Oscillating Wildly

Rating: 7/10 (22 November 2004)

Have you ever gone from one extreme to the other on an issue? Our President excluded, many of us change our minds about things on a daily basis. When it comes to philosophies or preferences, we're not static creatures because we realize obstinance is not a virtue. We change, we evolve - that is to be human.
Well, my opinion of Pulp Fiction has underwent several cataclysmic upheavals since I first saw the film in its year of release, 1994. I was 14 and, without exaggerating, Pulp Fiction shattered my concept of film. I'd never been so excited, intrigued and in love with a film. It forced me to reconsider what quality cinema was - it was no longer just the greats, the Best Picture winners, etc. Great cinema could be anything - old gangster movies, film noir, B-horror flicks, 1950s melodrama. The film also prompted me to explore film on a more academic basis, as I began reading film theory and film criticism regularly.
I worshiped at the shrine of Tarantino and watched everything he put his hands on - be that Destiny Turns on the Radio or 4 Rooms.
His other work (even Reservoir Dogs, which, I am convinced, is nothing more than a decent first film) disappointed me, but I never once second-guessed Pulp Fiction. Jackie Brown in 1997 re-affirmed my faith in the man, but then he disappeared and a funny thing happened, I second guessed Pulp Fiction.
The dialogue, which I once thought brilliant, was not stilted and forced - a little too hip for its own good. The acting was all right, but seemed weaker than I remembered, and the once brilliant story became trite. The masterpiece became, in my eyes, pretentious, though still watchable fare. On my list of 100 favorite films, it fell from the top-10 to the upper 70s.
Years went by, I continually found myself drawn to Jackie Brown (I think it's Tarantino's most mature wok and a wrongfully maligned masterpiece), but I avoided Pulp Fiction. A friend who had never seen the film asked one day if we could throw my copy on and it was like watching it for the first time.
Everything that seemed forced or trite was brilliant. The dialogue that seemed overly stylized now seemed perfectly stylized and, really, perfectly at odds with the plot, which, though it contains recycled elements, became an energetic, hyper-kinetic, and amazing narrative again.
Pulp Fiction quickly returned to the top of my favorites list. Why the swift rising and falling? I have no idea. It could be that QT created a film that is so tied to its audience's state of mind that their reaction to it is a complete crap shoot for him. That's doubtful. What I think truly happened is this: my adolescent mind reacted to its pop-culture references and its manic pace. It was hip and cool, really, and therefore perfect for your alterna teenagers. I matured, grew disdainful of things hip and cool (it was obviously cooler to dislike things that were cool right?), and so began disliking PF. I grew up a little more, became a little more perceptive, and therefore able to appreciate exactly what QT does with narrative and dialogue. Pulp Fiction, though this may seem odd, is a very subtle movie. Its brilliance at first seems superficial, but dig a little deeper and you'll find a film that is narratively amazing and that carries emotional weight. It's not all style; it's not just hip. It's an intelligent and wonderful movie and I don't think that I'll change my mind on it again.