Pulp Fiction and the Power of Characters

Last week I had the not so fun experience of getting my wisdom teeth removed. Getting teeth ripped out of your mouth or drilled out in multiple pieces, as was the case with me, is a pretty awful time. Certainly not the way you want to spend the last week of summer break. But I had big plans for this week, plans that involved smoothies and movie binging, with Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction being at the top of my list. Many view this as one of Tarantino's top films and I was tired of the criminal look flashed my way when mentioned that I hadn't seen it. So I popped a few pain killers, pressed an ice pack to my cheek and settled onto the couch for this 2 hour 34 minute film.

A lengthy Tarantino movie is not unusual as most of his recent films are over 2 hours, sometimes pushing 3. I personally struggle at times sitting through long dragged out movies, but have never really had a problem with Tarantino. Both Django and Inglorious Bastards had a rich plot that carries the viewer through the experience, so I was unfazed by the long run time of Pulp Fiction.

The film draws you in quickly with it's strong dialogue and early action, bringing you into this dark and seedy world. Each seen brings a new circumstance that makes you question who's good and who's bad, what the consequences will be for each character and overall where is the plot heading? Every time I tried to convince myself that the story was leading to something big, it cut to something else, something new. It wasn't until around the 1 hour mark that I accepted the fact that plot was secondary in this film.

The thing that makes Pulp Fiction so captivating are the many personalities throughout. Each scene is pretty much used as a character piece giving the actor a spotlight to shine. Every character is so interesting and unique in their own way that as a viewer you stop thinking about the plot and more about the people. Tarantino doesn't diverge completely from formulaic story arcs as each little part of the film has a climax that is resolved before moving on to the next sequence. And things throughout the film are not actually in chronological order which is nowhere near as confusing as it sounds. Tarantino does a great job in navigating the viewer through by breaking up the different plots by titling each sequence change. For instance we see "The Golden Watch" flashed over black before jumping into Bruce Willis' story. Thanks to strong writing and direction all the actors in this piece were able to shine in this film.

What Tarantino has also done well in past is his ability to write and make a movie within a genre. A recent example is his most recent release, Django. In this film he was able to create a new and creative twist on the old school Spaghetti Westerns. With Pulp Fiction, Tarantino does a great job of creating a film that falls within the Pulp Noir genres. For those like me who didn't know what that means I looked it up. According to the internet, "Pulp noir locations are often seedy, run-down and degraded urban landscapes, where the lack of law, morals and even the proliferation of crime and drugs are common themes. Another common trend in pulp noir is the glorification and/or demonization of its urban locations." This definition almost perfectly represents the world created within the film. In Pulp Fiction, Tarantino was able to create an all time great movie built on it's characters and setting.

Quentin Tarantino

Recently I have become quite obsessed with Quentin Tarantino films. Although I have seen some of them in my past, it was not until quite recently that I became in fascinated with the infamous Tarantino. All of his films are amazing because each of them are unique in their own way. It is hard to pick just one as a favorite, but if I had to pick my favorite, which is very hard, it would most likely be Django Unchained mainly because of the character Dr. King Schultz. 

Recently I re-watched Pulp Fiction, Django Unchained, and Kill Bill Volume 1 and 2. All three of these Quentin wrote. He also directed these three as well. After re-watching these movies there were connections that I never originally noticed. For anyone that has never seen the Kill Bill series, which you should, the group of people in the movie include, a kungfu master, a blonde leader, a demolition expert, a french fox, and as well as the deadliest woman in the world with a knife. After re watching Pulp Fiction, there was a scene that I had never really put much thought into. In the dinner scene between Mia and Vincent, Vincent asks her about the pilot episode she starred in. As she goes on to explain it, she is explaining the group of people in Kill Bill. This blew my mind because Pulp Fiction came out in 1994, where as Kill Bill did not premiere until 2003. I loved how Quentin added this little part into Pulp Fiction, describing basically the draft of Kill Bill. Maybe he did not even know he was going to write that as a movie, or maybe he did but either way I found the connection interesting. Another connection he had was in Pulp Fiction, the character Captain Koon, has the same name that is on the Wanted sign in Django Unchained. The wanted sign displays the name Crazy Craig Koons. 

