Pulp Fiction

BFI Film Classics

by Dana Polan

In this book, Dana Polan sets out to unlock the style and technique of Pulp Fiction. He shows how broad Tarantino's points of reference are, and analyzes the narrative accomplishment and complexity. In addition, Polan argues that macho attitudes celebrated in film are much more complex than they seem.

Genres: Film, Media Tie In, Nonfiction, Art

96 pages, Paperback

First published August 26, 2000

About the author

Dana Polan is Professor of Cinema Studies at New York University. He is the author of The Sopranos, Julia Child's The French Chef, and Scenes of Instruction: The Beginnings of the U.S. Study of Film.

Reviews

[Andrew Wesley · Rating 3 out of 5]

I re-watched the film on the back of this book. I saw it at the first ‘unofficial’ UK screening in Nottingham in 1983 or whenever, so was in my early 20s.

The book could have been a lot shorter in the sense of just saying that it’s impact was because me and mates that age had never seen anything like it. The story was cool, dialogue cool, set pieces cool, everything about it was stylish. And it had John Travolta playing against the types I remembered him for. And I was old enough to get most of the cultural references. And not knowing in advance how the story would be told made it better.

Since then I’ve seen a lot of the films referenced in it - Deer Hunter, Deliverance, Kiss Me Deadly, the Set-Up - and acquired a not insignificant early Kool & the Gang record collection…

I guess my point is that this book over analyses a film that is just defined for me by its style, and spends too much time in the cul-de-sac of fandom.

If you’ve not seen it, just watch the film…

[Patrick McCoy · Rating 3 out of 5]

I’ve been enjoying the BFI Modern Classics series in general, but I think Dana Polan’s essay on Pulp Fiction is one of the weaker entries that I’ve come across in the series. I think that the author spends an inordinate time discussing the popularity of the film on the Internet, which includes incorporating recounting sophomoric responses from ill educated commenters. I would have rather read a more thorough discussion of how one of the “Anti-Tarantino” websites suggests that he has “stolen” most of his conceits from other films. Polan merely states that the author suggests that Tarantino has borrowed wholesale from the Hong Kong action film Cities of Fire for Reservoir Dogs, while also claiming that Tarantino has also borrowed conceits from whole series in the case of Pulp Fiction –citing Sonny Chiba action films where the hero quotes bible versus before dispatching his victims. However, the validity of these claims is not discussed. Granted, Polan does mention that there is a fairly well known take down of the film by critic Robin Wood who discusses Pulp Fiction’s failure in his defense of Greg Akraki’s The Doom Generation. That being said, there were some original ideas that I was unaware of: Polan does discuss Tarantino’s appreciation of New Wave filmmaker Goddard (see his production company name: A Band Apart), which was something that I might have previously overlooked. Also, she puts forth the theory that the reason Vincent gets ambushed by Butch in the bathroom is because Marcellus has left the gun on the kitchen counter rather than Vincent himself (I don’t buy it, but it’s the first I’ve heard of it). However, I do think that Polan gets the film right in the end after discussing what some critics see as the main failing of the film: that there is no overall moral message or overriding point at all. Polan suggests it is “Style winning out over substance,” and I agree that this is overall point of all of Tarantino’s films.

[Kimia almasi · Rating 4 out of 5]

عالی بود. ولی باید بیشتر میبود

[Philip · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not quite as eye-opening as the Taxi Driver pamphlet which introduced me to the series. Polan has found a slightly interesting link between the film's structure and the ways in which people use the internet. It's an interesting point if made only in passing, but it somehow becomes Polan's thesis. It's slightly intriguing that home computers and internet surfing coincide with Pulp Fiction's release and therefore provide a medium ripe for fanboy mania. I could see where this might be a worthy topic of an essay in 2000, but it seems dull and played out now. I wish that the film's place in and references to the history of cinema was further explored, as I find this more interesting in 2013.

[Druss · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very interesting analysis of the QT classic. One of my favourite movies and it certainly gives food for thought. It would be interesting to hear what the man himself thinks of the analysis. Some points stretched methinks but makes you look at the movie in a new light.

[Paul Bryant · Rating 4 out of 5]

I remember seeing Pulp Fiction first time round – it was the vertigo inducing wtf moments like when Vincent accidentally shoots the guy sitting in the back of the car, or when the Gimp is brought out, or the spectacular adrenalin shot to the heart revival of Uma Thurman, plus the ultracool funny dialogue plus the brainjangling nonconsecutive plot, and almost no dull moments in its 2 hours 34 minutes that I enjoyed so much. And the rocket fuelled soundtrack with many unearthed gems.

