Primary Colors Movie Review

As an obvious companion piece to Wag the Dog, which I revisited recently, I decided to take another look at Primary Colors, the 1998 film based on a novel that was an embellished and somewhat fictionalized version of Bill Clinton’s first primary campaign for the presidency. Wag the Dog was a year earlier, but both strike at the heart of late 90s political climate, albeit in very different ways. The first film has, in man way, improved with age, while Primary Colors has become a bit more dated. Wag the Dog remains more relevant today than does Primary Colors. That’s not the fault of director Mike Nichols or Elaine May, who adapted the screenplay (and scored an Oscar nomination, I should point out), but it is a fact that can’t be avoided in any updated conversation about the movie.

25 Years Ago This Month: January 1989

The deep doldrums of January brought only a handful of major releases. That's been typical for a long time as the theaters continue to be tied up with movies vying for big awards. So the studios tend to dump their garbage in the first month of the year so no one will notice.

January of 1989 brought some real stinkers.

First up is The Experts, starring Arye Gross and John Travolta (with mullets!!) in a late Cold War era comedy about two nightclub entrepreneurs who are drugged and kidnapped to the Soviet Union. They're placed in a town made to look and feel like a middle American town. It's populated by Soviet agents schooled in speaking with American accents and behaving "American." Travolta and Gross believe they are actually in Nebraska. America wins when the two begin indoctrinating these phony "Americans" with rock music and dancing which turns the would-be spies into America lovers.

Savages Movie Review

Oliver Stone returns to fine form with his latest example of pushing violence to excess in cinema with Savages, the film that Natural Born Killers might have been with a little restraint. Stone exhibits more control of a story that could very easily have run away from itself and of the violence depicted in it.

"Jules, You Give that Fuckin' Nimrod $1500, I'll Shoot Him on General Principle.": Pulp Fiction Analysis Part XXIV and Conclusion

Go to Part XXIII: "I had what alcoholics refer to as a 'moment of clarity.'

The Tarantino "Mexican Standoff"

Vincent gets up to go to the bathroom (remember he was visible over Honey-Bunny’s shoulder in the prologue) and a few seconds later the robbery starts. This time, Honey-Bunny’s line is “Any of you fuckin’ pricks move and I’ll execute every one of you motherfuckers.” It is slightly different from the “I’ll execute every motherfucking last one of you” she said the first time. This is another bit in the film often cited as a continuity error. Again, it doesn’t make sense that this is a mistake. Why would Tarantino have recorded the line of dialogue twice with different words each time? He also shoots the second half of the line from a different angle than in the prologue. This is another example of Tarantino having a little fun with his audience and suggesting that different perspectives and perceptions of the same event will produce different versions of the truth.

Honey Bunny is shot from a side angle as opposed to the front angle of the first scene in the film, suggesting the dialogue line change is related to differing perspectives.

"I Had What Alcoholics Refer to as a 'Moment of Clarity.'": Pulp Fiction Analysis Part XXIII

Go to Part XXII: "I'm Winston Wolf. I solve problems."

Establishing two-shot of Jules and Vincent at breakfast.

Cut to the Hawthorne Grill where Jules and Vincent sit eating breakfast. We join them mid-conversation as they talk about The Wolf and how cool he was. Then they proceed to the famous “pigs are filthy animals” conversation. The two are shot in the same frame together until they begin talking about the possible miracle they witnessed in the morning. Now they are shot singly in profile, emphasizing their disagreement. Vincent reiterates his position that what they saw was a freak occurrence and Jules can’t agree.

"I'm Winston Wolf. I Solve Problems.": Pulp Fiction Analysis Part XXII

Go to Part XXI: "Oh man, I shot Marvin in the face."

Jimmie is upset at the possibility that his wife will come home soon from her graveyard shift at the hospital to find a dead body in the garage. So the clock is ticking on these guys to get their mess cleaned up fast. Jules talks to Marsellus who lets him know he’s sending The Wolf (Harvey Keitel). Jules already knows Wolf by reputation.

JULES: You sendin’ The Wolf?