Yet another one is the character of Vincent Vega in Pulp Fiction, is brothers with Mr. Blonde in Reservoir Dogs. Tarantino mentioned wanting to make a separate movie with the two brothers, however Vincent Vega dies at the end of Pulp Fiction, so it would of had to of been a prequel. 

 

Obviously this is nothing new, Tarantino is known for having these small connections put in his films. All of these connections are small and subtle and Tarantino adds small little witty lines that hint at all of these connections. Many people have found other small hints in his film and have theories of which character is related to who, and what not. 

One theory I found interesting is in Django Unchained. While searching the web for these connections I found a theory on the Miramax website that speculated about Dr. King Schultz and why he was in the bounty hunting business at all. In the beginning of the movie, Django asks him how long he has been a dentist

and he answers with he had given up dentistry almost five years ago to become a bounty hunter. Dr. King Schultz never talks about family much, but it is speculated that his wife, PAULA, left him and that is why he took up the business. Later his wife realizes the terrible deed

she has done and goes out seeking him, only to find he has been killed by Calvin Candie. After hearing this she is so devastated she never gets married again, and keeps Dr. King Schultz’s last name. Finally she dies in 1893, buried with the tombstone that says PAULA SCHULTZ 1823-1893. Sound familiar? That’s the same grave that Beatrix Kiddo is buried alive in almost one hundred years later. This I found really interesting. Although there is no evidence to prove that Paula Schultz was intact Dr. King’s wife, the name is the same, and the date matches the time she could have possibly died.

Quentin Tarantino is possibly one of my favorite film makers. Not only are the stories he writes creative, hilarious, and captivating, they keep the audience wanting more. And because he knows how to insert descriptions of random people, he can build of that and create other films that connect to each film he has made. 

Watch the video below, many of Tarantino's best movie scenes are put together 

Here are some links on the interesting connections, theories, and comments of Tarantino films!

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/01/17/the-intricate-expansive-universe-of-quentin-tarantino

http://geektyrant.com/news/2013/6/15/quentin-tarantinos-pulp-fiction-and-kill-bill-connection.html

http://www.miramax.com/subscript/how-django-unchained-is-linked-to-pulp-fiction/

Quentin Tarantino's Imminent Retirement

This week, Quentin Tarantino released more information about his upcoming Western, The Hateful Eight. Production on the film was postponed indefinitely earlier in the year by Tarantino when a confidant leaked the script for the film to the general public, but the famed director seems to have changed his mind, deciding to move forward with the project. Casting speculation has proven to be generally accurate, with actors such as Tim Roth, Bruce Dern, Michael Madsen, Samuel L. Jackson, Walter Goggins, and Channing Tatum being officially or almost-officially attached to the project. However, the buzz surrounding The Hateful Eight mainly concerns Tarantino's assertion that he will retire as a director after his 10th film, leaving two more to go after The Hateful Eight. Tarantino's recent comments raise an issue that has often plagued filmmakers, musicians, and other artists: is it better to burn out, or to fade away?

I just don’t want to be an old-man filmmaker. I want to stop at a certain point. Directors don’t get better as they get older. Usually the worst films in their filmography are those last four at the end. I am all about my filmography, and one bad film f*cks up three good ones … When directors get out-of-date, it’s not pretty.

Tarantino's recent interview with Playboy reveals that his retirement plans are based on mostly on his concern over his artistic legacy. I think there's a lot that's admirable in Tarantino's belief that a director's body of work must stand as a whole at the end of his or her career. A student of film history, Tarantino must be a strong believer in the auteur theory. He also stands by all of the films he's done, and hopes to retire proud of every one that he makes. However, as his audience, I'm sure many of us would love for him to continue making films until he is completely out of ideas. Tarantino acknowledged the possibility that he may go beyond ten if he feels like he has a strong enough artistic reason to do so:

If I have something to say, I’ll do it. I haven’t made any gigantic declarative statements. I just don’t want to be an old filmmaker. I’m on a journey that needs to have an end and not be about me trying to get another job. Even if it’s old and I’m washed up, I’d still want to do it. I want this artistic journey to have a climax. I want to work toward something.

Whatever Tarantino ultimately decides, it's clear that the movie-going public is excited for The Hateful Eight.

