Pulp Fiction question
- Thread starter planet
- Start date
Jack Hawksmoor
New Member
The problem with this take is that the film is grounded in reality, so the entire plot veering off into the realm of magical realism that this theory suggests seems somewhat out of character when compared to the rest of the script.
It's a good theory though, it just doesn't fit into any of the themes of the movie.
Personally, I always thought Tarantino was a bit of an egomaniac who likes to mess with his audience, so I came to the conclusion that the item in the case was a copy of the script for PULP FICTION.
Goodbye to the fourth wall.
PUMPKIN
(softly)
Is that what I think it is?
Jules nods his head: "yes."
PUMPKIN
It's beautiful.
Jules nods his head: "yes."
Given the above exchange.
"It" would have to be recognizable to a practiced street criminal of the area at a minimum or perhaps the general public as a more widely known famous item or recognizable treasure or valued item of some sort.
Since people are not practiced in knowing what a souls physical manifestation would be I would rule that out. I would think a physical manifestation of a soul would bring a reaction more like WTF is that!?????
And a general freak out afterwards.
Though referring to the item as "it" does imply a singular item, but I suppose
if it was the jewels from Reservoir Dogs and word on the street was they were missing they could be called "it' collectively.
(softly)
Is that what I think it is?
Jules nods his head: "yes."
PUMPKIN
It's beautiful.
Jules nods his head: "yes."
Given the above exchange.
"It" would have to be recognizable to a practiced street criminal of the area at a minimum or perhaps the general public as a more widely known famous item or recognizable treasure or valued item of some sort.
Since people are not practiced in knowing what a souls physical manifestation would be I would rule that out. I would think a physical manifestation of a soul would bring a reaction more like WTF is that!?????
And a general freak out afterwards.
Though referring to the item as "it" does imply a singular item, but I suppose
if it was the jewels from Reservoir Dogs and word on the street was they were missing they could be called "it' collectively.
Shendorion
Well-Known Member
Maybe you don't need any practice to recognize a soul when you see one. Maybe its appearance communicates its identity easily to the viewer, imparting understanding in the same way that the Apostles and others have been able (according to the Bible) to deliver a message verbally that could be understood by anyone, regardless of what languages they spoke.
It might sound farfetched, but once we're far enough out there to entertain the possibility that some guy is carrying around his boss' soul in a briefcase while the aforementioned boss is out having adventures of his own, I think we've made most of the journey already.
madmikeee
Sr Member
Not that I have ever found. I have read more than one interview with him where he says how much fun it is to constantly make up different things that it COULD have been.
Jack Hawksmoor
New Member
Maybe there isn't enough coke in Los Angeles to get Tarantino that high to come up with such an ambitious theory you raise up.
I beg to differ. If you saw something that is undescribabely beautiful, but you had no clue as to what it is, what would you say?
Have you ever seen something for the first time and thought it was beautiful? It doesn't take knowledge of what an item is to recognize it as beautiful, even the soul of a human.
Well i think it's a stretch into the paranormal and the film really never went that way anywhere else. And why would he want the "soul" from Jules anyways?
What are you going to do with it? why would it stay contained in a briefcase?
Lots of magical stuff has to star applying at that point. Pulp Fiction is a crime drama.
Not a Dr. Strange comic book.
What are you going to do with it? why would it stay contained in a briefcase?
Lots of magical stuff has to star applying at that point. Pulp Fiction is a crime drama.
Not a Dr. Strange comic book.
It's not Jules' soul, it was Marceluses soul that he sold to the devil but wanted back.
Jules and Vincent were hired by Marcelus Wallace to get the soul back. They were once angels that had fallen and now are banished from heaven.
In fact there are a lot of bible and god references in the movie so it is NOT far reaching at all. Like the briefcase lock number being 666. It is more biblical than a crime drama.
I am not religious at all but it all seems to fit all too nicely to ignore.
There are even references in other texts to suggest that the Bandaid on Marceluses back of the head was were the devil extracted his should from.
But again, this is my interpretation of it.
Last edited:
I meant why would he want the "soul" that Jules had in his possession in the briefcase. I mean what are going to do with that? You wouldn't know whose it was. Go on Oprah with it?