MARSELLUS: Don’t you feel better, motherfucker?

JULES: Shit, negro. That’s all you had to say.

Then we see The Wolf on the phone. Again (like Marsellus early in the film), we have a character whose face we don’t see right away, thus adding to the mystery surrounding the character. The Wolf is in a tuxedo at some kind of cocktail party early in the morning. In the background you can hear a dealer talking about laying down bets. More than likely this was some kind of all night gambling party.

"Oh Man, I Shot Marvin in the Face.": Pulp Fiction Analysis Part XXI

Go to Part XX: "We should be fuckin' dead right now."

Driving along, Vincent and Jules disagree over the significance of all six bullets missing them. Jules sees it as a sign that God is sending him a message. As such, he has decided to quit working for Marsellus. Vincent sees it as nothing more than a freak occurrence. Turning around to ask Marvin what he thinks of it all, Vincent has the gun in his hand casually pointed in Marvin’s direction. This is another moment from the first time I saw this film that I will never forget. I remember noticing the gun was there and that something was going to happen. But I never could have guessed that Vincent’s gun would fire, blowing Marvin’s head to pieces all over the inside of the car. I still laugh hysterically every time and I’m certain that’s the reaction Tarantino wanted out of this scene.

The prominent positioning of the gun in the foreground foreshadows the tragic accident that is about to happen.

Jules calls his “partner,” Jimmie (Quentin Tarantino). Although it’s not entirely clear how Jules and Jimmie know each other, the “partner” reference seems to indicate that Jimmie used to work for Marsellus. He probably stopped when he married Bonnie.

Go to Part XXII: "I'm Winston Wolf. I solve problems."

"We Should Be Fuckin' Dead Right Now." Pulp Fiction Analysis Part XX

Go to Part XIX: "Zed's dead, baby. Zed's dead."

We hear Jules’ voice yelling at Brett from early in the film. Tarantino has taken us back to where we left off. This time we’re looking at a fourth man in Brett’s apartment. He’s listening to what’s going on while holding a gun. In the middle of the Ezekiel speech we cut to Jules and we witness the murder of Brett. Then the fourth man barges out of the bathroom and opens fire on Jules and Vincent, not hitting them at all. Then, after a moment’s hesitation, they shoot the fourth man dead just as quickly as he appeared.

Notice, however, that before the fourth man opens fire on them, the bullet holes in the wall are visible. This is often cited as a continuity error. I’ve always maintained that this is very unlikely. Tarantino is a careful enough filmmaker not to make such a glaring error. Wouldn’t the art department put the holes in the wall only after they had finished shooting the sequence prior to the gunfire? This leads me to believe that there must be some reason behind the holes already being there. Perhaps it’s an indication that there was no miracle at all. The holes were there from the beginning and the fourth man didn’t actually have live ammunition in his gun. But remember I noted early in the film when we see this scene the first time, the holes are not there. What does that mean? Your guess is probably as good as mine. I would say that Tarantino is having a little fun with his audience and also suggesting something about differing perceptions of the same event. This may also explain why the first time we see this scene, Jules’ gun is emptied, but the second time around he still has bullets to shoot the fourth man. But I’m much more willing to write that off as a simple continuity error.

In this shot just before the fourth man comes out of the bathroom firing on Jules and Vincent, the bullet holes are already visible on the wall behind them.

Go to Part XXI: "Oh man, I shot Marvin in the face."

"That's How You're Gonna Beat 'em, Butch. They Keep Understimatin' Ya.": Pulp Fiction Analysis Part XV

Go to Part XIV: "Where's my watch?"

Butch has to go back to his apartment where it is very likely he will run into Marsellus’s men waiting to kill him. Why does Butch risk his life for the watch? Because he recognizes that the last three generations of men in his family made certain that the watch survived the war. Butch is part of the first generation of men in the 20^th century that was not defined by a major war. Butch has a war with Marsellus, though, and it will become so much more gruesome than he ever thought imaginable.

"And Now, Little Man, I Give the Watch to You": Pulp Fiction Analysis Part XI

Go to Part X: "That was fuckin' trippy."