Interstellar and the Fear of Non-Digital Projection

As of right now, we are just three weeks away from getting the chance to see Christopher Nolan's highly anticipated space adventure, Interstellar. Already drawing 2001 comparisons from the few that have seen the film, it appears to possibly be marrying the technical wizardry and ambition of Kubrick with the sentimentality of Spielberg (who was originally attached to the project). A series of cryptic, but visually stunning trailers have stirred the hype and major Oscar buzz is flying.  

However, what I want to talk about here has nothing to do with story specifics or awards prognostication. Not too long ago, it was announced that Interstellar would open two days early with 35mm and 70mm screenings in select theaters. It's an exciting proposal and a rare one for a big studio like Warner Bros. to make. Nolan is known to be a strong advocate for film preservation and with the kind of clout he has in Hollywood these days, the fact that he is using the podium to draw attention to film quality should not be surprising. The special screenings are sure to be popular with fans, but it is proving to be a point of concern for some theater owners.

In a recent article by Kevin Jagernauth of The Playlist, it was found that a sizable number of theater owners view the early release as "devaluing the digital push," with one CEO making the claim that "It makes no sense to step back in time."

The reactions are a sad indication of the film business we live with today. While the artistic community celebrates and treasures film showcases such as this one, the suits and moneymen look askance. Now, to be fair, much of the derision is coming from those who did away with old projectors and recently went full digital at the not-so-subtle suggestion of the studios, so the prospect of missing out on a major pre-release must be frustrating. However, to say that this move "devalues" the digital push seems a bit hyperbolic and misguided. No matter how big the early numbers for Interstellar are, there's no way it's going to turn the tide back to traditional projection. It's about the expression of the artist and I feel like some of these folks need to see past the dollar signs and recognize that.

Digital is here to stay, period. Of course, that is until the unfortunate day when theater viewing becomes obsolete and everything (including physical media) instantly goes to streaming and VOD, but for now, digital is firmly set in place and as film lovers, we need to champion the few directors (Tarantino, PT Anderson and Scorsese to an extent) that still flash the extra cash for the privilege of working with film. It may just be ladling water out of a rapidly sinking ocean liner, but I'm glad that some big names are standing up for the format.

I Love Tracking Shots

I have always loved tracking shots. When done right, the fluidity of the camera movement, the timing and work that goes into them results in cinematic magic. Some however are more successful than others; here is a list of my personal favorites.

 Kill Bill Vol. 1

The first time I think I was ever really aware of a tracking shot was in in my all time favorite move Kill Bill. I first realized I liked the shot well before attending film school, and before I even knew what a “tracking shot” was. The almost 2 minuet shot is relatively short compared with some of the other more famous ones, but still worth mentioning. The ambitious shot was done after 17 takes, but was completed in one day. “I got bounced around pretty good,” said Larry McConkey the veteran steadicam operator, “I never actually hit the ground, but I hit just about everything else.” 

Goodfellas

This is perhaps the most famous shot on the list, and the most well known. This iconic opining shot was however actually an accident. At this time in Scorsese didn’t even like to use steadicams, however when he was not allowed to go through the front door, he had to improvise. He decided to do the long shot through the back door to “symbolize Henry’s whole life being ahead of him, doors opening to him. It’s his seduction of Karen and it’s also the lifestyle seducing him.” This shot took eight painstaking takes to get right. 

3


Boogie Nights

This film has two iconic tracking shots, the first taking a page form Goodfellas. It takes us around the Club and introducing us to many of the main characters in the film in a 3 minuet seen. Then next shot was later on in  the movie during a house party, it follows William H. Macy looking for his wife, and ends with the double murder of his wife and her lover, and his suicide. 

How Much Special Effects is Too Much?

We are in an odd time for film where many films are created with the use of so much green screen and special affects that it's become frieghtning to some filmmakers. Directors like Quentin Tarantino will one day leave the industry because of the increase in special affects and the decreasing use of film in the medium. Some say it is the death of cinema and to a degree I would agree. Cinema as we knew it is dead, but it is not gone.

