Meyer. Elements of independent ‘exploitation’ strategy were also embraced by Hollywood in its more mainstream, blockbuster productions, especially the strategy of combining wide opening release patterns with saturation advertising, in order to recoup costs quickly. A number of Hollywood’s biggest‐grossing films of the 1970s were, in part, bigger‐budget and glossier versions of independent exploitation fare, especially The Exorcist (1973) and Jaws (1975).35 Hollywood stole some of the ground of the independents during the 1970s, encouraging some independents into more extreme or ‘outrageous’ ground to maintain their marketable differences: the raw horror of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, the harder‐core sexploitation of Deep Throat (1972), the cult ‘bad taste’ trash extremes of John Waters’ Pink Flamingos (1973). Independent operation remained the main source of development in the slasher and splatter varieties of horror but this was another terrain onto which Hollywood was quick to move in the light of the box‐office success of Halloween (1978) and Friday the 13th (1980). If the more commercial/exploitation end of independent cinema was to a large extent taken over by larger‐
budget Hollywood productions, the same was only partially and briefly true of the ‘art’ film component. 35
American Independent Cinema: An Introduction ‐ by Yannis Tzioumakis 39 The Hollywood Renaissance embraced aspects of ‘art’ cinema to some extent, but it proved short‐lived, the product of a period of transition that soon passed in the later 1970s, with both the consolidation of a blockbuster‐centered regime in Hollywood and a political turn to the right in American culture. Space for edgier, more questioning or ‘difficult’ filmmaking was generally reduced in Hollywood from the end of the decade. Some individuals associated with the Hollywood Renaissance continued to make less conventional films, sometimes for the studios, where past box‐office achievements or status and reputation gave them sufficient clout (Martin Scorsese, for example), sometimes in the independent realm or with funding from television (as in the case of Robert Altman during the 1980s). Hollywood’s loss, in terms of the general narrowing of the horizons of possibility at the heart of the studio‐led machine, was to be the gain of a newly consolidating form of independent production and distribution that was beginning to take shape during the 1980s, and into which some of the inheritance of the Renaissance was carried.36 The term ‘independent’ has had rather different connotations at different periods in the history of American cinema. In the 1930s, for example, it signified ‘something less than trash’. In the late 1950s and early 1960s it might have suggested both the innovations of the ‘American New Wave’ and the low‐budget exploitation science fiction and horror made by Roger Corman for AIP. The ‘New Wave’ proved fragmentary and short‐lived, breaking down during the 1960s into its separate art/personal/expressive feature film and more underground/experimental short components. Accessible non‐Hollywood features were still produced, but they were so infrequent, and usually achieved such a low audience profile, that there was little sense of continuity, let alone of any kind of “movement”. Resurgence From the mid 1980s, however, the more arty/quirky, sometimes politically inflected, brand of independent cinema began to gain a higher profile and a more sustained and institutionalized base in the broadly off‐Hollywood arena. The generally inhospitable climate of the Hollywood mainstream during the I980s and into the 1990s was certainly a factor. 36
www.readfilm.com/HTRBook/HTR4.pdf 40 Today, the major independent industry resides in New York City and the are a number of Independent Studios that produce / release independent films, some of them are – Lions Gate Films, Fox Searchlight Pictures, The Weinstien Company / Dimension Films, Miramax Films and Warner Independent Pictures. In addition to these high profile "independent" studios there are thousands of smaller production companies that produce truly independent films every year. These smaller companies look to regionally release their films theatrically or for additional financing and resources to distribute, advertise and exhibit their project on a national scale. The direct‐to‐video market is not often noted as artistically fertile ground but among its many entries are ambitious independent films that either failed to achieve theatrical distribution or did not seek it. Moving forward, particularly as theatrical filming goes digital and distribution eventually follows, the line between "film," direct‐to‐disc productions, and feature‐length videos whose main distribution channel is wholly electronic, should continue to blur.37 37
www.jeremywalker.com/pages/films/imagesnote/ 41 Quentin Tarantino ‘I steal from every movie ever made.’ – Quentin Jerome Tarantino Birth Place: Knoxville, Tennessee, US Personal Information: Born March 27, 1963 Occupation: Writer, Director, Producer, Actor The man and His Movies Few filmmakers have succeeded in building a mystique, and indeed an entire cinematic "world," to the degree achieved by Quentin Tarantino, who first attracted critical attention with 42 Reservoir Dogs in 1992. In that film, Tarantino established aspects of his aesthetic that have continued to unfold over subsequent motion pictures, most notably the Tarantino‐directed 1994 hit Pulp Fiction and the 1997 film Jackie Brown, which Tarantino also directed. The filmmaker played roles in all three movies, each of them successively smaller. But along the way, even as the director's physical presence in his films has diminished, the characteristics of his art have propelled him to the status, as he observed somewhat derisively in an interview with New York Times Magazine, of "an adjective": "Every third script out there," he said, "is described as 'Tarantino‐esque.'" 38 Certain aspects characterize the Tarantino aesthetic, and though not as visible in films where his touch appears uncredited, they are nonetheless there for the discerning to see for e.g. in crimson tide. Comic books play a significant part in Tarantino's onscreen world, and numerous critics have likened his films to "cartoons" in the way that they transform cinematic violence‐‐
images that have become clichés through ceaseless repetition in B‐grade films‐‐into a form of postmodern humor. Tarantino himself, particularly during his five years as a clerk in a Los Angeles video store, has absorbed a vast store of film history, making his films almost encyclopedic in their references and cross‐references. One is unlikely to find Bergman or Cocteau making cameos in Tarantino's movies, however, although critics found in Reservoir Dogs suggestions both of Stanley Kubrick and Jean‐Luc Godard. Rather, Tarantino's interest is in pop culture, and his melding of this with a modicum of more high‐minded material has won him the praise of numerous critics. There is little difference between Tarantino the screenwriter and Tarantino the man, as David Wild illustrated in a 1994 Rolling Stone profile. His home is a shrine to pop paraphernalia, the flotsam and jetsam of twentieth‐century culture: "Along with items from his own movies," wrote Wild, "including the razor used in the infamous ear‐slicing scene [in Reservoir Dogs], there's a frighteningly lifelike head of B‐movie diva Barbara Steele, a pack of genuine Texas Chainsaw chili, a Zorro knife given to him by Jennifer Beals, a Robert Vaughn doll, cases by the dozen of 38
VIOLENCE AND THE SCAPEGOAT IN AMERICAN FILM: 1967‐1999 43 bottled Pepsi, and what is undoubtedly one of the world's most impressive collections of film‐
and TV‐related board games." Wild described Tarantino as a "chatterbox," a fitting quality given the fact that, for all the blood and mayhem in them, his films are driven more by dialogue than by action. Ron Rosenbaum in Esquire examined the famous disagreement between Tarantino and director Oliver Stone over Stone's 1994 film Natural Born Killers. Stone had so altered Tarantino's story that the latter disclaimed all involvement in the resulting film and even delayed release of Pulp Fiction in order to further establish his distance. Rosenbaum portrayed the difference between the two men's temperaments as a "rivalry of sensibilities" not unlike that between Ernest Hemingway and F. Scott Fitzgerald: "Mythic Macho Outdoor Man of Nature versus Aesthete Analyst of Indoor Intrigue and Internal Self‐Consciousness." Whereas Stone favors action, Rosenbaum noted, Tarantino's psyche finds its natural home with dialogue: "If you watch Tarantino's films, if you read his screenplays, all that writhing and stewing of images is not so much war as dance. ‘To me, violence is a totally aesthetic subject,' he once said. 'Saying you don't like violence in movies is like saying you don't like dance sequences in movies.'" Whereas Stone's characters are figures of action, Rosenbaum indicated, Tarantino's are talkers, and what they talk about‐‐albeit while on the way to committing shocking acts, or after they have done so‐‐are the subjects that fascinate the director. "The great defining moments in Tarantino films," Rosenbaum explained, "are almost always moments of literary criticism. The defining moment of Reservoir Dogs, the scene that instantly distinguished it from all other violent gangster films ever made before, is the opening scene, in which his bank robbers are gathered around a breakfast table at a pancake house, deconstructing a Madonna song.... Oliver Stone, given that same group of murderous thugs, would have them facing off over urinals, comparing how long it took each to pee. Tarantino isn't afraid to depict his gangsters almost as if they were cultural‐studies majors. And again, in Pulp Fiction, what's the defining moment? It's when Jules and Vincent (Samuel L. Jackson and John Travolta), two hit men, are analyzing the philosophical implications of the way brand names for burgers‐‐designations of 44 value‐‐shift in different linguistic frameworks. In his heart, Quentin Tarantino is an English major." 39 Though violence, pop culture, and endless discussions are aspects of the Tarantino aesthetic, they are not the sum total of his world. Another facet of his work as a filmmaker is that he resurrects stars often perceived to be past their glory days. In the case of Travolta, who had enjoyed almost dizzying success in a number of roles during the 1970s, Tarantino's casting in Pulp Fiction resulted in a full‐scale revival, making Travolta in the 1990s every bit the star he had been twenty years before. Similarly, the director cast Robert Forster and Pam Grier, both of whom had done little notable work in recent years, in Jackie Brown. Describing the onscreen romance between Forster and Grier, the latter whom Tarantino had admired for her roles in numerous 1970s "blaxploitation" films, Anthony Lane of the New Yorker wrote: Forster "is fifty‐
six, she is forty‐four; when was the last time you went to the movies‐‐let alone a Tarantino movie‐‐and saw a fond, unironic, interracial kiss between a couple who are a hundred years old?" 40 Lane's larger point was that Tarantino seemed to have mellowed as his career progressed. He shocked audiences in Reservoir Dogs with a gruesome scene in which Mr. Blonde (Michael Madsen) cuts off a police officer's ear while the 1970s hit "Stuck in the Middle with you" plays in the background. Likewise, Pulp Fiction featured a brutal S‐and‐M male‐on‐male rape scene, along with a large body count; by contrast, Jackie Brown, though it offers gore aplenty, and half the cast are dead by the end of the film, is more character‐driven and‐‐in places, such as a long tracking shot in which Ordell (Jackson) shoots an employee‐‐restrained for Tarantino. The director himself has suggested that, although the shocking violence may get him the most headlines, its purpose is to illustrate a larger absurdity: the very deification of such bloodshed in American film. Thus the violence itself is a part of pop culture, inseparable from the references to B‐movies and comic books, and this attitude has helped gain him a reputation as a witty and 39
40
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quentin_Tarantino http://daily.greencine.com/archives/2007_07.html 45 sardonic filmmaker simultaneously spoofing and glorifying the detritus of twentieth‐century mass media. His postmodern approach‐‐Tarantino himself eschews the high‐blown term‐‐has earned him not only widespread admiration among critics, but also the allegiance of numerous stars. Jackson has appeared in two of his films, as have Harvey Keitel and Tim Roth; likewise Travolta, Robert DeNiro, Uma Thurman, Bruce Willis, and Bridget Fonda have all played roles in Tarantino pictures. Keitel, a highly respected actor known for his interest in independent filmmaking, agreed to appear in Reservoir Dogs for a much smaller sum than his ordinary fee, simply because he believed in Tarantino's work. The fact that Tarantino first emerged as an independent filmmaker is a final, and indeed crucial, element of his abiding success. He came from far outside the Hollywood establishment, gaining his knowledge of the movies not by going to film school‐‐he is a high‐school dropout‐‐but by feeding a long‐term addiction to movies themselves. As a youngster growing up in suburban Los Angeles, he haunted a theatre in the nearby town of Carson. It was a rough neighborhood, but "the theater... showed all the kung fu movies," Tarantino recalled, "and the Allied International movies like The Van." As a teenager, he worked as an usher in a pornographic theatre and later spent five years as a minimum‐wage employee in what he recalled as "the best video store in the Los Angeles area," Video Archives. There he met Roger Avary, another future director‐‐Tarantino would be executive producer on Avary's Killing Zoe in 1994‐‐who later worked with Tarantino on the story for Pulp Fiction. Tarantino, Avary, and others constituted an informal film club: "I basically lived [at the video store]... for years," Tarantino told Wild. "We'd get off work, close up the store, then sit around and watch movies all night. Other times Roger, our friend Scott, and I would take a Friday and plot things out so we could see all four new movies we were interested in. We always took whatever we got paid and put it right back into the industry." Eventually, however, Tarantino began to feel like the character Clarence in the 1993 film True Romance, who, as Wild noted, "was based on Tarantino's younger days living near the Los 46 Angeles airport.’All day long he just sees people taking off and leaving, and he's going nowhere. I'm not that guy anymore.'" How he ceased to be "that guy" is the stuff of independent‐film legend, a story that has inspired ambitious filmmakers ever since. In 1990 Tarantino and Avary went to work with producer John Langley, a regular video‐store customer, and moved to Hollywood. There they started to develop the all‐important contacts‐‐most notably with producer Lawrence Bender‐‐necessary in the world of filmmaking, and they raised $1.5 million. In film terms it was a shoestring budget at best; but it was enough to make Reservoir Dogs, a film that grossed many times that sum. Reservoir Dogs The resulting work brought out cautionary statements from several reviewers‐‐Terrence Rafferty of the New Yorker, for instance, described it as "stylized mayhem and playground machismo"‐‐but audiences, and indeed even many critics, were captivated. The story itself, modeled on Stanley Kubrick's 1956 film The Killing, is simple: an aging crime boss and his son gather a group of criminals, designated by colors (e.g., Mr. Blonde, Mr. Pink) in order to protect their identities, and plan a jewelry‐store heist. But one of them is a cop, and the robbery goes badly. The crime itself is not depicted, and much of the action takes place afterward in a warehouse where the robbers have gathered to square off against one another in an attempt to find the traitor. The film plays tricks with time, shifting backward and forward, and as Manohla Dargis in Art Forum observed, "The details [of the heist] surface only as retold by the robbers.... The effect is less the Rashomon point about rival truths than something akin to psychoanalysis: like the therapeutic process, Reservoir Dogs tells a story, is about telling stories, and depends on stories for its creation." As notable as the temporal tricks are the film's stylistic touches, which in retrospect appear as vintage Tarantino: the brutal violence against the 1970s soundtrack, the use of matching anonymous black suits by the color‐designated robbers, and the long quasi‐philosophical discussions which take place in the stage‐like warehouse. 