SPOILERS: I love love love "Death Proof" too. I like to think that the girls in the first half of the film are connected as characters to those in the second half. I thought of it as revenge by proxy, in a way. You could think of the crash as a crazy midpoint. There's such a great Marion Crane element to those first girls. It's also sad to think that you're watching a group of fun loving kids on the last night of their lives. Look at the plans, the hopes, the minutiae in the final minutes of our lives. Such a great movie and great script.

Crikey, that was fantastic, Scott ... and I agree wholeheartedly ... the movie doesn't work unless it's told in the order than it is ... it has to end with Jules' big speech ... and Vince needs to be alive for that ... but Vince also needs to die for his choice ... how to do it?

Re DEATH PROOF, not one of my favorites of QT's, but you know who LOVES Deathproof? Todd Alcott ...

and he also did a three section breakdown / analysis of it that is quite extensive ... I highly recommend it - find it here: http://toddalcott.livejournal.com/tag/tarantino

Wow. First of all, thanks for that great Pulp Fiction breakdown, Scott. Very eye opening, gave me quite a bit to think about.

Secondly, Joshua, THANK YOU for that link to the Alcott Death Proof analysis!!! Probably the best thing I've read on that film. Again, very eye opening and answered quite a bit of small, nagging questions for me!

"So what did you learn on GITS today Jeff?"

Well, if you ARE going to break convention and go non-linear, you'd best have ALL your ducks in order - - visually, metaphorically, stylistically, and narratively. Otherwise, suffer the fate of all these QT clones - - dreck!

Thanks again guys, appreciated!

Brilliant stuff! I'm excited to watch Pulp Fiction again and digest the whole lecture. However, although I enjoyed Death Proof at the time and consider it an achievement, I don't think I'll be watching it again. My stomach can only handle so much...

Scott,

Great analysis. Movies are usually about choices and their consequences. After the "miracle," Jules decides to get of "the life" and "walk the earth." He survives.

Vincent continues on with a his life of crime and pays the ultimate price.

Another interesting parallel: In the diner scene, Vincent leaves to go to the bathroom. (When he returns, he almost starts a bloodbath.) In the Motel Room Scene, Vincent ends up going to the bathroom and that's where he dies... when Butch returns for the watch.

Scott,

If I didn't know better I'd sue for plagiarism:) I wrote a detailed review of Pulp Fiction a few months ago in which I came to exactly the same conclusion: the order of the story is not chronological, it's thematic. I first started thinking about this when I read McKee's comment in Story that the writer's choice of scenes, and the sequence he presents them in, reveals the worldview of the story. So I began to wonder what the significance of Tarantino's sequencing was, and of course it's immediately striking that the script begins and ends with a scene which, chronologically, is actually towards the beginning.

The only thing I would add to your excellent analysis is that the sequence of the other sub-stories is also significant: they present moral choices of increasing gravity and seriousness. First we have Vincent who is faced with the choice of staying loyal to Marcellus in spite of Mia's flirtation, then we have Butch who is faced first with the choice of taking a lot of money to throw the fight (though we don't see much of that), and then the choice of either running for his life or going back to help his mortal enemy.

And finally, the most significant moral choice (at least according to QT), is the response to divine revelation: when you're given a sign to repent, what do you do with it? Jules' choice is much more serious and consequential than the others, because they only had to do a decent thing which they might have done anyway...but Jules has to give up his entire life style, the only thing he's good at, to put down the gun and be a shepherd.

So in the end, surprisingly, the universe of Pulp Fiction is moral to the core, despite its apparent outer wrapping of postmodern, nihilistic violence.

Fascinating stuff. I've read recently (perhaps here) that Jule's spiritual transformation is what makes this film a classic. True enough, without it, the film does seem rather shallow.

Interesting too that Jules doesn't completely convert (he still disposes of a body), but does at least seem to be going in the right direction.

Same holds true for Butch, who feels nothing about the fact that he killed a man in the ring, but still goes on to risk his own life for the sake of his enemy.

I believe the reason Pulp Fiction works is that Tarantino created a whole system which has those stereotyped typical characters ( Thugs- Boxer refusing throwing a fight, hitmen) be put in humane situations.

He showed us a noble side in these characters. Thus we have empathy for them. All that with genius dialogue and the structure made it all work amazingly.

And yes Nonlinear Storytelling served this purpose.

Great Job MR Scott!!

BTW Death Proof is very very disappointing.

Great analysis. Thanks!

Terrific analysis, Scott!

What I find interesting is Tarantino DOES use a traditional 3 act structure (possibly 4), but as you pointed out, he uses those acts in a non-traditional fashion by ordering them by thematic intent rather than by chronology.

I think the big difference between QT & his imitators is his daring and unique "choices" may seem arbitrary, but once we really consider the stories & themes, there's no other way they could have been as coherently told with as much emotional impact.

" The sequence ends with a “Fourth Man” emerging from the bathroom, blasting away at Jules and Vincent, only to end up dead." No it does not. It ends with them blowing Brett away. Its when we come back to this sequence in the end that the 4th man comes out. It is not a cheesy cliffhanger ;)