With superheroes soaring over the box office it's no surprise why cgi and special affects are dominant in the industry today. But the question is can there be too much of it? Well lets look at a some examples. If you compare the Star Wars prequels to the original trilogy it is easy to see that the more recent films use a ton of cgi and special affects. And because of that so many fans of the series will immediatley credit that to why the prequels are abysmal compared to the original trilogy. The way I see it is the reason those films are not as great is because of a lot of other issues that could be discussed for hours on end. But in short that is not even close to why those films are not amazing. I'm not saying that there can be bad cgi and special effects. Oh no there can be really bad special affects that can ruin a whole movie (I'm looking at you The Mummy Returns) but as time progresses the use of cgi only helps the film industry.

Stories, stories and more stories. I said it now and I will say it again, with more ways and deviations to creating a film the more different stories can be told. Look at Gravity and ask yourself if that movie could have been created ten years ago. Or Life of Pi? Both of these films used so much cgi and special effects that it becomes hard to know what's real and what isn't. Without special effects both of these films would not exist. It's all about how you go about using them really. Look at The Guardians of the Galaxy and Dawn of the Planet of the Apes and their use of special effects. It may sound dumb but both of these films made me cry. And the even worse part is that it wasn't the human actors that made me cry, it was a talking tree, a talking raccoon and a talking monkey (this is just as hard for me to type as it is for you to read). The use of motion capture has advanced so far that these creations have become believable and at times really something special. So at this moment in time it's not about how much special affects you want to use but how you go about using it. Write a good story, with great characters, make a film beautiful, and then you can add as much special affects as your little heart desires.

Alex Buono and SNL's Djesus Uncrossed

Like many of you, Saturday Night Live has always been one of my favorite shows on television. I've always been amazed at how the cast, crew, and writers can assemble a full live show in only a week. However, in recent years, filmed segments have become more and more prevalent on the show, with the rise of The Lonely Island's digital shorts and other pre-taped skits. These segments also interest me for a couple of reasons: they almost always perfectly capture the tone of what they're trying to parody; they excellently utilize the hosts and other special celebrity guests; and they have amazing production value for the short amount of time they're assembled in. As a fan of these skits, I was thrilled earlier in the year to discover the personal blog of Alex Buono, the DP for SNL's film unit. My favorite post of his details the production of Season 38's Djesus Uncrossed sketch, a parody of Tarantino's Django Unchained, starring that film's Christoph Waltz.

The blog post details the full production of the sketch, from Buono receiving the script at 9am on Thursday morning to the finished sketch airing around midnight on Saturday night. Some highlights include insight into a location scouting process where shooting was to begin the next day, the insane shooting timeline required by SNL's tight production schedule (the crew never shot with Christoph Waltz during the day), and the specifics of aping Tarantino's distinctive visual style from a cinematographer's standpoint. This specific sketch required the use of a crane to capture the cinematography of Bob Richardson, Tarantino's go-to DP, which is a rarity for SNL. Buono's entire blog offers insight into the kind of work that goes into a high-stakes, high-pressure production job. The technical advice throughout the blog is invaluable, and it also gives you a real sense of how crazy a real-world shooting schedule actually is. Below you'll find links to the Djesus blog post, the main link to the blog, and the finished sketch!

http://www.alex-buono.com/

http://www.alex-buono.com/how-we-did-it-snl-djesus-uncrossed/

WARNING: The violence in this is pretty cartoonish, but you may not want to watch it if you're squeamish.

DJesus Uncrossed (Saturday Night Live) from razorgrind on Vimeo.

When Will Film Die?

How many movies in a theatre have you seen in the past year that were shot on film? You could probably count them out on one hand. And at this point everyone knows why that is. Money, money, and more money. With the cost of everything else that is squeezed into a film production it is easy to understand why cutting something that is so expensive is reasonable. Digital movies are cheaper, most times easier to make, and way easier to manipulate in post production. The fact that cinema is dead is nothing new but the question is whether film stock will disappear forever?

 

The simple answer is no. Film is what created this industry and art form into what it is today. And with all the signs of film dying out it may look like it but the fact of the matter is that film will always have it's place. In a similar way to painting you can see the evolution of the materials used to create that art. Using acrylic paint does not mean that your painting is any better than a painting with oil paint. It is just different. And like movies that choice is made because of cost or the personal preference of the filmmaker. The way I see it is that without digital their would be a lot less films and a lot less films means a lot less stories. And who wants that? I don't care what you make your film on or what type of camera you used, just make a film. 

