Reading ‘Pulp Fiction’

While even some professional critics are having trouble delineating why exactly they’ve fallen in love with “Pulp Fiction,” several of the film’s elements that have spurred such critical and moral outrage among those who don’t get it can be addressed by those who do (Saturday Letters, Dec. 31, Jan. 7, Jan. 14).

First, the structure: Why does Quentin Tarantino jump from the middle of the movie to the end and then back again? Why is this so inspired?

This is confusing way too many people--and speaks to the fact that too many people aren’t reading enough books these days. “Pulp Fiction” is loosely based on so-called pulp crime novels, and, as any fan of the genre can tell you, it’s not uncommon when reading this kind (or any kind) of novel to stop in the middle, jump to the end, read the last chapter to see what happens, then go back to where you left off.

Tarantino has stated that the reason he wrote the movie is that he wanted to attempt this kind of structure. That he did so with a movie and still kept our interest is nothing short of brilliant, innovative filmmaking.

Next, why are critics falling over themselves applauding a movie without a single redeemable character--how could anyone say this should win a best picture Oscar?

First, there are far too many movies made with nothing but saintly, redeemable characters. Like it or not, characters like those in “Pulp Fiction” do exist--and why not have a movie about them for a change? That we haven’t seen this movie again and again as we have with so many others is exactly the point. How many truly original movies are there out there right now? On the second point--please refer “Midnight Cowboy” and get back to us.

Finally, the “violence” issue. Anyone who complains that “Pulp” is an overtly violent movie wasn’t paying attention. Moment for moment the movie contains less violence than an evening newscast. Granted, there’s a great deal of “bad language,” but, aside from three or four broadly played acts, this alleged violence is merely perceived because of the overall attitude of the piece. This, again, is a tribute to the filmmaker’s skill as a writer and director.

RUS STEDMAN

Encino