Butch, as a child, sits watching television. His mother enters and introduces him to Captain Koons (Christopher Walken), who was in the Vietnamese POW camp with Butch’s father. Koons tells Butch about a wristwatch bought in Knoxville that belonged to private Doughboy Erine Coolidge (Butch’s great granddad). He wore it all during his time in The Great War. When his son, Dane, went off to WWII he took the watch with him. Before dying in battle he made sure the watch would be delivered safely home to his infant son (Butch’s dad). He then took the watch with him to Vietnam, but didn’t survive the prison camp. Koons promised to take the watch to deliver it to Butch.

"That Was Fuckin' Trippy": Pulp Fiction Analysis Part X

Go to Part IX: "Is that what you'd call an uncomfortable silence?"

As Vincent speeds along the streets, taking Mia to Lance’s house, notice Tarantino no longer uses a process shot for the moving vehicle. He maintains realism throughout the overdose sequence. After Lance hangs up the phone and just as Vincent drives up onto the lawn, Tarantino switches to a hand-held camera for most of the scene. This gives an immediacy and sense of disorder to what’s going on.

Here, the lack of a process shot adds to the realism of the scene.

"Is That What You'd Call an Uncomfortable Silence?": Pulp Fiction Analysis Part IX

Go to Part VIII: "This is Jack Rabbit Slim's."

 Vincent and Mia share an uncomfortable silence.

Vincent and Mia enter the house happy, smiling and dancing a tango. Then they have a real uncomfortable silence after they embrace for a moment. The tension is broken by Mia:

MIA: Drinks, music.

VINCENT: I’m gonna take a piss.

Mia dances around the living room, singing along to Urge Overkill’s cover of Neil Diamond’s “Girl, You’ll Be a Woman Soon.” Meanwhile, Vincent stands in the bathroom, self-reflecting in front of the mirror. It is now clear he is attracted to Mia, but recognizes the danger he faces if he sticks around too long.

"This is Jack Rabbit Slim's.": Pulp Fiction Analysis Part VIII

Go to Part VII: "I'll be down in two shakes of a lamb's tail"

Vincent and Mia pull up to camera in Vincent’s Malibu. Mia refers to Vincent as an “Elvis man.” This is in reference to a deleted scene in which Mia uses a camcorder to conduct a little interview with Vincent. She asks him several questions to learn about his likes and dislikes. She says there are two kinds of people in the world: Elvis people and Beatles people. Vincent is definitely an Elvis person.

"I'll Be Down in Two Shakes of a Lamb's Tail.": Pulp Fiction Analysis Part VII

Go to Part VII: "It's a sex thing. It helps fellatio."

Vincent slowly ambles to the door of Mia’s (Uma Thurman) house, finding a note for him to come inside and make himself a drink. In the fade from the close up of the note to the interior of the house there is a flash of the same orange glow we saw from the briefcase. If there is a motif to be gleaned from this it may be related to Vincent’s comment to Jules during the foot massage discussion: “You play with fire, you get burned.” He was referring to Marsellus’s throwing Antwan off a balcony after allegedly giving Mia a foot massage. The kids who betrayed Marsellus by taking the case also played with fire and got burned. As Vincent enters Mia’s home, he is crossing a threshold into which he will consider straying away from loyalty.

The cross-fade from the note to the interior of Mia's house brings back the mysterious orange glow.

Cue Dusty Springfield singing “Son of a Preacher Man.” This scene doesn’t do a whole lot except to show Vincent high on heroin, illustrate Mia’s cocaine habit and keep us in suspense as the camera keeps us from seeing Mia’s face until…

We don't get to see Mia's face until the next shot.

Go to Part VIII: "This is Jack Rabbit Slim's."

"It's a Sex Thing. It Helps Fellatio": Pulp Fiction Analysis Part VI

Part V: "In the fifth your ass goes down."

Jodi with the 18 piercings.