47 Reviews Tarantino, wrote Kenneth Turan in the Los Angeles Times, "has a gift for writing great bursts of caustic, quirky dialogue," and even Rafferty, in the middle of a largely negative review, conceded that "Tarantino is a director to watch." Turan was also critical of the film, wishing it was not so "determinedly one‐dimensional, so in love with operatic violence at the expense of everything else"; nonetheless he too credited "the undeniable skill and élan that Tarantino brings to all this." Likewise, Stanley Kauffmann in the New Republic wrote that much of Reservoir Dogs "was difficult for me to watch"; he faulted the director's penchant for violence, while observing that "cinematically speaking, it's plainly the debut of a talent." Jonathan Romney, in the New Statesman expressed concern for the way the famous ear‐cutting scene incites audiences to want to see the violence unfold, yet he called Tarantino "a young director whose noir literacy is evident in every detail." Pulp Fiction Although concerned about the violence, most critics admired Tarantino's abilities as a promising new talent. In the case of True Romance, directed by Tony Scott (Top Gun) from a screenplay by Tarantino, reviewers were less positive. But with Tarantino once again in the director's chair for Pulp Fiction, positive reviews‐‐and awards‐‐poured in. As with Reservoir Dogs, the story alters time, ending just a few minutes after the point at which it begins, moving forward in between and then doubling back. However, Pulp Fiction is more complex than its predecessor. Whereas Reservoir Dogs takes place entirely in a world of men and features no female characters, Pulp Fiction involves at least as much male‐female conflict as male‐male. In terms of structure it has several plots, most of them surrounding a drug lord named Marsellus Wallace (Ving Rhames). In the opening scene, a husband‐and‐wife crime team (Roth and Amanda Plummer) plan a stickup in a restaurant; then the action leaves them, not to return until the end of the movie some two and a half hours later. In between, there are subplots involving two hit men (Travolta and Jackson) employed by Marsellus; Marsellus's alluring wife (Thurman), who suffers a near‐fatal heroin overdose while out on the town with Travolta; and a 48 boxer (Willis) who double‐crosses Marsellus and flees for his life, only to find himself in a position to save the man who wants to kill him. In the final scene, after dealing with Plummer and Roth, Jackson's character makes a decision to leave his life of crime; already the audience has seen a segment that takes place later in time, in which Travolta confronts the results of his own refusal to do so. Reviews "The script," wrote Richard Alleva in Commonweal, "is put together with a jeweler's precision, and makes the writing of every American film I've seen in the past year... seem like so much child's play." In the New Republic, Kauffmann, who had expressed reservations about Tarantino's directorial debut two years earlier and still found cause for alarm in the new film's violence, nonetheless held that “Pulp Fiction is Reservoir Dogs rewarded." Peter Travers of Rolling Stone described the film as "ferocious fun without a trace of caution, complacency or political correctness to inhibit its 154 deliciously lurid minutes." David Denby in New York, admitting that "I can't say I was a fan of... Reservoir Dogs," observed that in Pulp Fiction, "Tarantino seems to be goosing the entire solemn history of action cinema.... In the roundelay of violence and comedy that is Pulp Fiction; he has hilariously summed up an immense genre and gloriously achieved his exit from it. Life beckons from beyond the video store." Time between Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown Several reviewers, such as T. J. Binyon of the Times Literary Supplement, noted that although the film's title seems to relate to books, Pulp Fiction is more about movies than literature. With Jackie Brown three years later, Tarantino would make a step closer to literature by adapting an Elmore Leonard book; in the meantime, as he enjoyed the enormous fame and success that came in the wake of Pulp Fiction, he worked on a number of other projects. Along with three other directors, he contributed a segment to the film Four Rooms and worked with Robert Rodriguez on From Dusk 'till Dawn. Jack Matthews of the Los Angeles Times described From Dusk 'till Dawn as "a film nerd's fever dream, a Frankenstein's monster of used movie parts" 49 involving "a pair of murdering, bank‐robbing brothers" who find themselves at "a topless biker bar in the middle of nowhere in a chaotic, bloody, nonstop battle with ancient Aztec vampires." Jackie Brown Tarantino returns to more familiar territory with Jackie Brown, a film both more complex than Pulp Fiction in terms of character development and the double‐crosses that move the plot forward, and less complex in its relatively linear use of time. The story centers on Jackie Brown (Grier), an underpaid flight attendant earning extra money by helping arms dealer Ordell (Jackson) launder money. But when she is caught, Ordell, fearing she will turn him over to the police, wants her eliminated. On this backbone of plot are attached numerous other subplots involving Ordell's airheaded girlfriend (Bridget Fonda), a henchman who has just gotten out of prison (DeNiro), the bail bondsman who comes to Jackie's rescue (Forster), and the federal agents who goad her into helping them (Michael Keaton and Michael Bowen). All her adversaries underestimate Jackie, as a sequence involving the transfer of a bag‐‐the only tricky use of time in the movie, involving the replay of a scene from three points of view‐‐serves to illustrate. Reviews Todd McCarthy in Variety faulted Tarantino for taking too long to tell his story‐‐like Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown clocks in at approximately 150 minutes‐‐but held that the "film takes its own sweet time setting its gears in motion, with the emphasis on sweet when it comes to amusingly establishing its characters." Turan in the Los Angeles Times warned that "those expecting Tarantino to pick up where he left off [in Pulp Fiction] will be disappointed in Jackie Brown. Instead of rearranging audience's sensibilities, he's taken the typically twisty plot of Leonard's Rum Punch and run it through his personal Mixmaster. The result is a raunchy doodle, a leisurely and easygoing diversion." Lane, in the New Yorker, quoted with approval an example of Tarantino's dialogue: when Ordell warns his girlfriend that smoking marijuana will "rob you of your ambition," she says, "Not if your ambition is to get high and watch TV." Travers in Rolling Stone wrote that Tarantino "score[s] a knockout.... Loaded with action, laughs, smart 50 dialogue, and potent performances, Jackie Brown is most memorable for its unexpected feeling." Tarantino, Travers concluded, is charting new territory, and just as the film ends with Jackie "driving toward a life she can't define," listening to "a '70s song about busting out of ghettos"‐‐Bobby Womack's "Across 110th Street"‐‐so the film "crackles with the fear and exhilaration of moving on." Kill Bill In 2003 Tarantino expanded his creative penchant into fiction writing with the novel Kill Bill, which was published almost simultaneously with the film he adapted from it. Starring Uma Thurman, Lucy Liu, and Vivica A. Fox, the film follows Thurman‐‐playing The Bride‐‐as she seeks revenge for the nightmare that occurred on her wedding day, when all in her wedding party were slaughtered. The only person to survive, the Bride, is revived from her coma after four years, and now dedicates herself to seeking out and defending herself against the five killers‐‐
Liu, Fox, Michael Madison, Daryl Hannah, and David Carradine‐‐who massacred her friends and family. Drawing on everything from Japanese anime to 1960s Spaghetti Westerns, Kill Bill, Vol. 1 contains more than the violence Tarantino fans have come to expect; however, that violence is somehow made less abhorrent by the film's otherworldly, graphic‐novel look. Reviews While noting that some viewers will "instantly dismiss" Kill Bill, Vol. 1 "as rubbish," San Francisco Examiner reviewer Jeffrey M. Anderson maintained that "Tarantino is the greatest American action director working today, and he shoots... [the film's] long and carefully choreographed fight scenes with a skill and clarity lacking in nearly every other recent American action film." Calling the film "just a funky, hermetic pulp bash," Entertainment Weekly contributor Owen Gleiberman added, "Each sequence in Kill Bill is like a detour that's more fun than the main road." Also commenting on the movie's surface quality, Miami Herald reviewer Rene Rodriguez noted that "for all its severed limbs and alarmingly large sprays of blood, Kill Bill 51 is more of a vicious comedy than anything else.... We know so little [about the characters,] in fact, that this lively, energetic movie becomes a thin, disposable experience." However, Rodriguez concluded, the film "reminds you just how good a visual craftsman" Tarantino is. "There is such sheer cinematic joy in every one of Kill Bill's blood‐spattered frames... that the movie succeeds despite itself." Richard Corliss, recalling perhaps Tarantino's early remark equating film violence with dance, concluded his review of the film by noting: "Even the arcs of blood have the propulsion of crimson choreography. In this sense, Kill Bill is the greatest dance film since West Side Story. 52 Research Methodology The Study The study may be titled “Exploration of Independent Cinema ‐ A Case Study of Pulp Fiction.” The main research theme is to study Quentin Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction within the larger context of the phenomenon of independent cinema in the United States of America in recent times. The aim is to examine the result of independent filmmaking in a non‐studio context of enhanced freedom of creative expression. Objectives 1) To present an overview of the phenomenon of independent cinema in the U.S.A within the realm of discourses in art and cinema. 2) To take a specific independent filmmaker—Quentin Tarantino and examine his work – to focus on one film of his: Pulp Fiction 3) To examine the inter‐play of form and content and the cinematic handling of social issues in independent movies. 4) To place the above case within the genre of independent movies. The methodology used in this study is qualitative and the case study method has been used. The case for study here is ‘Pulp Fiction’ and the conclusions are derived from this case. Tarantino burst on the scene as an independent filmmaker and is known for his passion for that genre. Moreover, Pulp Fiction also won the Palm d’or at the Cannes film festival, hence that highly acclaimed film can serve as a basis for selection as a case for study within the larger genre of independent cinema. Pulp Fiction was made under independent funding and can be categorized as an independent film. This is being mentioned simply for the reason that independent funding is one of the main features of independent filmmaking. For filmmakers of this genre, being independent of big studios is an important variable for artistic independence. 53 Types of Research Research can be divided into two broad types: qualitative and quantitative. Simply put, quantitative research requires that the variables under consideration be measured. This form of research is concerned with how often a variable is present and generally uses numbers to communicate this amount. It allows greater precision in reporting results. A variable is a phenomenon or event that can be measured and manipulated and is used in the development of constructs. 41 On the other hand, “Qualitative research describes or analyses a phenomenon without specifically measuring variables. No statistical analysis is involved in qualitative research, although the data might be expressed numerically”. “Qualitative research can be described as any social science research that produces results that are not obtained by statistical procedures or other methods of quantification. Some of the data may be quantified, but the analysis is qualitative. It can refer to research about people's lives, their stories, and behavior and it can also be used to examine organizations, relationships, and social movements. Research done in this way produces descriptive data such as people's own spoken or written words or observable behavior.” 42 Characteristics of Qualitative Research “The essence of this approach is to view events through the perspective of the people who are being studied. What do they think? How do they view the world?” “Adopting this approach requires the researcher to empathize (not necessarily sympathize) with the people being studied. So, for example, a researcher investigating a group of drug users must be able to see the world through their eyes without necessarily justifying the drug trade.” 41
42
Wimmer & Dominick, 1983 Bouma & Atkinson, 1997 54 “Another characteristic of much qualitative research is that there is a longitudinal element‐
