I’ve always thought of Quentin Tarantino’s loopy masterpiece as a case of the parts being better than the sum of the whole. So I don’t see this reconstruction as sacrilege. It’s an interesting experiment that illustrates how editing can alter the dynamic of a film. Tarantino’s use of flashbacks and flash forwards in PF gave the movie a kind of metaphysical spin that ultimately proved to be hollow. A mind game not a mind expander. But it did inspire a lot of directors to attempt to replicate Tarantino’s time folding in on itself approach to editing.

Pulp Fiction begins in the middle, goes backwards and forwards further and further in time, before returning and ending in the middle.

Here’s what happens when the movie gets all linear on your ass.
 

A friend of mine actually did this on VHS back in the day.
Watching it is surreal. It’ll always mess you up when you watch the original again.
He did the same thing with Memento and it makes it much less of an interesting movie.

“Tarantino’s use of flashbacks and flash forwards in PF gave the movie a kind of metaphysical spin that ultimately proved to be hollow.”

I became a Tarantino believer very late in the game. I used to think of Pulp Fiction and his other films as entertaining as hell but hollow, but I’ve changed my mind a bit on that. I think one of the things about Tarantino is the fact that he plays with hollow-ness: A two-dimensional character in one scene can turn very human in the next, and that’s what made pulp fiction so mesmerizing.

That “dancing scene”...damn there’s something about that makes it impossible to pull your eyes away, and I guess part of it is that you ‘know’ these people and these people are bringing this wonderful tension into the scene. In way, that HAD to be done via flashbacks so you could know the people beforehand.

Exelent point Em. Tarantino is formalist to the bone and he uses the form and spectations of film genere to make it explode. He works on the rational/mechanic aspects of the plot to turn a “hollow” film into something uncanny. It’s debatable if his results are beyond form, but his films are a helluva ride.

You discovered that if you re-edit a film into a different order than originally intended that it loses something in the process? WOW, BRAVO!!

“Next week at Dangerous Minds, we remove the score from a film and show how empty and dull it is to watch.”

You’re really blowing the doors off cinema here, aren’t ya?

“You discovered that if you re-edit a film into a different order than originally intended that it loses something in the process?”

Joel, I didn’t say anything of the sort. Read my piece a little more closely and you might understand what was actually written.

I don’t care about the metaphysical, the verite or dimensions of PF.  I just watched it almost straight through again (for the 10th or more time or so, first time in this order) and I still enjoyed the hell out of it.  I find it hard to not watch it even when it’s edited for basic cable.

Sometimes you just want to be entertained.

It definitely looses something when watched chronologically. Especially the with the Butch story. I guess that is why Quentin is a successful director and the rest of us aren’t.

What a weird thing to say, Nursultan. We’re not all successful directors like him because we all have not had lucky breaks. He would not have his style if he was never given the opportunity to work in the industry, in the first place.
Style is moot when presence is unavailable.

Granted, not everyone has the vision… But merely having a the vision means nothing without the means to make it so.

Aaron,

good lord. the man worked in a video store and worked his ass off to get where he was ‘given’ the opportunity to write and direct movies.

He’s good because he has talent. He succeeded because he earned it.

I hate to turn this thread political, but you act like he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and that’s the only reason he made it.  Nothing could be further from the truth. This is exactly the attitude I see in the OWS movement. the only reason people succeed is because it success was given to them.

Mo, I never meant to imply that he didn’t work at it… But it’s not like he, say, went to film school.
He met Lawrence Bender, a guy in the biz, at a party and he convinced him to write a screenplay.
He got lucky. There are people with film degrees that have not had the same luck as Tarentino.

Don’t act so indignant. You read into far, far more then was there.
Of course he was given an opportunity, and he went for it.
Certainly, I don’t know the vast majority of the details; but he was in the right time and place and met/knew the right people.
Why is getting lucky a bad thing?

And, for someone who “hate(s) to turn this thread political”, you went there pretty quick.
Methinks you enjoy reading subtext, whether it’s there or not.
No, having a “lucky break”, an “opportunity” does not immediately mean you were born with a “silver spoon”, nor does it negate the need for working toward that success.

Unfounded conclusions need not always be jumped to.

It’s still a cool movie in chronological order.

@Aaron

“He would not have his style if he was never given the opportunity to work in the industry, in the first place.”

I disagree completely.. people develop their style with every experience in their life, whether given an opportunity with a Hollywood producer or not. If Quentin had shot his first film on a Handicam in his mom’s basement, sure the production value would have sucked, but I guarantee you his dialogue would demonstrate the same style we’re familiar with today.

That being said, there may have been some element of luck in his success as in most things, but the fact of the matter is he had the drive to go to that party… approach Bender… and have the audacity to pitch a film to a big Hollywood producer at risk of being shot down. I think a lot of us might not have the balls to do the same if we were in his situation.

That was the first time that movie ever made sense. Thank you so much whoever did this.

“the night of the fight your gonna feel a slight sting. thats pride fuckin wit u. fuck pride! pride only hurts, it never helps. you fight through that shit.”
Hollow! Maybe it wasn’t the metaphysical mind bender you wanted it to be marc, but it had some pretty deep themes and ideas about male relationships and fatherhood and shit that kinda make it so wonderful. Do you know what’s in the briefcase?

It’s not Marcellus Wallace’s soul, if that’s what you’re going to say.

Right, let’s list the things it’s not first It doesn’t matter whats in the briefcase.

ev,

i meant style in the sense of what we see.  You can’t become known for your style of movie, to the public, without making a movie that is released to said public.

And, really? He had to drive to a party and befriend someone who convinced him to write a screenplay? He had to pitch a movie to a producer? That’s your response to him getting lucky?
Most of us don’t do what he did because we don’t have the opportunity.
You’de be a fool not to go for it.

Mind you, I enjoy his work, and much of his style; but just because he got somewhere doesnt mean you need to spitshine his shoes. Bender wanted him to write. Harvey Keitel was a giant reason Reseviour Dogs was made, because he read the script, wanted to be a part of it, and co-financed it.
Are those marks of quality ideas and work, yes. Does that mean we need to applaude him for something as trite as driving to a party? No.

When in Rome if your invited to an orgy… you go.
If your a delight… you stay.

The man has got balls and talent anyone who says otherwise is an idiot.

So far watching it in Chronological order is cool.

I think Tarantino made it out of sequence for a reason so to say that it’s better “your way” is like taking the strings off something like Hey Jude and claiming it’s some better that way.

The artist chose to do it that way for a reason.