I will not lie and say that you will see a lot of film in the future of Hollywood but with enough money or power their will always be analog. Directors like Chris Nolan, J.J. Abrams, and Quentin Tarantino have fought through the Hollywood main stream to support film. And even in July banned together with the help of their respected studios to support Kodak in it's effort to continue the production of film stock. Nolan and Tarantino have been behind film since the start of their careers and Abrams is currently shooting Star Wars: Episode VII on 35 mm. Hollywood will and always be a business and it's not a surprise why you will rarely see a movie shot on film in a AMC or Regal. In a way it's sad to see less and less of film but always remember that its out there. And movies will always be made. 

Check out the story below:

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Quentin-Tarantino-Chris-Nolan-J-J-Abrams-Save-Film-From-Extinction-66537.html

The Wilhelm Scream

Like many of us in this class I am a huge movie buff. I enjoy watching movies almost to a fault, and one thing that I am very good at is remembering lines and scenes. Mainly because I watch films again and again. This is why I wanted to clue some of you in on arguably the most famous sound effect in movie history. The Wilhelm Scream. This sound effect is a stock sound effect that has been used in over 200 films, usually to represent someone dying. Whether you've noticed it before or not, you have undoubtably heard it if you have seen films like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Saving Private Ryan, and even animated films like Toy Story and Hercules.

The sound effect is credited as first being used in the 1953 films The Charge at Feather River, it gets it's name from the character, Wilhelm, who gets shot by an arrow. Since then it has become sort of a running gag among some movie directors. Most notably George Lucas, Quentin Tarantino, and Peter Jackson, who pretty much use it in every film.

The thing that I find so funny about it is that the director's are making a conscious choice to include this sound effect in their film. I originally thought it might just be a coincidence, but the sound effect is used in too many movies for nobody to know. Christ it has it's own Wikipedia post  for it.

However if you still don't believe me, here are two videos dedicated solely to the use of the Wilhelm scream.

... And the other one.

Hope you enjoyed it.

Django!

Quentin Tarantino is truly a bold filmmaker. If you couldn’t tell he really, loves spaghetti westerns. But for his version of a spaghetti western, he doesn’t just explode the conventions of the genre; he uniquely and creatively molds all aspects of the genre into a sincerely fun experience. 

Django Unchained stars Jamie Foxx as a slave who is purchased by a roving dentist/bounty hunter named Dr. King Schulz (Christoph Waltz), who agrees to free him and help him find his wife (Kerry Washington) if in return he will help track down a trio of killers called The Brittle Brothers. What proceeds is the growth of an unusual friendship and a whole lot of violence and excitement. 

This film is beautifully constructed in which, Django goes from being a slave to being not only a free man, but also a professional bounty hunter, trained by Schulz and becomes his partner. There are encounters with an amusing predecessor of the KKK (played by Don Johnson), a small town sheriff who is not what he seems and, the very proper southern plantation owner, Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio), along with his right hand man, house slave Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson), who is absolutely hilarious in every one of his scenes. 

Frequently, Tarantino gets us to laugh at the most outrageous situations and then we stop for a second feeling uncomfortable, just before going ahead and laughing at the next shocking situation. But there is not that is exactly the reaction he wants. 

He also wants the audience on the edge of their seats in tense moments and very emotionally touched in others, and it’s his use of completely inappropriate humor in such a deliberate manner, and to such a brilliant effect, that makes his films what they are. His ability to do this is just one of the things that separates him from his imitators. 

Another one of his great qualities is his ability to fold quotes from other films (and even his previous work) into his movies. In this film there’s one particularly moment that comes directly from Kill Bill. The moment takes barely a second, but it’s a moment of great violence and beauty.Tarantino also uses music from his favorite other films and recreates them in clever ways to enhance his unique way of directing even more. The soundtrack for Django Unchained makes use of music from a number of westerns in a mix with a few original songs and splendid mash-ups but everything seems to flow together genuinely. 

Django Unchained is kind of a typical Tarantino film in that it’s a lot of violent, bloody fun, BUT also in that it deals with a very serious topic in a mocking manner. Nevertheless I advise everyone to go see this film whether you like Tarantino or not!