people are studied over a period of time (this need not be the defining characteristic). So a researcher investigating the introduction of mixed ability teaching in a school might begin before the change took place and then follow events during and after the change. Put another way, there is an emphasis on process, of how things change. In addition, qualitative researchers typically provide detailed descriptions of the settings they investigate. They ask questions such as 'What is it like?' and 'What's going on?” “A further characteristic is that qualitative research is relatively unstructured. The research strategy is, to a large extent, open, so that in some cases the investigator may not have decided in advance precisely what is to be investigated. The argument for this is that an open approach allows the researcher to investigate unexpected topics, which may only become apparent after an investigation has begun. This means that qualitative researchers often reject the formulation of theories until after they have started their investigation. Instead of formulating hypotheses before an investigation as in quantitative research, investigation and testing of theories may go on together” 43 This is not a strict rule and is purely the prerogative of the researcher. The process of theory and research (practice) usually goes together. There might not be a concrete theoretical proposition that the researcher might go with, (to test in the field) but then there is, certainly, the element of the researcher's own subjective reality around himself/herself. This cannot be discounted completely. Misconceptions about Qualitative Research There are a couple of misconceptions about qualitative research. “The first thing is that qualitative studies are opposed to statistics, mathematics, counting—indeed everything that might be called quantitative…But numbers are not the real issue, at least in the minds of the present writers…No one can survive very long in scholarly research without such tools, and 43
Bouma & Atkinson, 1997 55 simple arguments about quantifying versus nonquantifying distort and even obscure the real intellectual problems” “The second problem is…more subtle; it is the assumption that qualitative studies is simply another name for historical research…Qualitative studies start from the assumption that any adequate theory of communication will be historical in a dual sense: it will be grounded in the knowledge of what communication has been and how it has become what it is, and its theoretical propositions will be designed to account for this historical and comparative variation and not its presumed universal or contemporary form” 44 The Case Study Method The case study method is one of the research techniques that are commonly referred to as qualitative research. A case study uses as many data sources as possible to investigate systematically an individual, group, organization, or event. They are conducted when a researcher desires to understand or explain a phenomenon. Apart from mainstream social science, the case study method is frequently used in various disciplines like medicine, anthropology, clinical psychology, management science, and history. “On a more formal level, Yin defines a case study as an empirical inquiry that uses multiple sources of evidence to investigate a contemporary phenomenon within its real‐life context in which the boundaries between the phenomenon and its context are not clearly evident. Which brings us to the characteristics of a case study, they are as follows: 1. Particularistic: This means that the case study focuses on a particular situation, event program or phenomenon making it a good method for studying practical real‐life situations. 2. Descriptive: The final result of a case study is a detailed description of the topic under study. 3. Heuristic: A case study helps people to understand what’s being studied. New interpretations, new perspectives, new meaning and fresh insights are all goals of a case study. 44
Stempel, Westley, 1989 56 4. Inductive: Most case studies depend on inductive reasoning. Principles and generalizations emerge from an examination of the data. Many case studies attempt to discover new relationships rather that verify existing hypothesis. Yin’s definition highlights how a case study differs from other research strategies. For example, an experiment separates phenomenon from real‐life context. The laboratory environment controls the context. The survey technique tries to define the phenomenon under study narrowly enough to limit the number of variables to be examined. Case study research includes both single and multiple cases. Comparative case study research, frequently used in political science, is an example of the multiple case study technique”. “The case study method is not synonymous with participant observation (where a researcher enters a group and takes part in its activities). In the first place, as Yin correctly points out, participant observation does not always result in case studies. Second, case studies may not necessarily include direct observations as a source of evidence. In fact, it is perfectly feasible for a researcher to do an exemplary case study by using just the telephone and the library. In short, the case study method may not be recommended in all research situations. It does represent, however, another valuable addition to the researcher's stock of available tools”. Advantages of Case Study Method “The case study method is most valuable when the researcher wants to obtain a wealth of information about the research topic. Case studies provide tremendous detail. Many times researchers want such detail when they don't know exactly what they are looking for. The case study is particularly advantageous to the researcher who is trying to find clues and ideas for further research. This is not to suggest, however, that case studies be used only at the exploratory stage of research. The method can also be used to gather descriptive and explanatory data. The case study technique can suggest why something has occurred. Other research techniques, such as the survey, might not be able to get at all the possible reasons 57 behind this phenomenon. Ideally, case studies should be used in combination with theory to achieve maximum understanding”. “The case study method also affords the researcher the ability to deal with a wide spectrum of evidence. Documents, historical artifacts, systematic interviews, direct observations, and even traditional surveys can all be incorporated into a case study. In fact, the more data sources that can be brought to bear in a case, the more likely it is that the study will be valid”.45 Disadvantages of Case Study Method “There are three main criticisms. The first has to do with a general lack of scientific rigor in many case studies. Yin points out that too many times, the case study investigator has been sloppy, and has allowed equivocal evidence or biased views to influence the findings and conclusions. Rigorous case studies require a good deal of time and effort. “The second criticism is that the case study is not easily open to generalization. If the main goal of the researcher is to make statistically based normative statements about the frequency of occurrence of a phenomenon in a defined population, some other method may be more appropriate. This is not to say that the results of all case studies are idiosyncratic and unique. In fact, if generalizing theoretic propositions is the main goal, the case study method is perfectly suited to the task”. “Finally, like participant observation, case studies are likely to be time‐consuming and may occasionally produce massive quantities of data that are hard to summarize. Consequently, fellow researchers are forced to wait years for the results of the research, which too often are poorly presented. Some authors, however, are experimenting with non‐traditional methods of reporting to overcome this last criticism”. However, in spite of all the limitations, the case study method offers immense possibilities especially because of its flexibility. It allows the possibility to get deep into a specific subject. The subjective element does creep into the study but then in the case study method, one 45
Wimmer & Dominick, 1983 58 generalizes on the cases rather than on the representative population. Having specified the methodology, the unfolding chapters refer to the case in question. 46 Why the Case Study Method The Case Study method is the most appropriate method to use when the final output is descriptive and explanatory account for a phenomenon such as a film. Also, the method becomes highly suitable when there is no clear set of hypothesis to test. The case study method is thus an excellent tool to use for this dissertation. Why Quentin Tarantino? Quentin Tarantino is the definitive success story to have come out of the 90’s. Few filmmakers have succeeded in building a mystique, and indeed an entire cinematic "world," to the degree achieved by Quentin Tarantino, who first attracted critical attention with Reservoir Dogs in 1992. In that film, Tarantino established aspects of his aesthetic that have continued to unfold over subsequent motion pictures, most notably the Tarantino‐directed 1994 hit Pulp Fiction and the 1997 film Jackie Brown, which Tarantino also directed. The emergence of Tarantino on the Hollywood horizons was a significant event considering the state of movies that the Industry was manufacturing at the time. Tarantino jolted the Hollywood Industry from its safe commercial movie making attitude and brought Independent and Creative Cinema to the fore again, thus proving to be a revolutionary of our times. Tarantino is a major cornucopia of influences and movie‐making styles and studying him enriches the idea of film making. Take David Cronenberg, or Atom Egoyan, or John Carpenter. Great filmmakers all ‐but when you confront the full spans of their careers, you don’t really have to stray far from the films themselves, exceptions being the novels they are occasionally based on. There aren’t a lot of pop references in their movies. Allusions to previous films and youth culture are minimal. 46
Wimmer & Dominick, 1983 59 Quentin Tarantino, on the other hand, is an encyclopedic artist. He draws on anything and everything at hand to tell his stories. He mirrors what in literature are called encyclopedic authors, such as James Joyce, Thomas Pynchon, and William Gaddis. A typical Tarantino movie can cite ‘70s blaxploitation films, Japanese samurai films, or a Roy Rogers movie from the ‘40s. In a single 15—second section from Kill Bill Vol. 2, Tarantino manages to quote from an obscure movie called Road to Salinas and general car chase movies such as Vanishing Point, as well as from Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!, Dirty Mary Crazy Larry, and From Dusk Till Dawn while also exploring, in almost essay‐like form, the unexplored resonance of screen icons such as Daryl Hannah. There are few contemporary filmmakers with a similar richness of reference, with an equal immersion in world cinema. Still, Tarantino is more than just his references, those citations that so irritate writers who knock Tarantino for lack of invention. There are themes and images and obsessions peculiar to him. In addition to that, an audience with similar obsessions and backgrounds is always ready for films from someone who shares their sensibility, which partially explains his sudden, intense popularity.47 But more than being uniquely rife with cinematic quotes, the very texture of Tarantino’s films goes against mainstream Hollywood’s current aesthetic of surface blandness. His films are visually distinctive. His scripts juggle time and narrative order. His casting is seemingly eccentric but finely considered. Tarantino‘s movies demand careful attention because they were made with endless attention to detail. Tarantino shares this penchant with only a handful of other contemporary directors ‐ including the Coen brothers, David Fincher, James Cameron, and Martin Scorsese‐who walk in the footsteps of the scrupulous, patient Stanley Kubrick when it comes to attention to detail. Tarantino has breached the daunting boundaries of Hollywood, but unlike too many young Turks, he really likes movies. You’d think that Hollywood would welcome such dedicated film‐ making, but in fact it doesn’t. Tarantino has made only five films in 12 years. This is partially due 47
http://daily.greencine.com/archives/2006_09.html 60 to a young man coping with the heady wine of success and who recoiled a bit after Jackie Brown, from the demands made on him. GeekDom, paradoxically, is part of Tarantino’s appeal. Though there are undoubtedly people who have never heard of him or don’t deem him important ‐ retirees, insurance executives, and religious zealots ‐ every geek knows his name. There is a lonely, lowly geek in some anonymous town who works in a video store or a Foot Locker, whose weekends are filled with marathon movie watching and whose diet consists of hamburgers and pizzas and who’s always nursing that screenplay that never gets beyond page 60. This geek looks up to Tarantino. This director gives that fanboy hope. Tarantino’s very success suggests that other lowly geeks can breach the walls of the industry and get their visions committed to film. Tarantino is hyper‐conscious of his career trajectory. Not only has he studied movies and movie directors, he has studied movie directors’ careers, their ups and downs, their rhythms, the consequences of choices, and the quality of public perceptions. One famous anecdote from Tarantino’s early years is about his interviewing several directors, including Milius and Joe Dante, on the pretext that he was writing a Bogdanovich‐style book, interviews during which he reportedly asked these masters probing questions about career management. It is to be hoped that whatever he heard from them kept Tarantino in good stead during that rough phase of his own career when he vent from critical darling to pariah.48 Tarantino has been so influential from the 90’s that by 1994, a new descriptive critical term appeared: “Tarantinoesque” similar to ‘Kafkaesque’ before it (or Wellesian or Hitchcockian). It was a new genre which was a crime film with a comic bent tending to juggle the time frame or narrative order, with side helpings of pop—culture references delivered in lengthy Godardian conversations and monologues and cast with a blend of achingly hip youngsters and ageing cult figures, and then sweetened with vivid if not necessarily excessive violence. It’s a remarkable achievement. Tarantino has created something distinct and original by ransacking the whole history of cinema. 48
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quentin_Tarantino 61 To study Tarantino is to study a veritable encyclopedia of inspirations, of movie flashbacks and varied charms of yesteryears directors, of genres, star texts and to popular music. To study Tarantino is to delve into the finest of postmodern cinematic talent and to put into perspective how the New Hollywood has underwent a revolution since the release of his first directorial venture. Why Pulp Fiction? 62 Pulp Fiction is the definitive film of the 90’s with a rich texture and revolutionary amalgamation of varied inspirations coupled with filming esthetics that have now become a part of Hollywood folklore. The importance of Pulp Fiction can be ascertained by looking at the time at which it was released and what rippling effect it had on the industry at that time that changed things forever at Hollywood. At the beginning of the 90’s the film industry had emerged from the ‘80s of Ronald Reagan and during this time, it appeared as if the movies had been given over to filmmakers doing high‐