The author here says that Pulp Fiction is the all time beloved film of geeky fanboys in their 20s and 30s and if so there are a lot of them because this is still the 8th most popular movie EVER on IMDB.

Watching it again in 2023 and several things jump out that did not before. The hip dialogue has many cringey moments. The spraying around of the n word from the mouth of one of the white characters grates (this character played by QT himself) – the author comments

Pulp Fiction rarely wavers in its admiration for all things black. The use of racial epithets is a manifestation of this admiration

and then there is the silly jokey lines like

I’ma get medieval on your ass

or

This shit’s between you and the soon-to-be-livin’-the-rest-of-his-short-ass-life-in-agonisin'-pain Mr Rapist here

and the pompous long quotation from Ezekiel ("The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish" &c) which Jules comes out with THREE times is tiresome. And there’s a white saviour moment (when Butch rescues Marcellus from the gimp owners) that might jar modern sensibilities. (The author says that this scene isn’t racist but it is probably homophobic).

So we can probably call Pulp Fiction flawed (heck, what movie isn’t?) and too desperate to be hip and too appealing to the sensibilities of the young males and WAY too overpraised, but still. You have to see it once. John Travolta is great!

[Mahbod Kahnamouei · Rating 4 out of 5]

پالپ فیکشن، از همون بار اولی که دیدمش، برای من جایگاه خاصی داشته و داره. به طرز مسخره‌ای دوستش دارم. حتی سری اولی که دیدمش - فکر کنم ۱۳ یا ۱۴ سالم بود - داستانش رو درک نکردم و ازش جا موندم. ولی مبهوت اون زرق و برق تارانتینویی‌اش شدم. این کتاب هم چیز خوبیه. اطلاعات مفیدی درباره‌ی پالپ فیکشن و خود تارانتینو می‌ده. و خوبیش اینه که گریز می‌زنه به منظرهای متفاوت و دگم نیست. شاید تنها ضعفش این باشه که سال ۲۰۰۰ تالیف شده. ولی با توجه به اینکه در اون سال‌ها پالپ فیکشن به نسبت امروز خیلی تو چشم‌تر و پررنگ‌تر بوده بشه این رو چیزی منطقی تلقی کرد.

[Ali · Rating 4 out of 5]

یک مجموعه‌ی به شدت خوب از تک‌نگاری‌هایی اکثرا درجه‌ یک از آثار مهم تاریخ سینما. حتما اگر علاقمند به سینما هستید و اگر در اثار موردعلاقه‌تون در سینما به دنبال کشف عمیق‌تر و بیشتری هستید این سری خوب از نشر خوب(!) رو از دست ندید.

[Simon · Rating 3 out of 5]

Re-read for A Level Film teaching.

[Jeff Miller · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent edition of the BFI series.

Polan examines the film, the director and the reaction to it in a detailed, intelligent and insightful way. The level research is as you would expect from this series, with critics including bell hooks and Julie Burchill, and interesting input from actors and their experiences in making it.

I drop a star because I feel it's ready for an update; the book was written in 2000 when Tarantino only had Dogs, Fiction and Jackie Brown under his belt and a large focus is on the 'fan culture' aspect of websites dedicated to both the film and the director. Discussions about the use of language and potential homophobic / misogynistic content are interesting to read as almost historical opinions, as the world has changed so much since 2000, let alone 1994 when the film was made. A reappraisal would be very much welcomed from a critical / academic view...although I don't think it would change my reaction to the film which I saw again fairly recently and was amazed at just how fresh it is - probably because it does live in its own universe (as discussed in this book) and as such tech, style, culture doesn't really change...

[Christopher · Rating 2 out of 5]

I have been reading books in this BFI series since the early 1990s (my first was Salman Rushdie's essay on "The Wizard of Oz"). The better ones combine rigorous historical research with insightful critical analysis. This one is not as weak as my least favorite ("Back to the Future"), but it falls far short of the near perfection of the volumes on "Groundhog Day" and "Singin' in the Rain." The author seems to have little respect for the intrinsic artistic merits of the film (so why did he write the book, you may ask), and spends far too much time listing now out-of-date websites about Tarantino. To see what Polan can do, read his BFI essay on "In a Lonely Place," instead.

[Caroline · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think some interesting points are brought up about the film that I hadn't considered, but agree with other statements that it just talks a lot about the popularity of the film more than the bigger meanings in the movie itself.