In this fifth installment exploring Pulp Fiction's treatment of redemption, we consider Jules' famous scene with Brett; he had asked Brett if he
knew why a Quarter Pounder with cheese was called a Royale with cheese in
France. Brett proved he was a smart guy, figuring out that a Quarter Pounder
with cheese can’t keep the same name in France… “because of the metric system”
(“Check out the big brain on Brett…you’re a smart mothe…”) It was on the basis
of his right answer that Jules could “lay his vengeance upon him” – because he
should have known better.
Jesus often asked people
questions before answering theirs, as a way to qualify them, allowing them to
declare how much they know. “If they are smart enough to know this, then
they’re smart enough to know that.”
Tarantino’s
most intriguing treatment, though, may be on another minor character, Marvin,
in three scenes.
1. Jules
asks “flock of seagulls” where the briefcase is, Marvin begins to answer and
Jules most abruptly cuts him off with “I don’t remember asking you a
[expletive] thing.” Marvin spoke up when it was not necessary (strike one);
2. Vincent
asks Marvin “Why didn’t you tell us there was another guy with a hand cannon
hiding back there?” Marvin did not speak up when it was necessary (strike two);
3. Later in the car, Vincent asks Marvin what he thinks about
the nature of the events back at the apartment. As the 3rd part of a conversation in which
opinion is evenly split (Jules says it was a miracle, Vincent says it wasn’t),
Marvin essentially had the “deciding vote.” Rather than be hot or cold, Marvin
opted to remain lukewarm, to sit on the fence and answer “Man, I don’t even
have an opinion” which was essentially no answer to the question (strike three).
Vincent’s gun goes off, killing Marvin. He wonders if perhaps Jules hit
a bump in the road while driving, which Jules emphatically rejects, “The car
didn’t hit no [expletive] bump.”
Although Marvin is a minor character, he is used to demonstrate that
there is neither exemption from nor circumvention of judgment. It also is
noteworthy that Vincent should play such a role in Marvin’s demise, inadvertent
as it was – like Marvin, he would miss his opportunities and pay the ultimate
price.
Speaking of "missing"...later, when asked "Who's in the
trunk?", Winston says "No one who'll be missed." Sure, it could
be considered a meaningless piece of dialog, but perhaps there is something
more being said. The connection here is that Marvin's apparently intended
purpose was to give Vincent pause to consider his own situation. Had the lesson
of Marvin resonated with Vincent, Vincent would have lived to miss Marvin. But
since Vincent would not learn what the Marvin incident should have taught him,
he would not live to miss him.
I tend to think the death of Vincent Vega (discussed previously) is the primary tragedy
offsetting the triumph of Jules. A lot of time is spent on Vincent: he was
there when Butch Coolidge made a deal with Marcellus; he was trusted to provide
company to Marcellus' wife, something that, if misshandled, could have resulted
in his getting thrown off a balcony, etc.
As we are first introduced to Pumpkin and Honey Bunny, we are next
introduced to Vincent and Jules, and it was Vincent's vacation that provided
the context for the interrogation of Brett. The minor characters of Brett and
Marvin help Vincent and Jules both advance towards their destinies; and
ultimately help set up the challenge to Pumpkin and Honey Bunny, who leave the
restaurant and must now recognize and change, as Jules did; or miss this most
miraculous opportunity at a second chance, as Vincent did.
----------------------
Go back to
- Installment 1 - Trying hard to be the shepherd: Pulp Fiction and Redemption
- Installment 4 - The Wolf is the Lamb: Pulp Fiction's Saviour-type
See series list
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
What do you think?!