budget versions of the serials and B movies of their youth (The Empire Strikes Back, E. T: The Extra‐Terrestrial, Ghostbusters, Batman).49 By the 1990s, film had become a paranoid industry concerned with only safe investments. Chances were no longer being taken. It was all about making films that were guaranteed to be a success. Films such as Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991), Last Action Hero (1993), Speed (1994) and True Lies (1994) were just some of the films that were being marketed and released during this time. According to Sharon Waxman, author of ‘Rebels on the Backlot’, these films were designed to be audience friendly, marketable enough to have toy tie‐ins and to be able to guarantee a sequel of some kind. It was also a time that witnessed a tremendous advancement in technology. CGI (Computer Generated Imagery) was innovative and new and was being exploited by film because audiences demanded and wanted to witness the unbelievable. However, studios began to get ahead of themselves. As budgets rose out of control and the content of the films were ‘dumbed’ down (most of these films could only be related to by the lowest common denominator fan), audiences quickly began to grow tired of this sort of movie making. The films were fun and explosive but they were mindless. Character and plot took a back seat to celebrity movie stars and loud explosions. But the Hollywood industry was also changing throughout that time, creating a Petri dish in which Tarantino’s talent could find nurturing. The rising so‐called independent film movement, which would later for all intents and purposes be co‐opted by the major studios for its own 49
http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/film/index.html 63 purposes, was creating opportunities for young filmmakers that were unheard of since the early ‘70s, with brief oases of opportunity at particular moments in the ‘50s and ‘60s. Having its immediate roots as far back as 1977, the indie movement was encouraged by, among other things, the Sundance Film Festival and related workshops and the sudden rise of numerous small distributors, almost all of which that didn’t simply fold, later incorporated into the majors. The banner year of the Indies was probably 1986, which saw the release of some 22 films considered to be independent by one criterion or another (Blue Velvet, Desert Hearts, Down by Law, Heavy, Parting Glances and She’s Gotta Have It among them). In 1994, independent film had been thriving but had not yet been able to find its niche within the realm of Hollywood. That all changed when ‘Pulp Fiction’ (1994‐directed by Quentin Tarantino) was released. This film was remarkable for many reasons but perhaps its most important attribute was in its ability to finally provide a distinct identifiable voice for independent cinema. ‘Pulp Fiction’ allowed for the industry to explode into something innovative and fresh and, as a result, forced Hollywood to alter their method of filmmaking. The film became the tenth highest grossing film of the year and, at the time, the most successful independent film ever.50 Pulp Fiction reached legendary status as a contemporary American independent film. It premiered at the Cannes Film Festival in May 1994, winning the Palm d’Or (best film prize). It next went on to open the New York Film Festival in September 1994. Richard Pena, director of that festival, remarks that Pulp Fiction “was just such a quantum leap over almost anything happening in American independent cinema”. By the time it was ready for national release, the buzz was everywhere. In October 1994, Miramax opened it wide on 1200 screens domestically, as well as releasing it simultaneously all over the world, in what amounts, in essence, to a medium‐sized Hollywood opening. Miramax spent $8 million on marketing for the film—as much as the film itself cost to make. Pulp Fiction quickly became a favorite film among several influential critics. It was a phenomenal commercial hit. Soon afterwards, award after award was bestowed upon the film. Quentin Tarantino was immediately launched into celebrity status. 50
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/pulp_fiction/ 64 The screenplay became extremely famous and influential. All in all, the film’s influence is so great that one writer even claims that Pulp Fiction was responsible for “taking the indie‐film movement mainstream”. Janet Maslin, critic for the New York Times wrote that Pulp Fiction is “A work of blazing originality. It places Quentin Tarantino in the front ranks of American filmmakers”. Costing $8.5 million to make, it grossed over $107 million domestically and over $200 million worldwide, becoming Miramax’s highest earner ever. Awards:51 •
Pulp Fiction won the LA Critics’ Awards for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Screenplay, and Best Actor for John Travolta. •
It premiered at the Cannes Film Festival in May 1994, winning the Palm d’Or (best film prize). •
The National Board of Review Awards for Best Picture and Best Director. •
The New York Film Critics’ Circle Awards for Best Director and Best Screenplay. •
The Golden Globe Award for Best Screenplay; the Independent Spirit Awards for Best Feature, Best Director, Best Screenplay, and Best Male Lead for Samuel L. Jackson. •
The BAFTAs for Best Screenplay, and Best Supporting Actor for Samuel L. Jackson. •
Oscar for Best Original Screenplay for Tarantino and Roger Avary. 51
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110912/awards 65 Analysis Analysis of the Movie in Sequence Pulp Fiction’s narrative is divided into stories and two acts in the diner. The acts and stories can be further broken down into set of sequences, where each sequence is markedly distinctive and bears special significance. Also each sequence’s mis‐en‐scene and montage is distinct. Opening Scene: The movie opens with a dictionary meaning of the word “Pulp Fiction” or simply “Pulp” in the literary sense. The word pulp means a moist shapeless mass of matter and pulp fiction refers to lurid subject matter printed on unfinished paper. Thus Tarantino starts off with outlining and 66 establishing what the movie is all about. It will be an amalgamation of a variety of influences (pulpy), shapeless (as it turns out, the movie has non linear structure wherein the viewer has to string the sequences in the correct order after of course repeated viewings), lurid (the story would be shocking, colorful, voyeuristic and vivid) and printed on rough paper (the movie will be treated as this very lurid magazine story and the movie indeed unfolds like a pulp fiction novel). In Tarantino’s own words, “My stuff so far has definitely fallen into what I consider pulp fiction. I always associate lurid crime fiction with pulp. Mysteries fit into that, too, if you’re going to get historical, then the whole idea of pulp, what it really means, is a paperback you don’t really care about. You read It. put it in your back pocket, sit on it in the bus, and the pages start coming out, and who gives a fuck? When you’re finished it you hand it to someone else to read, or you throw it away. You don’t put it in your library.”52 Thus from the very start, Tarantino wishes to do away with traditional Hollywood sensibilities by emphasizing that the coming reels will contain material that will be far removed from what traditional Hollywood has begun subscribing to. Sequence – Honey Bunny and Pumpkin in the Restaurant: A very‐much‐in‐love couple discusses their career in crime, and decides they could do better by robbing restaurants, starting with the one they are currently in. The most striking thing about this sequence is how Tarantino creates a pervasive voyeuristic environment around the couple with the use of a filming technique known as Third Person “Point of View” (POV) albeit in an innovative manner. Through an array of POV shots – front of the table shots, filmed as if the couple is been watched over by a neighboring diner who thus has the same eye level as them, a shot from the back seat where Pumpkin is sitting, a walking closing shot on Pumpkins face as if it’s a POV of someone entering the diner and watching 52
Quentin Tarantino: Interviews ‐ by Quentin Tarantino, Gerald Peary 67 Pumpkin speak, a third person perspective shot in which it appears as if the camera is another person sitting along with the couple on either sides (In these shots, the characters don’t look into the camera, neither is the second character visible while talking to the first character, thus making it seem like the audience is the third person comfortably sitting alongside the couple and listening on to the conversation). When the couple decides to finally rob the diner, Pumpkin takes out a revolver and slams it on the table. A close‐up shot of the gun is visible alongside a jolting “thud” so as to surprise the viewer with the suddenness of the action and whets the appetite with foreboding of violence and this emphasis on the build up to violence is a Tarantino trademark. The couple kisses and the camera zooms in, voyeuristically involving the audience and thus delivering on the promise of luridness. Another thing that becomes apparent in the next shot is Tarantino’s penchant for “unexpectedness” and contrast and turning upside down the viewer’s expectations with a sudden and unexpected plot or character development. Until this point, the character of Miss Honey Bunny is shown to be sweet and subservient, docile to the point of meekness but the expletive laden hold‐up executed by Honey Bunny belies all these expectations with suddenness. The couple begins executing a robbery and the movie cuts to the credit sequence. Credit Sequence: The credits mimic the font and colorings of the opening title sequence for Policewoman (1974). The credits slowly scroll up from the bottom of the screen giving the distinct look of a real pulp magazine’s cover. The credits are accompanied by a blast of guitar strumming in Misirlou performed by Dick Dale and His Del‐Tones, a magisterial piece of pop music with Mexican flourishes. Notable thing about the name of Tarantino’s company is it’s a take on Bande‐a‐part, 68 a movie by Godard, and Tarantino’s favorite. Godard’s talky influence on Tarantino’s screenplay is in evidence since the beginning sequence of the movie. Even credit sequences have numerous styles and are being increasingly imbued with originality and sense of bonding with the overall film. Sometimes credit sequences innovatively take part in the establishing shots of the movie like in Requiem for a Dream (2000), sometimes they synch mood with their unique textual appearance, being imposed on the live scene, like in the jarring credit visuals on top of a bleak and unsettling opening sequence for Texas Chainsaw Massacre, In B&W Cinema era, the credits were more or less separate from the movie and the movie usually began after the credits finished. The movie usually finished with a simple “The End” board. Later the credit style evolved to being en‐meshed with the opening shots and having a further detailed credit sequence at the end of the movie. Credit sequences became more and more sophisticated and moved away from the simplistic white text on black sequences of yesteryears. Circa 1990’s and Tarantino chooses the old style Exploitation / B&W era credit style for Pulp Fiction which makes even the movie credits seminally different than most of the 90’s era movies. Its funky, its energizing and the black screen makes you eagerly wait for the action that is set to explode in the coming sequences. A nice touch is the abrupt changing of the soundtrack to shift to another song as if an old radio is being tuned just when the credit for the “music supervisor” is being displayed. Sequence: Jules and Vincent on their way to the apartment Jules and Vincent, two suit clad thugs, are in a car chatting up. Apparently there on their way to somewhere, and as it becomes clear later on that they are on a hit, they engage in what appears to be mundane conversation. Jules and Vincent’s way to the apartment assumes an importance in a trademark Tarantino way. In any other movie, the “way” of getting to the 69 apartment would be simply an edit‐out material but in this extended sequence, it acquires an all assuming importance. This extended conversational sequence between Jules and Vincent takes place in car, on the sidewalk, inside the apartment building and inside an elevator. Now Tarantino uses the conversation between the characters as an outlet for his pop culture fanaticism towards TV shows and related theory, European culture and tid bits his real life experiences and his vast trivia of movies. In the car sequence, again the viewer is turned participatory. There is a mounted sideways camera which focuses on the two passengers. Jules and Vincent’s point of discussion is Europe and the little cultural differences which marks Europeans as different from Americans. Vincent is just back from Amsterdam and describes the “hash bars” and the fact that you can get a beer at a McDonalds in Paris and also other nitty gritty about naming conventions and the “metric system”. The dialogues definitively stem from Tarantino’s own experience in Amsterdam wherein he was holed up in a hash bar actually writing the script for Pulp Fiction. Also, to keep his audience calm and cool so that it may experience the hipness of the film, Tarantino uses a lot of long static camera shots. During a conversation, instead of cutting from one character to another, which tends to create tension, Tarantino has the camera lay back and remain completely static for long amounts of time. This car scene could be particularly tense because Jules and Vincent are going to collect something for their boss except: Tarantino beautifully directs the two actors to be extremely cool and to enhance this effect, Tarantino uses only two different camera shots in the car. One shot (the lesser used of the two) is a camera looking straight at Jules' face. The other shot is a look at the two thugs from just inside the passenger side window. This second shot helps the viewer feel comfortable with the two characters because it makes one feel like he is cruising along in the car. The long staticness of this shot is calming. 