Pulp Fiction is shallow. That's the entire point of it. It's a faux art film that rages against pretenious arty cinema by using pretentious arty cinema techniques to make something wholly original and just plain cool. It's the best style as substance film ever made (arguably, I suppose). In fact, it's so fucking great at what it tries to accomplish (being cool and as unpretentious as possible) that most people don't even realize it does that for a reason. Film's about film are always going to be appreciate on a deeper level by those who care about film. Pulp Fiction is one of the few films about film that's able to transcend that. When I talk to most people about the movie, they don't ever offer up something insightful about what the movie is about, they just quote lines and talk about how awesome it is. That's exactly what the movie wants to accomplish. And it does, magnificently.

There was a time when I saw the film as something akin to Tarantino's mission statement, but he's had too many moments of self-importance and ego bloatedness in his movies for me to say he rages against pretension anymore. Instead, it's an incredibly important, influential singular work from a director capable of, but not always delivering, great, important movies.



I've seen all 3 and I agree. All three are excellent, but The Naked Spur is the least of the 3. Winchester '73 is both a panoramic view of man's place in the West, complete with test of manhood after test of manhood, and an existential deconstruction of of the West. If Stewart earns the right to kill his brother and be a savage, what does that say about man and his place in the world? Or, and even better, is that even savage in the West? Is it just the natural progression of things in that world? Given what takes place in the film up to that moment, I'd argue that it is. Of course, the greatest thing about the film is that it works completely as entertainment on the surface without even thinking about any of those questions. A truly great, subtle film.

I guess I should clarify. Things have been kinda tough on my end...not to tell a sob story or anything like that...

But the somber, mellow mood of the film...the cinematography, the music, the Driver, everything in that film struck me. Feelings of loneliness, isolation, the need to connect with the opposite sex...was something that I saw in the Driver that I've kind of been feeling myself here the last few months. I don't know...I just felt that movie. Saw it twice.

You know what's a great fucking scene? I may or may not have mentioned this before, but it's the one where they're having the welcome home party for the husband. The Driver is outside in the corridor. Mulligan comes outside and just stands there. They exchange some dialogue but it feels unimportant. Everything that needs to be said in that scene comes from the actors' looks, from the way the scene is lit, from the throbbing score and the way it's shot. So damn good. Wish I could see it again. I hear you about "feeling" it too.

Jesus Christ, I wish the world would hurry up and end if this is what we have to put up with in the mean time. I'm done talking about this shitty movie in specifics, because it isn't worth my time. But I just have one comment: Ed, try showing the scene to the most casual of casual viewers, who doesn't give a fuck, whose favorite movies are Die Hard, Indiana Jones, the James Bond movies, etc, and try convincing him that it's a good scene. Tell me exactly what he will get out of it. Better yet, why not show the film to a group of, say, 10 people, of both genders and all ages, but whose movie love/knowledge was equally narrow. Think they'd like it?

Who fucking cares?

Yeah...I know your M.O. is to be pissed off all the time, MGames, but I don't get your point here: does greatness need to present itself to the average film-goer? Are you saying that if greatness cannot be explained, then it's not great? Honestly confused as to your point here...

Dude...then stop talking about it and allow us to.
I like it...and that's enough.


Fucking a...why am I feeding this guy?

I fucking care dude. I want to make a living off of this, and I'm not gonna do that by being a liberal introvert who "doesn't fucking care" what other people think. I've spent every day of my life trying to read and interpret the way movies work and why people react the way they do so that maybe someday I can succeed. Film is a business where you have to earn a living; it's full of directors whose names you've never heard of, and they didn't get where they're at by masturbating. They got there because they needed the work, just like anybody else. Spielberg and others may be born artists, but that doesn't change the fact that if they didn't do what they do, not only would they not be well off, they'd be on the street. Unless you remember that being a film director is a job like any other job, you have NO HOPE of understanding the art form. And it's an insult to say that you don't care what other people think; it's an insult to them and an insult to people who aspire to create films that people want to see. If you don't understand the value of group/audience opinion, Ken, then you, not me, have no love/like/basic understanding of film. I don't need to hear that my personal career commitments don't matter, because god forbid there's one person on this forum who actually wants to make movies instead of just watch them.

And my example, which I suppose is over your head, proves that any greatness you see in Drive is entirely inside your head. Ed made a claim about the film that I don't think he can possibly back up. Okay, if the lighting is so important, then what the hell does it mean? Because to me, it wasn't clear at all. At the end of the film, I still didn't know if Standard suspected Driver of hitting on his wife. I knew that that would be the typical trope of the situation, so I assumed it. But Refn conveyed nothing about it.



YES, it goddamn well does. And YES, that is exactly what I'm saying. Otherwise I could film a static shot of a stop sign for an hour and call it great. Shade, please, please, please try to understand how pretentious your first question is. I just don't understand why you don't see it.

