Solidon, Cecil G.

Of Burgers and Blood: A Critical Analysis of Pulp Fiction (1994)

Quentin Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction is an American neo-noir crime film with its characters and
theme inspired by the action stories printed in inexpensive pulp fiction magazines that became
popular from the 1900s-1950s. The 1994 hit movie has earned accolades for its ingenious plot
structure and meaty profanity-fueled dialogue. With narrative shocks marked by abrupt violence and
its glorification of villainous characters, this Tarantino masterpiece has earned the acclaim of critics
and viewers alike and has helped reimagine subsequent films of the same genre.

Narrative Structure and Editing

Pulp Fiction's narrative follows an unchronological order and it features the interrelated
stories of three protagonists: Vincent Vega (John Travolta), a hitman; Jules Winnfield (Samuel
Jackson), Vincent's partner and fellow hitman; and Butch Coolidge (Bruce Willis), a professional
boxer.

But why did Tarantino employ this technique? Simply, to maximize the viewers’ emotional
response to the story. He arranged the scenes primarily according to their dramatic content rather
than their chronology because otherwise, the story would feel flat. If presented in the latter manner,
the lead character would unceasingly rotate out of the story, which would have made the movie
“feel even more episodic and less emotionally fulfilling” (Kownacki). The non-linearity of its structure
has propelled the progression of the plot in which the audience can get the best experience of the
film.

To acquaint us with the gangster genre, the film begins by introducing us to Pumpkin and
Honey Bunny, a couple eating at a coffee shop while conversing about their lives as criminals. In a
few minutes, we see them take out their guns and stage a hold-up. But the frame suddenly freezes
mid-robbery and the scene becomes resolute only at the end of the film. This technique intends to
make the audience feel the suspense and uncertainty by making us wait for over an hour before
knowing what actually happened after that. Writer Justin Kownacki tells us that by opening with a
mundane situation that quickly turns into a threat of violence, Tarantino tells the audience that this
is the kind of film where anything can happen (Kownacki).

Once we get to the ending we recognize that Jules and Vincent are wearing the same clothes
they wore to their big boss Marsellus Wallace’s (Ving Rhames) club which then helps us realize that
this scene precedes the club scene. By this time we know that Jules and Vincent both survive it.
What we want to find out now is whether or not the robber couple will survive it too. I think it was
necessary for the film to end with Jules’ choice to not kill the couple because he is the only character
who undergoes some kind of a metanoia. This is the most important redemption and it was cleverly
placed at the end to form an appropriate closure. For a film that somewhat glorifies violence, “it
gains its emotional weight by walking away from violence” (Kownacki) and this is a smart move by
Tarantino. This only becomes effective if it is the last scene we see. As we know, chronologically,
Vincent and Jules have yet to encounter more violence. Although we are delighted to know that
Jules had a change of heart, we become wistful knowing that Vincent will not make it because Butch
will kill him.

Editing-wise, the adrenaline shot scene is worth noting. We expect it to look nasty yet Tarantino
cuts away instead to a reaction shot where they were huddled around Mia and then simultaneously
spring back as she gains consciousness. He does not actually show the needle piercing Mia’s chest.
From a thrilling situation, the moment quickly eases up as Mia literally says ‘something’ after Lance

1/3
asks her to. Tarantino was able to balance hilarious discussions and imminent violence all
throughout the film.

Toying with chronology is undeniably a professional filmmaker’s skill. But Tarantino’s unique
skill is finding the right emotional order of the scenes to logically arrange chopped pieces of the
narrative according to their dramatic weight. That, however, is not the only real skill of this director.
Numerous reviews of this film have mentioned how its organic and thought-provoking dialogue has
rendered it a true modern classic.

Dialogue

Aside from the inventive rearrangement of its narrative chunks, Pulp Fiction is known for its
‘generation-transcending’ dialogue. Years later, iconic lines still trigger the viewers to reminisce
famous scenes from the film such as Jules’ quotation of a biblical passage: “the path of the righteous
man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.”

“It’s clear that Tarantino wrote Pulp Fiction with botched continuity in mind and carefully
plotted the dialogue around that structure,” says writer Jeff Saporito. “Although the story is out of
sequence, the dialogue isn’t. Things mentioned early in the film come full circle later on, even if the
later plot point chronologically happened first,” he adds. Film critic Roger Ebert supports this by
saying, “what is said before invariably sets up or enriches what comes after” (Ebert).

For example, a conversation about cheeseburgers and foot massages is incorporated to build
the personalities of the characters while simultaneously establishing future scenes. Inside the car,
Jules and Vincent discuss what Quarter Pounders are called in France and the degree of sexual
intimacy foot massages imply. “Both the cheeseburger and the idea of pushing the boundaries of
male-female friendship are seen again later in relation to death—one a murder, one a near-
overdose” (Saporito). We remember that Brett, whom Jules shot, was eating a Big Kahuna burger
when the two hitmen arrived at the apartment. And, Vincent went on a date with his boss’ wife Mia
who later almost died from drug overdose.

Tarantino finds a way to make the words humorous without ever seeming to ask for a laugh
(Ebert) and he can build tension without requiring a character to raise their voice (Saporito). There is
not a line that is said to just fill screen time. The conversations may sound casual and trivial but we
realize that they possess greater meaning later and that further add to the film’s beauty. Also, the
repetition of Ezekiel 25:17 in the last part added to the development of the plot because at this
point, we now see that Jules had a change of heart. As I have said earlier, this is the most crucial
point in the film. The passage he told Brett before killing him is given a new meaning now that he
chose to start a new life by quitting his job and letting Ringo go.

With all these being said, Pulp Fiction’s remarkable plot technique and a well-written script
made it a sure success. Quentin Tarantino was able to balance hilarious discussions and imminent
violence all throughout the film that hooked the spectators even after the film’s closing credits.

2/3
 Works Cited

Ebert, Roger. “Pulp Fiction.” Roger Ebert, 10 June 2001, www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-

pulp-fiction-1994. Accessed 16 Apr. 2021.

Kownacki, Justin. “The Real Hidden Genius of Pulp Fiction.” Justin Kownacki, 26 Nov. 2016,
www.justinkownacki.com/the-real-hidden-genius-of-pulp-fiction/. Accessed 16 Apr. 2021.

Saporito, Jeff. “Of All The Successful Components In “Pulp Fiction,” Why Is Dialogue The Most
Important?.” The Take, www.the-take.com/read/of-all-the-successful-components-in-pulp-
fiction-why-is-dialogue-the-most-important. Accessed 16 Apr. 2021.

3/3