Well let me say first that I am glad that you read through my nonsense. We're very close in the what that we see in both PF as a movie and likely Tarintino in general. I hope that I didn't imply that you didn't like the movie (I'm not going to look at my post again, because that wouldn't be fun) because I specifically tried not to assume that. I also hope that you don't see it as argumentative, but more discussion because I just like talking about this shit. To add, I also agree that QT is much better behind a pen than behind the camera when he has people helping him reign in as you say. Okay on with the show! I was weary of writing about pulp in such a way that was almost dismissive and I know there are others (was it Bradbury, maybe Heinlein, maybe all of Sci-fi) that could definitely have fit into the mold of the common pulp magazine. What I was really trying to express was the idea of "Pulp as genre" rather than "Pulp was crappy". He's not making New Wave, but he's certainly using enough elements (Pumpkin and Honey Bunny being almost complete rip offs/continuations of the characters from Breathless but I digress). I feel like calling it 70s exploitation is too plain and subtle for the movie, but I get it. Okay these are fightin' words! (Please don't really hit me though because I'm weak). C'mon man it's easy to dismiss things as not being art because you don't like them. Who cares if it's art you don't like, it's still art! Justin Bieber is still an artist even if he is backed by Sony(tm) or whoever he's selling shit for. What I get though is that the fans of Pulp Fiction are surprisingly, or unsurprisingly like the fans of Bieber. Taking something that they love and putting so much of their own interpretation into it that they make it their own and then become attached to it. What I REALLY think you and I are going to find common ground with is that PF is really overstated. I still think it's a good movie and it has a lot of merits, but I don't think it will stand the test of time. Overall I'm glad I got this out of my system, so thanks. Now I just want to start movie threads.Nobody gives a shit about French New Wave except hipster film students (who mostly bring it up to annoy people who claim to "like movies") and Tarantino. Meanwhile, "pulp fiction" gave us Raymond Chandler, Robert Howard and Edgar Rice Burroughs. Some people see Maltese Falcon. Others see "royale with cheese."
Doesn't really matter, though, because Tarantino isn't actually making French New Wave cinema. He isn't actually worshiping the pulps. He's actually making 70's exploitation cinema which the whole world has turned away from.
Tarantino convinced an entire generation of film buffs that he made "art" so they could enjoy ultra-violent revenge movies about nothing without feeling guilty.
Yes, I appreciate the discussion and no, we don't disagree on a lot. Put it this way - I think Tarantino gets a lot more rope than any other director because he's Tarantino, and I think he's Tarantino because of Pulp Fiction. And I think Pulp Fiction isn't that great. In my opinion, it's not a dynasty-building film. Let me restate "art" - "the uneasy alliance of art and commerce" has been used to describe Hollywood so many times that nobody even knows who said it first. Some people make pure art - like Godfrey Reggio. Some people make pure commerce, like Michael Bay. Most people end up somewhere in the middle. Tarantino is held out as an "artist" by "Bieber fans" (to use your phrase) because then they get as much street cred for blasting "U Smile" as that obnoxious Emo fucker in 5th period does for prattling on about Nirvana. But it's still "U Smile" and they're still "Bieber fans" and all the backward-handed attempts to turn it into Dylan is tedious.