Pour it back into his neck for a price????
And Marsellus was fine, he was talking, walking and in possession of his individuality and everything that was him. A soul is supposed to be you right? A body without a "soul" would be a drooling empty vessel shouldn't it?
I don't think a few biblical references make the supernatural a possibility, rather a near death event simply made Jules awaken to a religious side of himself.
And given the guy shooting was basically spraying and praying without aiming, it's not that much of a miracle.
From IMDB...
•Quentin Tarantino has said that the band-aid on the back of Marsellus Wallace's neck had nothing to do with an allusion to the Devil stealing Marsellus's soul... but that the actor Ving Rhames had a scar on the back of his neck he wanted to cover up.
•According to Roger Avary, who co-wrote the script with Quentin Tarantino, the original plan was to have the briefcase contain diamonds. This seemed neither exciting nor original, so Avary and Tarantino decided to have the briefcase's contents never appear on screen; this way each filmgoer could mentally "fill in the blank" with whatever struck his or her imagination as best fitting the description "so beautiful". The orange light bulb (projecting shimmering light onto the actors' faces) was a last-minute decision and added a completely unintended fantastic element.
•In a radio interview with 'Howard Stern' in late 2003, Quentin Tarantino was asked by a caller the contents of the briefcase, and he answered, "It's whatever the viewer wants it to be."
•Quentin Tarantino has said that the band-aid on the back of Marsellus Wallace's neck had nothing to do with an allusion to the Devil stealing Marsellus's soul... but that the actor Ving Rhames had a scar on the back of his neck he wanted to cover up.
•According to Roger Avary, who co-wrote the script with Quentin Tarantino, the original plan was to have the briefcase contain diamonds. This seemed neither exciting nor original, so Avary and Tarantino decided to have the briefcase's contents never appear on screen; this way each filmgoer could mentally "fill in the blank" with whatever struck his or her imagination as best fitting the description "so beautiful". The orange light bulb (projecting shimmering light onto the actors' faces) was a last-minute decision and added a completely unintended fantastic element.
•In a radio interview with 'Howard Stern' in late 2003, Quentin Tarantino was asked by a caller the contents of the briefcase, and he answered, "It's whatever the viewer wants it to be."
theheathen
New Member
It is clearly the Holy Grail.
What would you guys do without me -
( Taken from the Jackie Brown double disc commentary)
So what was in the briefcase in Pulp Fiction?
QT: I like all kinds of movies and draw from the masters. People may not believe this but every character who comes in contact with the case are all from another film - background characters who never had names but I gave them backstories and showed where their lives had taken them thanks to missing out on one thing - the thing in the case. Willy Wonka's golden ticket. Not being able to visit the chocolate factory as children really effected the players and they all became criminals because they feel life had cheated them. I grabbed the two opening characters from a couple of characters that can be seen in the candy story tearing through Wonka bars - Honey Bunny candy can be seen next to the little girl so I gave her that nickname, like maybe that was her sweet of choice. Watch Charlie & The Chocolate Factory and I'll bet you can find the other characters. Or don't, I could give a ****. Did you know Chris Nolan stole Inception from Donald Duck!! So don't give me **** for grabbing a few characters from ******* Willy Wonka!!
( Taken from the Jackie Brown double disc commentary)
So what was in the briefcase in Pulp Fiction?
QT: I like all kinds of movies and draw from the masters. People may not believe this but every character who comes in contact with the case are all from another film - background characters who never had names but I gave them backstories and showed where their lives had taken them thanks to missing out on one thing - the thing in the case. Willy Wonka's golden ticket. Not being able to visit the chocolate factory as children really effected the players and they all became criminals because they feel life had cheated them. I grabbed the two opening characters from a couple of characters that can be seen in the candy story tearing through Wonka bars - Honey Bunny candy can be seen next to the little girl so I gave her that nickname, like maybe that was her sweet of choice. Watch Charlie & The Chocolate Factory and I'll bet you can find the other characters. Or don't, I could give a ****. Did you know Chris Nolan stole Inception from Donald Duck!! So don't give me **** for grabbing a few characters from ******* Willy Wonka!!
rodneyfaile
Sr Member
Say "what" again!
I dare ya!
Similar threads
