Name: Grace Higgins

‘Unfamiliar approaches to narrative can be both difficult and exciting for the
spectator’. Discuss this comment in relation to your film study. (20)

As a piece of postmodern cinema, it seems fitting that ‘Pulp Fiction’ (Tarantino: 1994) has a
unique approach to its narrative. With its cult following, it would suggest that this approach
appealed to its spectators.

With such an experimental approach to narrative, ‘Pulp Fiction’ did encounter some
difficulties for audiences to follow. An example of this is through Vincent’s death. Typically,
narratives run in a linear order, a technique used since the beginning of Hollywood cinema.
To contrast this, Vincent is shot halfway through the film, with a closeup of Butch as he kills
him in his apartment, before fleeing moments later. The lingering closeup shot of the now
deceased Vincent could confuse some audiences, as in later scenes he is seemingly alive due
to the irregular narrative. Another reason that the narrative structure may prove difficult to
comprehend is through character alignment. Given that Vincent and Jules are the earliest
shown protagonists (as implied from the second scene with the over the shoulder shots in
the car), it seems unusual that Butch has a backstory, and is seemingly the only character to
have a denouement. His main introduction is of this aforementioned flashback, showing a
younger version of himself with the watch as a macguffin. The closeup of the watch, along
with the dialogue from Captain Koons allows thorough reasoning behind the significance of
this macguffin, whereas the contents of the case that Jules and Vincent are ordered to
protect is never fully elaborated on, making it difficult to decipher the true main character/s
of the film. Typically in Hollywood films, there is a clear distinction between the main
character/s and the supporting cast, showing Tarantino’s interpretation of the trope. The
non-linear narrative when placed in chronological order could technically account for Butch’s
flashback as being the start of the narrative, as it seems to employ a domino effect, and the
ending of said narrative is shown from a worm’s eye view shot of Butch fleeing with
Fabienne, the angle of the shot emphasising his power. This true ending is seemingly
overshadowed by the western style shots of Jules and Vincent leaving the diner, once again
with a low angle perspective to demonstrate their power. This further enhances the
confusion towards the protagonist/s, as it seemingly aligns the spectators’ focus on their
ending, rather than Butch who was seemingly the main character. In terms of typical
Hollywood protagonists and antagonists, there is usually a clear distinction or binary
opposition, a technique Tarantino disregards. Instead, the characters can be viewed from a
hierarchy, from amateur to professional, as all characters have been involved in some form
of criminal activity, from closeups of Honey Bunny and Pumpkin robbing the diner, to Mia
stealing Vincent’s heroin. As a result, it can be difficult for audiences to truly align
themselves with any character. Not only do the narratives switch focus, such as Jimmie’s

1
Name: Grace Higgins

monologue to the torture scene with Marsellus Wallace, but each character can be seen
partaking in morally questionable activity. For Vincent, one of the supposed protagonists, he
is seen shooting Marvin from an external wide angle shot in order to emphasise the extent
of the violence. This action is then followed by, “Oh man, I shot Marvin in the face”, showing
a sense of carelessness towards the lives of people inferior to him (given the proposed
hierarchy). For Jules, he shoots innocent victims at Brett’s apartment, while quoting Bible
verses, an act of contrapuntal dialogue portraying him as hypocritical. As for Butch, he not
only accepts an illegal bribe, as is demonstrated by a radio report played diegetically in a
taxi, but he repeatedly attacks Marsellus, his only redemption being when he stops the
vicious attack on his former rival, but even this takes some consideration.

In terms of excitement for spectators, it could be argued that ‘Pulp Fiction’ has a lot to offer
with its unconventional narrative. Its nonlinear nature allows for moments of comedic relief
that otherwise wouldn’t occur. An example of this is the detour to Jimmie’s house, as both
Jules and Vincent are being sprayed with a garden hose, with centrally framed shots of
Winston Wolf and Jimmie both seemingly laughing at the misfortune of the two hitmen. The
abrupt costume change from professional-seeming black suits to oversized brightly coloured
t-shirts and shorts is similarly comedic, due to the contrast from earlier moments in the film.
It could be said that this adds meaning for the final scene in the film, with the celebratory
western style exit, as the two unseemly heroes stand up to the amateur robbers, with close
up shots of them spinning their guns, showing utter professionalism despite their
circumstances. Additionally, the unique flashback with Butch creates a sense of urgency to
see him find his watch, the handheld camera movement building suspense as he makes his
way to his apartment. It could be said that the decision to place Vincent’s death in the
middle of the narrative creates a sense of intrigue, as in later scenes, such as at the diner in
his familiar bathroom shot, asking the spectators why the story has been told in this
particular order, and allowing them to try and piece together the narrative themselves,
arguably making the film more personal. Seemingly, smaller side plots have limited impact
on the rest of the narrative, notably the diner scene with Mia Wallace. The diner itself seems
to pay homage to spectators, who can identify many different references to other films ,such
as ‘A Band Apart’, via a poster in the mise-en-scene, or the reference to Marilyn Monroe
visible from a background actress. Whilst this scene arguably doesn’t contribute to the
narrative, it could be said that this scene is meant to interest spectators by featuring the
most pop culture references out of any scenes in the film, creating a sense of pride
whenever homage can be identified. This could also be the reasoning behind many of
Vincent and Jules’ conversations, such as the McDonald’s discussion in the beginning of the
film. The arguably useless dialogue allows for greater attention to be paid to the more
experimental cinematography Tarantino uses, such as the cuts from inside the car to outside,
perhaps alluding to the similar shots during Marvin’s death. Similarly, the lighting as the two
discussing foot massages and potential anger from Marsellus regarding the subject (as he
reportedly threw a man off a four storey building, which Mia dismisses in the diner) could

2
Name: Grace Higgins

perhaps foreshadow the aftermath of his rape, as the situation itself is underplayed by the
70s surf music played over his anguished cries. Tarantino’s ‘dysfunctional’ narrative could
result in closer attention from the audience, searching every scene for meaning, through
dialogue, costume or cinematography, in order to distinguish recurring patterns throughout
the film.

To conclude, it seems that Tarantino’s non-traditional narrative is favoured by spectators and

critics alike, defining the film as postmodern, resulting in a shift in newer Hollywood films.