Its not the greatest film of all time- it is what it is: merely pulp fiction

Rating: 8/10 (15 November 2005)

Quentin Tarantino's noir-ish and unconventional (contextualising it at its time) postmodern masterpiece did launch the Independent Film industry and put Miramax on the map (spanning a slew of ensuing films in 'Trainspotting' and 'Lock Stock' and circular time-line film structure duplicates in 'The Usual Suspects' and 'Memento') and I agree on all counts that this film is movie-making genius in most ways- from its sheer originality, stylized offbeat nature, slick camera-work, catchy soundtrack (who can forget the Miserlou track) and considering it fathered a genre and was way ahead of its time in 1994 all the way to the fact that it contains a celebration of nuances shared in terms of countless film references ranging Francois Truffaut (Jules et Jim- Samuel L.Jackson's character), Robert Wise (Boxing as the sport of choice for film noir), Robert Aldrich or Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho (the hilariously dark 'action' scene between Bruce Willis' character and Ving Rhames' character). I agree that it shaped culture from the 1990s and beyond because it shed light on film-making's ability to function as an underground Americana social commentary, dealing with taboo themes and gritty content but twisting it with a dose of black humor in its eclectic dialogue of rough poetry that plays on ironic wit and borders on poker faced matter-of-fact cynically irreverent pretentiousness. Now, my qualm essentially is that with such a quality film, we can raise critique of it to the level of thematic analyses and subsequently, the broader sense mass pop culture influence that the film through no fault of its own, but given its impact and critical acclaim, invariably glosses over. Whilst 'Redemption' and intervention may be the themes central to the film as evidenced by th story where each character has to make an error, face judgement and then redeems themselves, inasmuch as that helps Pulp Fiction get dubbed as one of the greatest films of all time, and the quintessential nouveaux independent film industry's kick-starter, what I disagree with is that the film's cult status takes it to the point where the film is seen as redemptive in itself as an entity. True the film may deal with all issues from the oddball and in a very rambunctious way make dark humor acceptable, but it does not change the fact that there is an issue not so much with social responsibility (screw that) but more so with a question I have about: purpose. I personally cannot (not that anyone cares about my opinion anyway) in my view give this film top billing because on top of the fact that it deliberately misquotes biblical scripture to prove Samuel Jackson's character was basically a pseudo philosophical inanity designed to flatter to deceive, I actually start to wonder whether that element was a synonymous microcosm of what the film was doing in general- flattering to deceive? And more so because I concomitantly wonder, just what is the point of Pulp Fiction anyway? It carries no greater lacing, no greater meaning, and other than being new and refreshing as compared to the commercial fare grinded out at its time and in the wake of its immediate predecessors, by those tokens could only possibly be a revolutionary film, and not a great film, certainly not as lofty as its accolades thus far have deemed it. Then again, perhaps that too is a rhetorical question given that the quote at the start goes, to deal with "lurid subject matter" characteristically put on rough, unfinished paper. Maybe we can substitute paper for film? The problem with this is that I find it serves itself more as an anti-mainstream film (speculating that until 1994 all or most films including the cult classics that it references) proud to linger over its ostensibly 'classic' small stories. It pompously celebrates itself with every element of itself (that I've listed at the start of this review) carrying a touch of over-rated pretentiousness to the film such that it assumes just assembling references to great film styles (now we know Tarantino paid lots of homage to all the great films he watched whilst still a video store clerk) makes it capable of being a top film. In my opinion, this is no fault of the film per se but more so the expectations raised by such an over-rated film. For me, it lacks the heart or element of tragedy that comes with the nature of the content it displays- some say that its very strength- because it has no clear heroes/villains/right/wrongs, but for me that is its weakness - an emotionless diatribe that masks itself very well. Black Masks itself, and that is it- Pulp Fiction- pulp content that fictionally sells more and I accept its critical acclaimed role in modern indie cinema, but it must not be overrated and esteemed more than that.
I give it: 8/10