70 It is increasingly being clear that Tarantino has no concern for meaningful or any assumption of meaning in film dialogues. The Tarantinoesque dialogues are free flowing, it can be routine as they are often when two real people converse and it doesn’t have to “add” up to the story. An example of an informed conversation between two characters which forms the crux of the story would be the independent effort from Richard Linklater, Before Sunrise (1996). Tarantino’s dialogues are at a completely different end of the spectrum. The car stops and Jules and Vincent open up the boot to equip themselves with guns. The trademark “car trunk shot” from Reservoir Dogs again makes an appearance here. Tarantino also uses unconventional camera angles; for instance, when Vincent and Jules arrive at the apartment complex to collect the brief case and are entering in what is normally thought of as a unnerving experience Tarantino does not let their built up hipness fade. Instead of showing the two characters nervously going to collect the brief case from an apartment in which they do not know how many people there are, Tarantino spends time on shooting the dialogue of the two characters annoyed at the fact that they do not have shotguns for this task. Next Jules and Vincent walk up to the apartment building and the topic of conversation now shifts to Mia, Marcellus Wallace’s (the boss) wife and Television show pilots. The character of Mia and Marcellus is introduced in the conversation. It is briefly mentioned that Mia starred in a failed TV pilot and now Jules takes pain to explain the concept of a “pilot” to Vincent. Further down inside the building, Jules mentions that Wallace killed off one his associates Tony Rocky Hara for foot massaging Mia and from then on, the whole conversation gets centered on foot massages. In a deft tracking shot inside the narrow hallways of the building, both of them discuss foot massages and whether Tony really deserved to die for such a trivial thing. The almost eerily cool thing about the sequence is the background knowledge that the two are out to kill someone working against the focus on almost non‐chalant mundane conversation between the characters. When the two finally reach at the room’s door, Jules thinks it isn’t time yet to execute the mission and says “Let’s hang back”. The mis‐en‐scene actually has Jules and 71 Vincent hanging back in the alley and the conversation proceeds in a long shot. Jules says “Lets get into character” and the guys proceed for the rendezvous with Marvin, their target. The last dialogue is almost a dark sardonic comedic statement by Jules thrown in a dialectical understanding with the viewer. Jules is signaling that the drooling conversation is now over and they should really now get into the business that is expected of them. To act and to kill. Sequence: Jules and Vincent in Brett’s Apartment Jules threatens three teenagers in the apartment to hand over a certain “brief case” of Mr. Wallace. It’s in this scene that Jules really “gets into the character” as he had stated before entering the room. It is clear as the scene unfolds that Jules is really playing a character within a character. The scene allows us to relish Samuel L Jackson’s brutality, knowing that it’s just an act, albeit a very convincing one. Also with this scene, we get a peek into Tarantino’s world of pop culture and its icons made visible via all the made up brands for commodities (Tarantino has a known aversion to product placements inside his movies, so much so that he invents completely new names for products and uses it consistently in his movies). The prime one of those is the “Big Kahuna Burger” which features in at least three of his movies. Jules goes on discussing the burger and the cold drink, with Vincent calmly working in the kitchen, with a continually horrified Brett. Thus there is this slow simmering build up to an imminent violent situation. Brett is becoming increasingly manic and so is Marvin (the black actor near the door) and the “flock of seagulls” character (Roger in the screenplay). Jules asks Roger about the briefcase and Vincent withdraws it from the bottom almirah. He proceeds to open it with the combination 666. The combination pertains to the number of the devil and represents an evil entity inside the suitcase. The suitcase opens and an orange glow lights up Vincent’s face who remains mesmerized with the content. What is in the briefcase is never revealed in the movie. Thus this briefcase acts like a “McGuffin” which in the film glossary 72 means anything which drives the plot but whose nature isn’t revealed in the movie at all. An example of a McGuffin would be the suitcase in the action flick Ronin. As Brett tries to calm tempers down by trying to initiate a conversation, Jules immediately withdraws his gun and shoots Roger. The violence is sudden, unwarranted and unexpected. The tension begins boiling over as Brett turns hysterical. Thus Jules counters the apologies of Brett with his own apologies over shooting Roger, which gives the situation a dark comedic albeit violent twist. In the scene the camera looks up to Jules from a low angle shot and Brett is filmed with a high angle. The high angle shot diminishes the importance of the subject (Brett) while the low angle shot of Jules emphasizes his power and the close up of the two connects the viewer with the intense emotions etched in the faces of the protagonists. Jules begins to in‐effect torture Roger by asking a battery of questions and shoots him in the shoulder when he mis‐answers. Then Jules reveals a form of sexist agenda by asking Roger “Do you think Marcellus Wallace looks like a bitch?” “Then why did you try to fuck him like a bitch?”. The implication is clear: Bitches are meant to be fucked in a mis‐construed way. Thus Jules emerges as a sexist Blaxploitation kind of a hero with an overpowering and violent male ego, who is supercool, sexually‐potent and bad‐ass. Bad‐ass is defined by behavior which is aggressive, brutal and cold‐blooded. Jules then starts sermonizing quoting a passage from the bible, Ezekiel 25:17 (only the last line of which actually belongs to the bible and the rest had been creatively constructed by Tarantino). This sermonization gives his character a dramatic force. This also points to a future plot development with religious implications that we will see later. Jules and Vincent now proceed to shoot Brett and the scene dissolves to the first story. 73 Credits, First Story: Vincent Vega and Marsellus Wallace’s Wife As will be often observed in the movie, Mia is almost always referred to as Marsellus Wallace’s wife instead of her real name. This effectively communicates that Mia is essentially a form of a property of the gang leader thus again asserting the sexist overtones in the film. But this also does not imply that the women portrayed in the film are completely subjugated and irrelevant to the story and always under the “command” of powerful men. They often control the situation and the third story will be driven by the fear of a female character. Sequence: Marsellus asking Butch to throw a fight in a pub. The scene begins with a medium shot of Butch (Bruce Willis) sitting across an invisible figure who’s asking him to tank a boxing match. This invisible figure is apparently everybody’s boss Marsellus Wallace. Wallace is convincing Butch about how tanking the fight is the right way for him to proceed. An unusual thing about this shot is that it lingers on with only Butch and the surroundings in frame throughout the conversation. Only later, Wallace’s back neck is visible but Wallace himself is not revealed. The unconventional dialogue style Now the normal Hollywood dialogue style prescribes that the shot begins with a shot of both speakers (an establishing two‐shot) and then move to a montage of one‐shots as each of the participants variously speaks and listens. The result is that of surrounding the conversation. Tarantino totally adopts the opposite style by focusing solely on Butch and the seedy nature of the pub. Thus the viewer concentrates on Butch’s reactions on what is being said. Butch looks painfully composed and distinctly uncomfortable with the suggestions. He also unconvincingly says “Yes” to Wallace’s suggestion that his ass should go down in the fifth round. Traditionally shots that stay on a character's face are meant to get the viewer to concentrate on that character and think about what that character is feeling or thinking. Here the audience sees a traditionally type cast heroic actor being told what to do and being paid off to do it. 74 Tarantino leaves the camera on him so that the audience is forced to consider how powerful Wallace is and how powerless Butch is. Sequence: Jules, Vincent and Butch meet at the bar. The shot opens with Jules and Vincent being ushered into the pub by a young black barman. Jules and Vincent are dressed in a teenage Beavis and Butthead kind of attires with T‐shirts and shorts. Now we can see a montage of medium shots of the pub with its neon “Girls Girls Girls” and “Cold Beer” sign and spacious rooms with red upholstered chairs. The violent manliness Vincent appears to be in a foul mood and as the barman jokes about the upcoming date between him and Mia, he breaks out in to a retort emphasizing his loyalty to the big man, as Jules makes a hasty exit. Butch comes over from his meeting, inwardly seething with yet misplaced anger over a building up moral dilemma, and asks for “Red Apples Cigarettes”, another product from the Tarantino World. When Butch and Vincent eye each other, a cold animosity instantly develops. Now Butch and Vincent are seeming strangers, this sudden appearance of invisible violence between these two males is startling. Butch looks at Vincent and asks, “Looking for something friend?”. Vincent responds, “I ain’t your friend, palooka”. Butch asks, “What was that?”. Vincent replies,” I think you heard me just fine Punchy”. After the exchange, Vincent is called by Marsellus, leaving behind an infuriated Butch, in extreme‐close‐up, who continues to stare at Vincent. This moment magnifies violent manliness as a sort of a motor reaction or an automated response. The image that comes to mind is of two agitated bulls snorting at each other from a distance preparing to lock horns. 75 Sequence: Vincent Vega at Lance’s Apartment for Heroin As the shot fades in, Jodi and Trudi are discussing body piercing, passively ignoring Vega. This is the first scene in the movie which features females. As Jodi passionately delineates the correct way to pierce, Trudi is all ears. For Jodi, piercing is all about sexuality and pleasure, about which she is direct, forceful and honestly open to the extent that she freely describes all the places in her body that has piercing. Lance, Jodi’s husband, calls up Vega inside his office. Vega has apparently returned from Amsterdam a drug addict and is in search for more stuff. Inside Lance’s room, the mis‐en‐scene contains a veritable collection of 70s memorabilia, a collection of disco sandals adorning the walls giving the whole room a feminine atmosphere and a miniature TV set. Lance outlines the white male supremacy over black by commenting that it is “White Men who know the good shit and the bad shit who come over to his house”. It is also revealed that someone has “keyed” or damaged Vincent’s car for which he is very angry. The scene proceeds with close up shots of the heroin being prepared. Bullwinkle Pt. 2 by the Centurians begins and Vincent is shown driving his car in a medium shot from behind. Here, in the upcoming 90’s digital SFX evolution, Tarantino adopts the classic Rear Projection to show Vega driving on the streets giving the whole setup a certain self‐referentiality and a mocking kind of an environment. The montage alternates with close‐up shots of Vincent’s drugged face and the heroin gear being used giving the whole scene a dream like quality. Here Tarantino can be seen as glorifying drug use, though it will be seen at the end that characters involved with drugs usually end up in trouble. Like Scorsese did with the toys of the rich in Age of Innocence, Tarantino too plays with and glorifies the toys of these underworld people. Tarantino spends well over a minute on Vincent taking his heroin. Tarantino slows down the film speed and uses numerous cuts to get many angles on Vincent opening his neat bag of heroin paraphernalia. Lighting cigarettes is also 76 glorified by Tarantino where again he (like Scorsese did with cigars before him) tightens a shot to focus on nothing but the expensive lighters that these characters use. Sequence: Vincent at Mia’s place Vincent strolls over in a stupor to Mia’s place. Mia is apparently taped a notice on the door saying that she’s getting ready and that Vincent should wait inside. The setup seems akin to what Soderbergh did in sex, lies and videotape a few years back. Mia in a voyeuristic twist “watches over” Vincent via a security cam and communicates using an intercom system. Drug use again returns with Mia doing Coke. There is a painting hung over the wall which Vincent eyes curiously. The painting is apparently of Mia herself. Thus Vega is all enclosed in this seductive dominion of Mia, looking a bit uncomfortable. Mia comes over, all ready to go, barefoot. These barefoot female characters are trademark of Tarantino. Vincent and Mia arrive at an Elvis themed restaurant called Jack Rabbit Slim’s in a red chevy. Vincent is in a grouchy mood, appearing to dislike the appearance of the place and demanding to go and eat steak somewhere. Mia appears irritated by his insolence and stops short in calling him an <blank, animatedly shown by a fill in the box>. Sequence: Vincent and Mia at Jack Rabbit Slim’s Jack Rabbit Slim’s appears to be Tarantino’s playground from its immediate appearance. It’s a rock and roll era, 50’s movie themed restaurant with the waiters dressed in actor’s attire and vintage racer cars being used as cushy restaurant tables. There are women exploitation flicks posters on the wall like “Sorority Girls”, “Attack of the 50ft woman” and “Motorcycle Gang” in a restaurant brimming with ladies as a tracking shot follows Vincent round the whole restaurant. The waitresses and waiters are made up as replicas of 50's icons: Marilyn Monroe, Zorro, James Dean, Donna Reed, Martin and Lewis, and The Philip Morris Midget, wait on tables wearing appropriate costumes. Infusion of cartoon characters and presence of toys, two of Tarantino’s fascinations are visible. 77 Mia and Vincent place their orders which are essentially “Bloody as Hell” steak and a “Bloody” hamburger, icons for violence. A hamburger earlier in the movie was a participant in a violent bloodbath. A conversation ensues between them and there is a distinct buildup of sexual tension. On being asked about her pilot episode, she explains to Vincent about being in a team of five female assasins and she being the “deadliest female with knives”. This can be thought of as an advanced teaser by Tarantino of his future film Kill Bill, where Uma Thurman played the role of the female assassin and the first weapon she did use in the movie was a knife. So as the chemistry between Vincent and Mia starts to simmer, Vincent asks Mia about the gossip about Antwan being killed over a foot massage that he gave to her. Mia gets put off by the suggestion and labels Vincent as being overtly gossipy like women over a sewing circle. A twist dance competition is suddenly announced which is another of Tarantino’s homage to the yestyears. Mia, the boss’s wife and the woman in control orders a reticent Vincent to dance well so that they win the trophy. Vincent agrees sheepishly. They dance the twist mesmerizingly to the tune of You Never Can Tell, written and performed by Chuck Berry. Mia Wallace’s character emerges as one of a queen living in her media‐filled castle. She is the prize, owned by Marsellus and coveted by Vincent. For all the violence and drugs, the gangsters appear as mere children to Mia (“When you scamps get together, you’re worse than a sewing circle) as she reprimands Vincent on the gossip. Mia appears insulated from the outside world, snorting cocaine constantly. The only information about her past is that she was once an actress in a failed TV pilot of a show called “Fox Force Five”. To find out what kind of person Vincent is, she asks him about his media‐preferences. Hence here, Mia essentially becomes an object, she truly represents “Marsellus Wallace’s Wife”. 