Open on Jody (Rosanna Arquette) and Trudi discussing piercing while Vincent listens. He is then summoned inside by Lance (Eric Stoltz) to make a heroin deal. Because Lance is out of balloons he has to use a baggie to give Vincent his heroin. Usually heroin is sold in balloons while cocaine is in baggies. This will be important later.

Baggies of heroin.

"In the Fifth Your Ass Goes Down": Pulp Fiction Analysis Part V

Go to Part IV: "Does he look like a bitch?"

The scene opens with a medium-close on Butch Coolidge (Bruce Willis). Although we don’t know who it is yet, we hear the voice of Marsellus Wallace (Ving Rhames) off screen giving Butch a speech about boxers who never made it getting on in age. Butch is about to be paid to throw a fight.

"Does He Look Like a Bitch?": Pulp Fiction Analysis Part IV

Go to Part III: "Let's get into character."

The mysterious orange glow emanating from the briefcase.

While the number of edits in this scene is still far less than the average film, they come at an average of one cut every four seconds, far quicker than the average for this film. Only one other scene in the film has quicker editing. This has the effect of altering the tone in such a way that the audience feels uneasy. Granted, the subject matter makes us feel that way, too, but Tarantino and his editor, Sally Menke, use editing to their advantage. They don’t simply show reaction shots, there is none of the traditional two-shot followed by medium-close followed by close-up. This scene builds upon itself until the explosion of gunfire that ends it.

"Let's Get Into Character": Pulp Fiction Analysis Part III

Go to Part II: "Royale with cheese."

A classic Quentin Tarantino shot.

Here Tarantino uses one of his signature shots – the camera-inside-the-trunk shot. Jules and Vincent ready their weapons for the hit and discuss the fact that they should have shotguns because of the number of guys that could be up there. They figure there could be up to five or six guys “counting our guy.” Their guy is Marvin, we learn later, their man on the inside. This scene starts the building of tension before the violence that is to come. We are left wondering what’s happening. We know there are two hit men on their way to a job where they could be dealing with as many as six guys, one of whom is “their guy.” We have no way at this point of interpreting what this means, so the anticipation is high.

"Royale With Cheese": Pulp Fiction Analysis Part II

Go to Part I: "Everybody be cool, this is a robbery."

Vincent and Jules discuss trivial matters before going on a hit job.

The first scene in the next sequence is probably the most famous scene from the film, certainly the most parodied, and possibly (time will tell) to become one of the most famous scenes in film history. As Jules Winfield (Samuel L. Jackson) and Vincent Vega (John Travolta) drive along they discuss trivial matters regarding the “little differences” between Europe and America. We don’t know where they are headed at this point, but we will find out they are two hit men about to carry out a job. Tarantino puts this scene in because it’s something we’ve never really seen in a film about hit men. What do these guys do on the way to work? They talk about the same things regular people discuss. Revisiting the film for his Great Movies series, Roger Ebert notes that “it is Tarantino's strategy in all of his films to have the characters speak at right angles to the action, or depart on flights of fancy.”[i] Whereas many screenwriters use dialogue simply to further the plot, Tarantino uses it to add color to his characters and vitality to the story. For Jules and Vincent their job is just a job, even though to us it is an extraordinary profession.

---

[i] Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun Times, 10 June 2001.

Next chapter: "Let's get into character."

Reordering Convention: Introduction to an Analysis of Pulp Fiction

Following is the introduction to a full shot-by-shot analysis of Pulp Fiction that I did several years ago. This is not meant to be an essay or thesis, but rather an examination of the way Tarantino uses shot setups and narrative devices to effectively tell his story. I will try to post one new section a day over the next few weeks.

Since its release in October 1994, I have seen Pulp Fiction about eighteen times from beginning to end, including six times during its initial theatrical run. No viewing has ever compared to the first time when I was sixteen years old and not yet aware of what the film medium could accomplish. I was not yet versed in film history and I hardly knew from where director Quentin Tarantino was deriving most of his inspiration. All I knew after that first time was that movies did not merely have to be plot-driven. To borrow from Gene Siskel, movies aren’t what they are about, but how they are about it. Movies can be inventive, witty and can change the way we look at motion pictures.