JR Notes: A little while ago, I received an email with a very articulate defense of Pulp Fiction, which I laid into pretty heavily on my Overrated Movies list. Of course, what David may not realize about me is that I am often the most critical of the artists that I have the highest expectations for, or who seem to have the most unrealized (or unharnessed) talent. I was even more impressed with David when I found that he had used a real email address instead of taking a swipe from a phony account. He was even willing to get into a back and forth with me, which led us to a very interesting discussion of how some artists have trouble living up to their early promise, and how early brilliance can be a real curse to a career. We'll start off the exchange with David's initial email, and from there, my responses will be in italics.

Jon, you ask, "Does this movie have a soul?"

Yes it does, and sometimes that gets lost in the movie's heat and flash.

The central core of the movie is about personal morality, the choices one makes as a result, and the ramifications of those choices. This tale in mainly carried in the thread that follows Jules and Vincent (Jackson and Travolta). As we're introduced to them, they're clearly bad men (albeit engaging). Then they experience a miracle (the shootout in the apartment). They each experience the miracle in a different way - one takes it as a revelation to change his life, and the other dismisses it as plain dumb luck. As a result of those differing interpretations, one dies and one is saved.

Tarantino's fragmented narrative is more than just showing off. It is used to rearrange the main story in a way so that this narrative supports the main theme - with a hint of foreshadowing tossed in. The climax of the movie is Jule's soliloquy about his life in transition, recognizing that he is an "evil man" but trying hard to become the shepherd. In a chronological sequence, Vincent's still alive at this point, but in the movie's construction, he's already dead. We know this, and that makes the Jule's words all that more poignant.

The other sub-plots have morality at their core, and serve to reinforce the theme. For example, Bruce Willis emulating his father's heroics by going back in to save Marcellus.

What people remember about Pulp Fiction is the hyper-violence and depravity (drug use and homosexual rape) within a context that has you simultaneously laughing and horrified. For that reason, people often reject it as a shallow film that capitalized on an artful conveyance of shock value. If it worked only at that level, it should be dismissed. But the things that shocked you were also the context for the film's moral purpose. It's easy to be moral in a world of good. It's not so easy when all about you is evil.

----

Hi David.

That was an excellent and worthy defense of Pulp Fiction Thanks for sending it to me. I actually really liked Pulp Fiction when it came out and still consider it a good film. It is definitely the best film on the "overrated" list. And I can understand what an innovative and influential film it was. I got that when I first watched it and I get it now. I began to object, however, when a number of people I knew started to elevate the film and everything about it to the "genius" category. In a sense, Tarantino is a genius and I understand that. But I haven't seen anything in his films since Pulp Fiction that have made me think he is as good a director as he could be. I still find that he emphasizes stylized sequences and verbal cleverness over what I would call "emotional substance." I am not put off at all by his violent tendencies and "push the envelope" dialogue, and I'm glad he's making movies, but for the moment, I'm going to stand by the "overrated" assessment.

The question "Does the movie have a soul?" is intended to be a very strong statement that raises questions about Tarantino's artistic courage. I see him more as a peacock showing off his admittedly brilliant feathers than someone who is prepared to let us into his innermost world. He has no obligation to change his ways, but until he does my stance on his work probably won't change. I have liked all of his movies, but none of them have really touched me or affected me emotionally. I will admit that Pulp Fiction IS a soulful movie in its way - it's too original not to have a unique pulse. But even though on one level it is perfect, I find it empty. I think it's a praiseworthy movie, for the reasons you indicated and more, but not, as some people seem to think, a movie beyond reproach. Though I would object to the "family values" type of criticism of the movie, that it is somehow culturally degenerate or excessively violent. That is not where I'm coming from. However, I will pay your email the ultimate tribute. I haven't seen the film in its entirety in a couple of years. I'll make a point of watching it again with your comments in mind and I'll revisit my comments at that time. I'll let you know if I am swayed. thx again. JR

----

Yup, I agree entirely. Tarantino hasn't really done anything since Pulp Fiction that has been worthy of him. He's just fallen back upon technique and shock value. That, and he's lent his name to some terrible endeavors. He's the Salvador Dali of filmmaking.

Unfortunately what he's done *since* has tarnished what he did *before*. Had he somehow died tragically after Pulp Fiction, we'd all think a lot more highly of it. Sometimes an artist realizes that his earliest work has forever set the bar too high for himself. They either continue, pursuing whatever's the most fun and lucrative, or they go into self-imposed exile (think Salinger).

----

David, it seems we agree once again. Though many artists continue to evolve and change in interesting ways, others are literally imprisoned by the brilliance/fame/expectation of a definitive early work. And, as you point out, once the mediocre follow ups start rolling in, it's hard not for them not to tarnish the memory of the original.

It's gotten to the point where I sometimes feel sorry for artists who peak too early. Take someone like Stephen King - he was never going to write a better novel than The Stand, so once that came out, he was essentially left to work with the remaining creative scraps at the table. And of course Salinger is the definitive example of the bar being raised almost tragically high. I see Robert DeNiro largely that way - though he does do something interesting from time to time.

It seems to me that artists that do brilliant early work but keep putting out more of the same have several things in common: personal growth, creative experimentation and self-reinvention. Another key thing they usually share: a willingness to walk away from easy paydays and shake up their fans with different approaches. The classic example of that would be the Beatles. Brilliant early work, later ups and downs with quite a bit of experimentation, and of course some later masterpieces. The Beatles of the later years were almost different people than the ones who recorded "I Saw Her Standing There."

And by the way, I watched Pulp Fiction again. I can't say that it changed my previous stance, so it will remain on this list. But your letter certainly deserves publication as another view on a provocative film that has always caused a divergence of opinion.

Return to JR's Overrated Movies List