78 Sequence: Vincent and Mia back at the apartment with Mia OD’ing Vincent and Mia reach the apartment, happy and misty eyed, comfortable and laughing and dancing. Vincent moves away to use the restroom while Mia dances to Urge Overkill’s version of Neil Diamond’s Girl, You’ll Be A Woman Soon. These sequences, involving Vincent and Mia, promises in countless ways to end in sex. This is reinforced by self‐sermonizing that Vincent engages himself with, in the bathroom. As discussed earlier, Mia Wallace is portrayed as a property of the all powerful Marsellus Wallace. On his date with Mrs. Mia Wallace, Vincent tries to restrain his sexual urges by convincing himself that to show restraint is a test of his moral strength and loyalty. Because Vincent perceives Mia as belonging to a more powerful man than he, he is denied access to her as an object of sexual desire. Another example of designating secondary status to women is when Jules refers to women as bitches. He asks Brett if he thinks Marsellus is a bitch. Brett responds in the negative, to which Jules replies, "then why are you trying to fuck him like a bitch?” This statement implies that it is ok to be fucked like a bitch if you are one, disrespecting women by the use of the term and implying that it is emasculating and degrading to be the receiver in a sexual exchange. Meanwhile, Tarantino again springs a surprise. When we expect sex, we get Death or close to it. Mia discovers the packet of Heroin inside Vincent’s coat and ODs herself on it, thinking its Coke. Snorting the white powder causing a heart depression plunging Mia into an instant comatose state. Vincent comes out of the bathroom and is horrified to discover Mia lying on the sofa, bleeding from the nose. The viewer and Vincent both are left shell shocked. One minute, Mia is sultry with anticipation, the next, she’s a bloody mess. Narratives usually rely on a certain degree of suspense and surprise but this body jolting extremity of disappointment now appears to be Pulp Fiction’s trademark. Violence in Pulp Fiction is thus not only a signature motif but also a narrative mode. Vincent rushes Mia over to Lance’s house. Lance’s jolted out of his stupor by Vincent literally coming crashing over to his house. 79 Sequence: Vincent giving Mia the Adrenaline Shot If there can be a definitive Pulp Fiction emblem; it has to be the adrenaline shot that Vincent now gives to Mia. Vincent and Lance are frantic as Lance and Jodi search for the adrenaline injection which can bring Mia out of her comatose state. Jodi is visibly upset due the fact that one of her diktats to Lance has been disobeyed and Lance is almost apologetic in his demeanor. Thus Jodi control things in the house and is, one of the strong women, of the movie. For the conversation between Jodi and Lance, Tarantino chooses to pan from one face to another so as to emphasize the space between the actors as well as the actors themselves. Again, lots of icons are visible in the background like The Three Stooges getting married on TV and there’s a board game called Operation Life that is visible along with the comatose Mia. The adrenaline shot The situation turns frantic as Lance searches for a medical book to guide the procedure. The build up is very tense and everybody’s shouting. Vincent marks a red mark on Mia’s breast as Lance fills up the injection. Neither Vincent nor Lance knows how to inject as they quarrel over who will ultimately do it. The shot chosen to film this is a ground level low angle medium shot which emphasizes the hovering and overpowering tension emanating from the characters and the situation itself. Vincent takes the plunger as the camera closes up on the needle and the music goes to mute. Tension escalates to an unbearable high as Lance counts to two. Count to three and Wham! Vincent drives the injection with a thud into Mia’s heart and Mia springs to life with a jump as if electrified. Mia is saved and Vincent has given Mia a new lease of life. Mia, the queen in the castle, is jolted out of her world literally. Also once again, Tarantino builds up a situation with ends with a dramatic jolt and as we will see again later, this adrenaline shot syntax remains a core part of how the film is plotted. 80 Vincent drives Mia home and now the most romantic moment in the screenplay occurs. There is a bonding between the two as both of them have been through a crisis together. After agreeing that Marsellus needn’t know about the incident, Mia tells Vincent her joke which she had earlier refused to tell. This giving into Vincent’s earlier request is an important symbol. Telling this joke is essentially submitting to Vincent’s request and acknowledging that he has given her a new life. ‐‐‐‐‐‐ The Gold Watch ‐‐‐‐‐ Sequence: Butch dreams about Captain Koontz The scene begins with a small Butch watching Street Racer on TV when his mother interjects and introduces Captain Koontz as a friend of his father. Captain Koontz narrates a difficult and touching ordeal out of which a gold watch, apparently a prized family possession, was transferred from one generation of Coolidges from another. It appears that Butch’s father, grand father and great‐grand father served in different wars, namely World War I, II and the Vietnam war. Given Tarantino’s background, this appears to be an autobiographical shootout as it is known that Tarantino’s mother, Connie, and stepfather, Curt, supported the anti‐war movement and Tarantino’s interest in Vietnam and in the genre‐blending films of Anthony Dawson and Antonio Margheriti speaks to that. Butch wakes up with a start, assumingly dreaming about the story of the gold watch. It appears that Butch is haunted by this strange personal history, the symbol of which is this Gold Watch. The watch now symbolizes the commitment of his forefathers to things greater than themselves. The surrounding tells us that it is his fight night, the one that he has to tank. Tarantino continues to use low angle shots to film this scene as eye‐level shots are hard to find in Pulp Fiction. Characters and symbols are either dominating or being submissive. 81 Mia woke up with a start after the adrenaline injection, into a new life. Now Butch wakes up suddenly and goes on to kill his opponent. It can be taken as a portender that Butch now would be entering a critical new phase in his life. Sequence: Butch escapes in the car As a female taxi driver hears the killing of the boxing opponent by Butch, Butch dives into the garbage dump and escapes. Esmerelda, the driver, is one of Tarantino’s barefoot ladies. She takes Butch out of the pandemonium fishtailing into the street and speeding away. The next shot is a tracking shot of the barman and Vincent on their way to address this situation. They enter a door and there is Marsellus and Mia near the dead body of the opponent boxer. This is yet another appearance of Marsellus Wallace who is thus instituted as an omnipotent figure akin to a cross between a gangster and god as is reinforce by this line of dialogue, “I'm prepared to scour the earth for this motherfucker. If Butch goes to Indo China, I want a nigger hidin' in a bowl of rice, ready to pop a cap in his ass.” Again, Marsellus’s face is not shown. Cut to Butch where Butch changes his clothes inside the Taxi. Now Tarantino again uses the Rear Projection technique to shoot the driving taxi from the front side. The interesting part about the use is that the rear projection of the street is in black & white in stark contrast to the colored Taxi and the characters. It lends a certain comedic twist to a film‐noirish setting inside the taxi where there is an interplay of shadows along with the siren‐ish silk smooth talking Colombian driver who asks Butch, “How does it feel to kill a man with your bare hands?” Butch stops the taxi to go into a phone booth, where it is revealed that Butch has in fact decided to bet on himself and win the match beforehand and had informed the bookies about his decision. The taxi then drops him off at a drive‐in motel where he gets down and bribes Esmerelda in not informing anyone about the drop. 82 Sequence: Butch inside the motel room with Fabian As Butch enters the room, Fabian is shown sleeping, fully clothed, on the bed. As with male‐
female interaction in the movie, Butch and Fabian talk in baby‐talk. Butch addresses Fabian as Sugar Pop and the ensuing conversation reveals the soft side of Butch, who has till now been portrayed as a hard headed nut case. The couple does sweet‐talk over pot‐bellies, perhaps signaling a desire for motherhood on the part of Fabian. Fabian is Butch’s driver of the future. Though unlike Mia or Jodie, she isn’t described as overtly‐
aggressive but her dominance of Butch comes out in her desire to have the pleasure of Oral Sex before Butch to which Butch complies. Also Fabian doesn’t return Butch’s sweet talk in any way. They make tender love and then go to the washroom to wash up. Butch longs for an idyllic life which is just out of his reach, but which he can grab with some effort. Butch’s future, like his past, seems to be an unusual not fully comprehended story, and a story which is he bound to pursue even if it means double‐crossing Wallace. On asked where would they go by Fabian, he replies, “I'm not sure yet. Wherever you want. We're gonna get a lot of money from this. But it ain't gonna be so much, we can live like hogs in the fat house forever. I was thinking we could go somewhere in the South Pacific. The kinda money we'll have'll carry us a long way down there.” The conversation between Fabian and Butch has comic touches to it. When Fabian asks Butch “Tough day at the office today?” Butch replies,” Yeah, Got into a fight”. The adrenaline shot returns Butch wakes up suddenly, suffering from nightmares, in the morning with the TV showing a bunch of Hell's Angels, taking on the entire Vietnamese army in the film "The Losers." For Butch, waking up from the nightmare coupled with the TV scenes result in an eerie feeling for him, like a portender of an upcoming war in his life. He ironically remarks to Fabian saying, “It’s a little too early in the morning for explosions and war”. 83 Butch starts to get ready and begins searching for his Gold Watch which he is unable to locate. The tension now starts to burn slowly. He asks Fabian about the watch at which she starts to slowly panic, realizing that she might have left the all important watch at Butch’s apartment. When it perfectly dawns on Butch that Fabian has indeed forgotten the watch, he erupts in a expletive laden violent rage, smashing and hurling furniture and making a cowering Fabian take cover. Tarantino again builds up to this unexpected plot twist; the adrenaline shot. Earlier, Vincent and Mia’s sojourn, while promising to climax into sex, led to a fanatical adrenaline shot sequence and here too, the situation between Butch and Fabian instead of climaxing in a orgasmic high point actually explodes into Butch’s violence at the missing watch. The whole idea of this scene is to smash its domesticity with the spree of murder, torture, and rape that immediately follows. Butch now surprisingly tries to reason out and think for Fabian, quickly absolving her and blaming himself for the forgotten watch. Butch having being cast into a certain action hero mould tries to reinvent his character by trying to maintain his love amongst the rising problems. Butch finally exits to go and retrieve his watch from his apartment, leaving Fabian behind. Sequence: Butch fetches his watch The scene opens with a screaming Butch who is venting out his frustration over the loss of his watch. Instead of venting out his anger at Fabian, he instead chooses to be alone to do it. Butch comes out of the car, which he parks intelligently some distance away from this apartment block and moves carefully towards it. A Steadicam tracking shot follows Butch the whole distance to the apartment block. A prime material to be cut out in a normal movie, this sequence, in the hands of Tarantino, simply hastens to add to the building suspense. It’s the eerie calm and slow approach to the building when you know how dangerous the situation can be heightens the pulsating suspense. Butch reaches the apartment, keys in the door and gets inside. Again the situation is careening towards a twisty climax, an adrenaline shot. Butch carefully walks to the kitchen and on sensing 84 no danger, does the mundane thing of popping in sandwiches for toasting. All is well it seems but as Butch takes a closer look at something lying on the kitchen top; it appears that it’s a machine gun. The adrenaline moment is now perilously close. Butch hears a sound from the bathroom, points the gun towards the door and stands. After a few moments, Vincent comes out of the bathroom and stares astonished at Butch outside the bathroom door. The two watch each other in a deadening tension filled silence. Just then the toaster pops up, startling Butch who then opens fire at Vincent, blowing him out of the frame and into the bathroom. A visit inside the bathroom reveals a bloody and dead Vincent with a Modesty Blaise Comic lying on the floor which Vincent was apparently reading. Butch carefully wipes the gun for fingerprints and quietly exits the room, the Steadicam again following him from the perilous surrounding to the safety of his car. Everything seems settled and Butch appears safe. Mission seems to have been accomplished as a smile escapes on Butch’s face. A series of adrenaline shots As Butch starts to cruise away from his apartment, listening to Flowers on the Wall by The Statler Brothers, he stops at a traffic light and encounters Wallace crossing the street. Wallace stops dead in his tracks as he recognizes Butch behind the wheel. Tension immediately peaks to a crescendo as Butch suddenly accelerates hitting Wallace over the windshield and then crashes into a crossing car, fishtailing into the sidewalk with a deadly shattering impact. Now series after series of encounters involving Butch are turning out to be extremely unpredictable. Wallace wakes up to find people peering over him and ascertains for a moment whether he is alive or dead. On being pointed to towards Butch, he takes out his .45 magnum and fires a shot at him which hits a woman. Then begins a limping mad chase when Butch runs over into a pawnshop with Wallace hot on his trail. As soon as Wallace enters the shop door, Butch is on him, laying him on the ground and hitting punches on his face. Butch withdraws 85 Wallace’s gun and is about to pull the trigger when Maynard, the hillbilly looking shop owner, points a shotgun at both of them. He knocks Butch off and both of them pass out and Maynard telephones one of his friends calling him to his place. Sequence: Butch and Wallace in the dungeon with the hillbillies Butch and Vincent are tied up to chairs with a BDSM gag ball in their mouths. The mis‐en‐scene consists of plethora of S&M paraphernalia littered in a seedy underground dungeon. After taking in their predicament, Butch and Marsellus look at each other, all traces of hostility gone, replaced by a terror they both share at what they've gotten themselves into. Maynard and his friend Zed, call in the Gimp, an S&M slave adorned from top to bottom in a leather bondage outfit to select which one of the two to rape. Zed selects Marsellus after which Zed and Maynard drag him along with the chair to another back room while Gimp keeps an eye on Butch. As screams of beating and grunts start to come from Wallace’s room, Butch manages to break free, hits the Gimp to unconsciousness and escapes. The Vietnam War veteran’s son and Marsellus’s rape A strange thing happens as Butch stands near the exit door of the pawnshop and prepares to flee. With the backdrop of the American Flag, Butch contemplates something and decides that he cannot leave Marsellus behind in the peril. He’s a soldier’s son and will not leave someone behind who shared his danger. The Gold Watch represented a greater cause for his forefathers who made sacrifices for it. Now it is Butch’s turn to make a heroic gesture similar to his forefathers before he can ascend into his new life. Another aspect of it is that in Pulp Fiction, being gay is abhorrence and is viewed as an insult. This is visible when Vincent asks Jules if he has ever given a foot massage to a man, to which Jules looses his cool and becomes angry. Thus anal rape represents a horrific and ultimate act of destroying manliness which Butch has to stop at all costs. 