I'm going to stop you right here and tell you that you will never make a cent at film criticism if you continue to cop this bullshit condescending attitude toward the people who read your stuff. Nobody is ever going to care about what you have to say until you learn how to say it like a properly socialized adult, and the fact that people here are still bothering with your troll bait is only because they're good-natured enough to give you the benefit of the doubt.

I'm going to stop you again. You're no more of an intellectual than anybody else here, but you're the only one who makes it a point to speak to other people with a completely unearned sense of smugness and superiority.

If that's too far over your head, I'll put it another way. Lately, you've been unwilling or incapable of expressing your opinion without being a dick. I can't speak for anyone else here, but you and I are done. I don't care about anything you have to say any longer until you learn to mind your manners.

Thanks for stopping me, but if you'd bothered to read the rest you'd understand that I want to be a film director, not critic. But don't worry, if I wanted to be a film critic I'd have already learned that lesson from what happened to Armond White. So much for freedom of speech.

I (and Ken, I believe) very much understand the value of audience appreciation from a money-making and mass-enjoyment standpoint, it's just that I don't care about it that much. Heaven forbid good art be challenging: do you idolize Bay and Tyler Perry? People sure love their movies. Ken wasn't saying he doesn't care what anyone thinks, he was referring to the very specific group you mentioned of casual film-goers who think Die Hard is the best movie ever made.



Are you so sure there aren't? Perhaps not everyone feels the need to bring it up as if it adds value to an opinion. Perhaps some here are filmmakers further along the road than you are right now. You're making a lot of assumptions with this sort of statement.



Could you just try to make an argument without belittling the other people involved? Ken could simply turn the statement around against you and claim that you don't understand it, and it would be equally valid, because there's no substance to your statement here. You've done nothing to "prove" that his enjoyment of Drive is inside his head. I'm not saying that's not possible, but you haven't done it here.



What's wrong with being pretentious, if all I mean by that is I am asking that people apply some level of skill to how they consume film? True and deep appreciation of any form of art takes a bit of work (as we've discussed and agreed on). Some movies scream greatness, some gradually reveal themselves as great. You could make the same claim in any form of art.

You've made it clear that you want to make films that are good but also appeal to the masses. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. If making those sorts of films was an easy task we'd see them every weekend, and we obviously don't. If you aspire to be/place great value on Spielberg, there's nothing wrong with that. At all. But to me (and others) he and those of his ilk are great storytellers, but sometimes nothing more. I respect him, but he's nowhere near my personal top list of favorite directors. I want depth of character and truth about life. I do get that that sounds pretentious in a more negative sense, but I don't give a fuck because it's totally sincere. I don't like Killer of Sheep or Floating Weeds because I think it makes me look cool, I like them because they speak deeply and directly to me.

I agree with you that greatness must be explainable, but that doesn't mean that everyone must understand it.



Oh please dude. You sing the praises of Spielberg and slam Nolan. You think Drive is a pile of shit and that everyone just likes it because they are stupid. Nothing wrong with any of that, but that describes half the people 18-24 that I know. Don't even try to paint yourself alongside White.

Uhhh....I don't think so...unless you're one of them? Or maybe Nolan's hiding around here somewhere. By all means, somebody prove me wrong, but I really don't think so.



Yeah, we agreed on this, but here's the truth behind that statement: that work, unless it encompasses actual practice of the form, and thereby true understanding of the process behind the form, then that "deep appreciation" to which you refer is useless.

Now, that practice is not limited to production. By all means, criticism counts. But treating film as a mere hobby can only go so far.

At least you're comfortable admitting pretension, but sincere pretension is still pretension. How the films relate to you should not be important.



Can you please send those people my way? I didn't realize there were so many Armond White fans in that age group. I'd love to meet them, I'm getting kind of lonely defending him.

James Bond and Indiana Jones are among my favourite movies. That makes me an idiot, right?

Well I've long maintained anyone who thought the first Die Hard movie was a great film was an idiot, but James Berardinelli gave it 4 stars I think, so if you're an idiot, you're in good company

I was never a huge fan of Die Hard but films like Goldfinger and lately Casino Royale are among my all-time favourites.

I don't think this makes me an idiot. I might well be an idiot for other reasons, but not this.

I never understood why he ranked it above every single Bond film.



Ken, I wish you'd rethink this statement. Maybe we both got out of line, but I don't see why it has to effect our discourse on any other topics that happen to come up. Whether you're willing to admit it or not, my input to this forum has been largely interesting and positive to most members here, including you, even if I have a tendency to be mean or offensive or crass. Not everything I post here is nasty, and not all of it is especially arrogant either. I'm always sincere; I don't think any other members mistake what I have to say for troll bait, and I hope you don't either. I'm actually a nice guy in real life, so I'll try to bring more of that part of myself into discussions. So let's just forget the whole thing.