86 Butch then chooses the appropriate weapon to assault Marsellus’s rapists and thus associates his character with multiple protagonists from previous movies. When he reaches for the hammer, he’s just Butch. Next he reaches for a baseball bat like Buford Pusser from Walking Tall (1973). Then he tries the chainsaw and he is going to be Leatherface in the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974). Finally he decides on the samurai sword aiming to be like Ken Takakura in The Yakuza (1975). The film depicts Marsellus’s rape as the ultimate horror by this very dramatization of the process of selecting the tool of punishment and revenge by Butch. Another point is the seeming racist implications of the whole episode. Though there are obvious racist implications in Marsellus's rape due to the white rapists who are characterized as heavily racist and Marsellus as the victim who is black, within this context Marsellus's rape is read as homosexual violence. Earlier Butch wanted to kill Marsellus. Butch rescues Marsellus, however, because he is undergoing anal rape, which is depicted as horrific and as the ultimate act of demasculinization. In light of this, the scene can be read not so much as an expression of racial dominance, since Butch was to be next, as an expression of homophobia‐‐that anal rape is considered worse than death in the narrative logic of the sequence. Another way to read this scene is that the pain of anal rape may be considered so excruciating to Butch that he wants to rescue Marsellus from the pain involved in his trauma. This does not follow, however, if Butch was inflicting intense pain on Marsellus earlier in the scene. Marsellus's rescue would thus entail Butch's identifiable and symbolic fear of homosexual rape and the two men bond because of it. Butch proceeds to slaughter Maynard with his sword as Marsellus recovers towing a shotgun using which he shoots Zed in the groin. Marsellus forgives Butch and ends all animosity, telling him to leave L.A. and keeping the incident as a secret. Butch comes out of the shop and takes Grace‐Zed’s chopper, to the motel. Fabian and Butch then take off on Grace to their paradise destination. 87 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ The Bonnie Situation ‐‐‐‐ Sequence: Jules and Vincent encounter a miracle As Jules goes on sermonizing, it is revealed that a fourth friend of Brett is hiding in the bathroom with a gun. As soon as Jules and Vincent finish off with killing Brett, this friend rushes out of the bathroom with a vengeful look on his face and fires off from the revolver on both of the assassins. Miraculously Vincent and Jules don’t get a scratch and they fire back and kill the attacker. Jules opens his eyes At the beginning of the film, we know as much about Jules as we will ever know: not much. We have listened to him talk about fast food and foot massages on the way to the massacre, and we have seen him stop outside the apartment prior to the shooting and end a conversation by saying, “That’s an interesting point, but let’s get into character”. In the next scene, he tells the drug dealers his name is “Pitt”. Jules seems to be a man shifting from one identity to the next, playing one role and then another. It is a way of life for him. This is a final transformational moment for Jules. Jules sees this incident as a direct act of God. On the other hand, Vincent tries to dismiss it as just another freak incident. As we already know, Vincent is dead and that can be connected to the fact that he didn’t “heed” the word of God, but Jules did. What further implications does this incident has on Jules isn’t clear as the couple make and exit along with Marvin, their inside man. As they drive the car, Vincent accidentally shoots Marvin in the face splattering blood and guts all over the car. The actual shooting takes place away from the camera and the instant bloodbath gives a dark comedic edge to the scene as Jules goes crazy over what Vincent has done. 88 Shooting crazily and coolness In Pulp Fiction, as in the blaxploitation films, masculinity is also connected to coolness. Stoicism in the blaxploitation film is the desirable trait which establishes masculine behavior as cool or supercool. Vincent is never outwardly shaken by a given situation and maintains this stoicism during acts of violence. After being fired upon by one of the five boys in the apartment, Vincent appears undisturbed and merely aims his gun at the boy and unloads a round into him. Stoicism can be translated as nihilism when Vincent accidentally shoots Marvin, Marsellus’s unfaithful associate, in the face. Vincent, rather than express remorse or concern, chuckles and tries to blame this horrible and gruesome ‘accident’ on a bump in the road. Ultimately, Marvin’s murder is not reflected upon as a death of a human life but merely as a detail in an anecdotal episode and an embarrassment to Vincent as an instance when he lost control. The film’s narrative is heartless and cold blooded as in film noir, but it also in keeping with the blaxploitation masculine ideal to not show emotion or appear to care. 53 This is one of those moments when one feels bad about laughing but simply has to because the film has set up the audience to see the humor in the situation is when Vincent shoots Marvin in the back of Jules' car. Normally when someone gets his head blown off the reaction is of disgust and sadness. But one has to laugh as Jackson and Travolta do such a great job of reacting to the problem. The two begin to bicker and argue over why Marvin was shot, neither one is concerned with Marvin himself. The hipness with which they are not even worried about the person in the back seat, but instead are more concerned about the dirty car and how they are going to get out of this problem makes the scene funny. Sequence: Jules, Vincent, Jimmy and Winston Wolf avoid the Bonnie Situation. Jules decides to take the car to his friend Jimmy’s place which is the nearest safe haven available. Upon reaching Jimmy’s place, Jimmy becomes upset over Jules arrival with the body in his house and thus a very comical situation arises. Jimmy informs Jules that his wife, a nurse 53
THE BOY'S ROOM REVISITED: MASCULINITIES IN PULP FICTION by Robert Bodle 89 at the local hospital, will be coming home in 1.5 hours and that they should clean up the mess, dispose of the body and leave the house before she arrives. The reason why Jimmy is petrified is that he fears Bonnie will divorce him if she sees him with gangsters and a dead body in the garage. Tarantino’s tough females Tarantino has a fascination with tough women. In the original screenplay of Pulp Fiction, Vincent tells Mia that he has fantasized about being beaten up by Emma Peel of The Avengers. The women of Pulp Fiction relish violence as can be seen in the case of Jody looming over Mia during the panic scene and relishing the happenings. Mia herself leaves a trail of damaged men (Antwan Rocky Horror, defenestrated). Esmeralda the cabbie is sexily interested in what it is like to kill a man with bare hands. Bonnie appears to be overpowering so much so that the very fear of her discovering the situation puts Jimmy into a tizzy. Also it appears that Jimmy is deeply domesticated by Bonnie. As can be inferred from his rant about Bonnie buying shit coffee and that he had to buy stuff for the kitchen and also Jimmy worrying over the bed sheets and cleanliness with Wolf. As Jules becomes worried over how to handle the situation, he calls up Marsellus for help. Marsellus sends over Winston Wolf, a revered and experienced problem solver, to their rescue. Wolf gets to the task of getting the job done and instructs Jules and Vincent to clean up the car. Sequence: Winston Wolf goes to work Against the norm: Gangsters cleaning up Winston Wolf, the trouble shooter, arrives in a sportily grand entrance. He ascertains the situation, takes a hard look at the bloodied car and then puts Jules and Vincent to work. Here Vincent and Jules, who would probably be the first gangsters in history to clean up after themselves, attack their bloody car with all manner of household cleaners. Meanwhile Wolf tries to convince and soothe Jimmy by giving him the lure of cash and regal curtains and linens 90 for his household and explaining to him the mightiness of Marsellus. Jimmy is surprisingly obedient and subdued in the towering presence of the Wolf, in contrast to his earlier aggressive stance against Jules. Winston Wolf seems to be a character steeped in Hollywood heroism. He is introduced as a man who solves problems, is miraculously efficient, impeccably dressed, and unbelievably alert from an all night gambling party that lasted past 8:00 am. His reputation as a high profile problem solver is evident when Jules expresses relief when he finds out that Marsellus has sent him. The Wolf signifies a sort of comic book persona, adding to his superhero or extraordinary status. Jules, Vincent and Wolf in perspective Unlike Vincent Vega who provides the image of the bad‐ass, Jules represents a more level headed, moral, and reflective character who uses his verbal skills to resolve conflict without violence. During the "Bonnie Situation," Jules has imposed on his friend Jimmie by asking him to help dispose of the boy Vincent accidentally shot and killed. Though Jules and Vincent should be respectful of Jimmie's domestic situation, Vincent gets upset when Jimmie, and later the Wolf, bark orders at him. Vincent is worried about the respect he is receiving during the crises, whereas Jules is aware of the explosive potential of the situation, and recognizes his responsibility in its resolution. Unlike Vincent, Jules does not take insults personally and is responsive to collective action over individual concerns. Jules advises Vincent to alter his behavior before the situation comes to a climax. Jules understands that Wolf is there to help and cooperates by keeping the situation from being brought to a head. Jules mediates the situation by negotiating with Vincent, who is ready to resort to violence at any time. It is only through Jules's powers of persuasion and reasoning that he is able to resolve conflicts that would traditionally and ineffectively be done so through violence. 91 Sequence: Wolf wraps up the Bonnie Situation Wolf dumps Marvin’s body in the back of the cleaned up car and then proceeds to bathe Jules and Vincent using the garden hose. Wolf not only appears to be a superior helping agency but a touch of fatherliness is evident in his bathing Jules and Vincent. At one point Tarantino pokes fun at himself when he has Jimmy (the character that he plays) lend Vincent and Jules some clothes of his after washing blood off of the two gangsters. Once they've changed clothes, Jimmy tells the two that they look like dorks, and Jules replies with a swift, “they’re you damn clothes, fool”. Later they head on to the Monster Truck garage, where Wolf arranges for swift disposal of the car. Wolf then leaves the scene with his girlfriend in a car. Jules, Vincent, and Jimmie are defined as inferior against Wolf's competency and effectiveness in this situation by having to wait for the Wolf to solve their problems. However, Wolf demands respect and cooperation because he is older and more experienced. As he states before parting, "Respect for one's elders shows character". Comical absurdities in the Bonnie Situation Deadliness is next to cleanliness on Bonnie’s turf and the worst fate imaginable is divorce for Jimmy. In this suburban topography of garages and gourmet coffee, bedroom sets and linen closets, hit men worry about bloodstains on a white towel and shrink in fear from the nozzle of a garden hose. For a moment, intimacy threatens to outrank mastery. And for once a woman coming home is more eventful than a man going off to war. Finally this section is funny, however, precisely because it so ludicrously upsets the norm. Like people pulling carts in which animals ride, men scrubbing frantically before the wife gets off work belong to a topsy‐turvy world that, by definition, cannot be sustained; indeed, dependent for its humor on continual reference to the conventional order, in the end it may simply reinforce this. Predictably, neither Bonnie nor her story actually materializes, and our heroes, freshened up and victorious in the fight against dirt, soon reclaim the road. 92 Sequence: Jules and Vincent at the Hawthorne Grill with Honey Bunny and Pumpkin The underlying theme of this sequence is the almost quasi‐religious conversation of Jules, following the miracle that he witnessed before and the comical fate of Honey Bunny and Pumpkin, where the looters turn into the looted. After cleaning up from the Bonnie Situation, Jules and Vincent walk up to the Hawthorne Grill, the diner where the robber couple are present, to eat. In the film’s final scene Jules points a gun at hoodlums robbing the restaurant where he and Vincent have stopped for breakfast. “Normally,” he tells them, “both of your asses would be dead as fuckin’ fried chicken. But you happened to pull this shit while I’m in a transitional period. I don’t wanna kill ya, I want to help ya”. He then gives them $1,500 from his wallet: Jules lets them take his $1500, paying the price for their redemption as well; they leave the grill with new lives due to Jules’ redemption. Ezekiel 25:17 is central to Pulp because it concerns the salvation of sinners who turn to the path of righteousness and the damnation of good people who stumble off the path. Eventually Jules pays so much attention to those wise words, they transform his life”. If the briefcase’s security code is 666 (perhaps implying that Marsellus is the devil), then Jules’ leaving Marsellus’ employ may be interpreted as his renouncing the devil and receiving a new life with God. Thus, when the plot reorders events to place Jules’ redemption at the end of the film, it allocates it new significance.54 Jules says,” I’m buying something for my money. Wanna know what I’m buyin Ringo? Your life. I’m giving you that money so I don’t hafta kill your as …The truth is you’re weak. And I’m the tyranny of evil men. But I’m tryin’. I’m tryin’ real hard to be a shepherd. Thus Jules saves the robbers and himself from the terror of the “Pitt.”(his alter ego mentioned previously in the sequence in Brett’s apartment) The money, perhaps, is his atoning sacrifice, and at this point viewers experience the power of the conversion; from the little we know 54
THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY, COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES THE DYSPHORIC STYLEIN CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN INDEPENDENT CINEMA By DAVID C. SIMMONS 93 about him, Jules is a changed man. Though Jules enables the couple to escape, letting them steal other customers' wallets and the cash from the register, his clemency has afforded them enough money, time, and thus opportunity to mend their ways, and his performance has scared them enough to discourage a further life of crime. Jules's characterization overcomes some of the failings common to the protagonists of the blaxploitation genre. During the course of the film he undergoes a transformation that causes him to change his ways, and by the end of the film, he has fully entered into his transitional period. Early in the film, Jules begins to question his occupation as a thug who brings terror to men, after he witnesses what he believes to be a miracle. Just after the ruthless executions of three boys in their apartment, another emerges from the bathroom to fire a round at Jules and Vincent at close range, missing them both and hitting the wall behind. Jules recognizes this occurrence as "divine interference," which triggers his transformation, and he soon begins plans to quit "the life." 55 Jules's disavowal of his possessions and occupation signifies a disavowal of the social order he has functioned under as the executioner of the weak (Marsellus's victims) and the protector of his brothers (literally Marsellus). Jules disavowal of "the life" also suggests that he has rejected the supermasculine role, which depends on acts of violence to support a patriarchal social order. Jules becomes a "hybrid construction," combining the image of the blaxploitation hero of bad‐ass, brutal, assertive, and macho, with a deep moral sense and a concern for others that develops in the film. 55
“Let's Get Into Character”: A Narrative/Constructionist Psychology of Conversion in Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction 94 Conclusion Quentin Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction is an instance of the pop culture trend of the decade ‐ they are hermetically sealed and running for cover from any kind of contact with the real world. It is a trend best exemplified by Forrest Gump, the desperately optimistic version of the formula; Pulp Fiction is the most artful example yet of the obverse, cynical form of the phenomenon. Tarantino is a professional as well as an amateur collector. Pulp Fiction is the perfect post‐
modern Indie film phenomenon, a pastiche. For all its interrupted storylines and O. Henry surprises, Pulp Fiction is self‐consciously conventional in content, just as Tarantino is a proud partaker of the mass‐media fiction world of the pulp magazines, a genre of strict narrative conventions. The boxer whose honor won't permit him to throw the fight, the gangster's moll with a wandering eye, the camaraderie of professional killers ‐ these are all subjects which are well known clichés. In using them as a starting point, Pulp Fiction rejuvenates the fundamentals of Independent American moviemaking, the kiss‐kiss bang‐bang first principles (with an emphasis on the 'masculine' side, the bang‐bang), by pumping the old storylines up with an intricate web of 95 quotations from the communal media world of television, movies, and, in perhaps Tarantino's most significant addition, the universal experience of being a consumer. Yet only in this most superficial way does Pulp Fiction traffic with everyday reality. In general the tone of Tarantino's work is a rejection of anything resembling the 'real' world. Sure, there are scenes in coffee shops and in old cars and suburban tract homes, but the movie exists only in the terms of other movies, and is not, as collagists like Godard might construct, an undermining of those terms. In fact, the perfection of its escapism places it squarely in the most traditional and the most contemporary wave of Hollywood moviemaking. In that respect, the two most talked‐about movies of 1994, Forrest Gump and Pulp Fiction, seem very similar. Their narrative structures certainly diverge, but their sensibilities are the two sides of a single coin. Just as much as Forrest Gump, Pulp Fiction rejects the notion of engagement with the reality available to most Americans. Forrest succeeds because he's too dumb to take it seriously, while Pulp Fiction's various protagonists succeed and fail on a relatively random basis that has little to do with their actions. Most of what they do doesn't make a difference in their destinies (since life is like a box of chocolates). A pothole or a trip to the bathroom at the wrong moment means life or death (more than once for Vincent Vega), or a kid's bad aim with a handgun becomes a miracle for Jules. So many movies now are daydreams about people surviving or succeeding because they don't connect with the world around. Pulp Fiction is a more sophisticated rendering of the spirit of helplessness and resignation that animates those films to imagine a solution. The answer Tarantino offers is to stop worrying and learn to love it. The “I don’t care” sensibility is another aspect of the post‐modern Independent sensibility. Pulp Fiction wears this mantle very effectively, projecting a stance of having passed beyond tacky social problems like racism. Race is the least discussed aspect of this movie, despite the fact that Tarantino draws his allusions not only from his favorite white and Asian filmmakers but also from the black action heroes of the seventies, from whom Jules gets his hairstyle. Pulp Fiction fancies itself post‐racist, and in it Affirmative Action is officially superannuated, as 96 marked by the salt‐and‐pepper casting of the two lead enforcers, Vincent and Jules, who work for a black man. Note also the subliminal casting of a black woman as the bossy wife that Jimmie, played by Tarantino himself, fears will return home angry to find "a dead nigger" splattered all over her well‐kept house. The movie's attitudes toward gender follow a similar pattern of displaying stereotypes under the guise of post‐feminist sensibility, with the added innovation of Tarantino's gift for sharp dialog and quotidian allusions. Tarantino makes movies a pleasure to listen to again, even though his characters don't have anything to say. The dialog has the sound of an improvisation ‐ actors bullshitting ‐ but the staging and editing are classic genre stuff, with forced perspective, sensational angles, and dramatic use of shadow and color. The structure of Pulp Fiction is not as new as it looks. It is simply our psychological accommodations to TV's dramatic shape that Tarantino exploits for his narrative surprises. On Television, stories come to a rest, divided into segments to be interrupted by other stories and then resume. The interruptions are called commercials and increasingly they are commercials for other stories both on television and in the movies. Channel surfing also segments the stories we watch. In Pulp Fiction Tarantino starts episodes and lets them come to what feel like commercial breaks. The setup scene of Honey bunny and Pumpkin in the coffee shop planning their robbery is exactly like the tease that opens most television shows before the first commercial; audiences don't expect it in a movie and so don't frame it as such, but, after surfing in and out of other episodes, Tarantino eventually returns to it. Pulp Fiction not only incorporates the structure of watching television (and does so brilliantly) but it reproduces the everyday experience of living in a fragmented society, in which each of us must stitch together a coherent narrative out of the bombardment of information and drama that is our daily passage through a market culture. Quentin Tarantino is not the first poet of the consumer age, but he may be the first who has given himself so completely to it. Nothing but the ephemeral products of the marketplace seems to inspire him, and he seems only to exist in the shards he has collected for his private 97 amusement. At the heart of his films is the exhilaration of watching a gifted fetishist arranging the useless objects of his obsession; it's like looking into the abyss and longing to fall into the restful emptiness. He is the distillation of Hollywood's eternal pledge that "It's only a movie," and a fitting hero for the centennial of commercial cinema. Is Pulp Fiction no more than a compelling romp through popular culture? Or might there be another layer beneath the pastiche? It certainly appears that Pulp Fiction has an agenda; it's actually a very political film. In fact, it is precisely the film's play on classic film noir, blaxploitation, and kung‐fu films, among other action genres that leads one directly to the core of its power politics: masculinity and the anxiety of the male hero. The plot consists of three stories which overlap, or better, crash into one another, each of them premised on a genre cliché: the hit man taking the boss's wife out on the town; the boxer who refuses to take the fall; the gangster who wants to make good but can't escape badness. Beneath each of these narrative diversions lies Tarantino's obsession: that masculinity must constantly and compulsively reassert itself through an endless series of struggles which, so Pulp Fiction seems to suggest, render masculinity increasingly absurd and even pathological. Pulp Fiction is fantasy. Characters and narrative devices are not originals, but play out Tarantino's dense homage to cinematic genres, iconography, and styles. A campy dance sequence serves no purpose in the film except to allow for viewer reverie as John Travolta reprises his role as a Seventies' dance icon. The glowing contents of a briefcase, appropriated from Robert Aldrich’s Kiss Me Deadly, resurface in Pulp Fiction as the ultimate booty for Tarantino's modern‐day pirates. Fake back‐drops in driving sequences suggest not so much a lack of funds as Tarantino's playful nostalgia for faded genre conventions. Pulp Fiction's players shoot heroin and snort cocaine without philosophy or fear. Violent death, racial slurs, and masculine anxiety ‐ these do not resonate in political terms because Pulp Fiction's narrative is constantly couched in parody. But postmodernism aside, parody hides as much as it reveals. Tarantino's men talk constantly, through their clothes, through their movements, and literally through dialog. The script, 98 densely wrought with clever tete‐a‐tetes, tries desperately to balance the film's brutal violence with an excess of words and discourses. These men feel a compulsive need to speak, as if to articulate every detail of their thoughts and actions is to somehow gain control of them. To remain silent is, for them, to stop acting male, to let down their masculine guard or, more true to the paranoia, to be stripped of it. Jules uses the Bible passage to justify his killing, but when Marsellus and Butch are in the psycho‐sex basement, they are gagged and cannot speak, faced with paranoid masculinity's silent other. Pulp Fiction emerges as the tour‐de‐force American Independent Film of the 90's which has altered the established perception of what Independent Cinema is all about. Pulp Fiction appears to be sailing at a distance from the usual mainstream fare but at the same time, its spirit is of a conventional blockbuster. It employs big named actors and actresses and does so at a cost of about 75% of its 8 million dollar lowly budget and the rest it spends on the actual shooting. Thus its finances are also a strange hybrid of Independent budgeting bottom lines and star employing extravagance. It blends genres and post‐modernistic pastiche while defying every style of movie making prevalent at the time of its release. Quentin Tarantino is clearly a talented filmmaker and storyteller. It's one thing to have an exhaustive knowledge of television trivia and a well‐stocked video collection, but he's also demonstrated his ability to fashion these elements into an entertaining narrative. Tarantino prefaces his film with two definitions of 'pulp' ‐ one as an organic, malleable substance, the other as the tawdry writings of another generation. Perhaps this suggests, after all, an awareness that Pulp Fiction is not simply a sensational stylistic exercise without content, but palpably reflects the nuances of human anxieties as well. 99 Bibliography Books Monaco, James (2000). How to Read a Film (3rd edition) -
Oxford University Press Tzioumakis, Yannis (2006). American Independent Cinema: An Introduction -
Edinburgh University Press King, Geoff (2005). American Independent Cinema -
Indiana University Press Tarantino, Quentin; Peary, Gerald (1998). Quentin Tarantino: Interviews -
Univ. Press of Mississippi Wimmer, R; Dominick, J (1987). Mass Media Research: An Introduction -
Wadsworth Publishing Co. Ltd. Yin, Robert (1994). Case study research: design and methods -
Sage Publications India Pvt. Ltd. Bouma & Atkinson (1997). A Handbook of Social Science Research -
Oxford Publishing Press Maltby, Richard (2003). Hollywood Cinema -
Blackwell Publishing 100 Tasker, Yvonne (2002). Fifty Contemporary Filmmakers -
Routledge (publisher) Dawson, Jeff (1995). Quentin Tarantino: The cinema of cool -
Applause (publisher) Web Resources http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/ http://www.wikipedia.org/ http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/index.html http://www.filmreference.com/ http://www.readfilm.com/ http://www.rottentomatoes.com/ http://www.reelviews.net/ http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/ http://www.pulpfiction.com/ http://www.time.com/time/2005/100movies/ http://www.everythingtarantino.com/pulp_fiction/ http://www.imdb.com/ 101 http://www.allmovie.com/ http://tarantino.m4d.com/ http://www.godamongdirectors.com/tarantino/index.shtml http://www.tarantinoboard.com/ 102 Appendix Cast and Crew Directed by Quentin Tarantino Writing credits Quentin Tarantino (stories) & Roger Avary (stories) Quentin Tarantino (written by) Cast (in credits order) John Travolta ‐ Vincent Vega Samuel L. Jackson ‐ Jules Winnfield Tim Roth ‐ Pumpkin (Ringo) Amanda Plummer ‐ Honey Bunny (Yolanda) Eric Stoltz ‐ Lance Bruce Willis ‐ Butch Coolidge Ving Rhames ‐ Marsellus Wallace Phil LaMarr ‐ Marvin Maria de Medeiros ‐ Fabienne Rosanna Arquette ‐ Jody Peter Greene ‐ Zed Uma Thurman ‐ Mia Wallace Duane Whitaker ‐ Maynard Paul Calderon ‐ Paul Frank Whaley ‐ Brett Burr Steers ‐ Roger 103 Bronagh Gallagher ‐ Trudi Susan Griffiths ‐ Marilyn Monroe Steve Buscemi ‐ Buddy Holly Eric Clark ‐ James Dean Joseph Pilato ‐ Dean Martin Brad Parker ‐ Jerry Lewis Angela Jones ‐ Esmeralda Villalobos Don Blakely ‐ Wilson’s Trainer Christopher Walken ‐ Captain Koons Carl Allen ‐ Dead Floyd Wilson Stephen Hibbert ‐ The Gimp Julia Sweeney ‐ Raquel Laura Lovelace ‐ Waitress Michael Gilden ‐ Phillip Morris Page Jerome Patrick Hoban ‐ Ed Sullivan Gary Shorelle ‐ Ricky Nelson Lorelei Leslie ‐ Mamie van Doren Brenda Hillhouse ‐ Butch's Mother Chandler Lindauer ‐ Young Butch Sy Sher ‐ Klondike Robert Ruth ‐ Sportscaster #1 ‐ Coffee shop Rich Turner ‐ Sportscaster #2 Venessia Valentino Pedestrian / Bonnie Dimmick Alexis Arquette ‐ Man #4 Linda Kaye ‐ Shot Woman Kathy Griffin ‐ Kathy Griffin 104 Quentin Tarantino ‐ Jimmie Dimmick Harvey Keitel ‐ Winston 'The Wolf' Wolfe Karen Maruyama ‐ Gawker #1 Lawrence Bender ‐ Long Hair Yuppy Scum Emil Sitka ‐ Hold Hands You Lovebirds (archive footage) Dick Miller ‐ Monster Joe (scenes deleted) Produced by Lawrence Bender ‐ producer Danny DeVito ‐ executive producer Richard N. Gladstein ‐ co‐executive producer Michael Shamberg ‐ executive producer Stacey Sher ‐ executive producer Bob Weinstein ‐ co‐executive producer Harvey Weinstein ‐ co‐executive producer Cinematography by Andrzej Sekula Film Editing by Sally Menke Casting by Ronnie Yeskel Gary M. Zuckerbrod Production Design by David Wasco Art Direction by Charles Collum Set Decoration by 105 Sandy Reynolds‐Wasco Costume Design by Betsy Heimann