Pulp Fiction: The Redemption of a Gangster

Pulp Fiction is an amazingly popular film. It ranks in the top ten on Internet Movie Database's member ratings and it's actually number one on Your Internet Movie Database ranking. It has become something of a touchstone film for a generation of moviegoers, it rescued Travolta-briefly-from obscurity and turned Tarantino and Samuel L. Jackson into household names.

I want to touch upon two of those facts in this article. Travolta had risen to stardom in the 70s on the basis of the TV show Welcome Back, Kotter. Soon thereafter, his movie stardom was cemented with Saturday Night Fever and Grease. By the late 80s, however, he had pretty much fallen off the A-list and seemed destined to return to TV. And then Tarantino came along.

A lot was made of Travolta's performance. He even scored an Oscar nomination and, for a few years at least, seemed to have his pick of roles. Over ten years later, however, he appears to be back where he was, back where he belongs I think. Aside from Grease, I've never been impressed with Travolta. I wasn't particularly impressed with him in Pulp Fiction. I mean, I can name a dozen actors who could have played that part better.

The attention surrounding Travolta probably wasn't surprising. Hollywood loves a good comeback story. But what is genuinely odd about it is that movie so obviously belongs to Jackson. His is the more developed character, his is the more electrifying performance. But most importantly, Pulp Fiction is ABOUT his character.

Okay, Travolta has more screen time because of his date with Uma Thurman. And Jackson is missing in action throughout the whole middle of the film. But I would argue that his absence in the Bruce Willis section is exactly what makes Pulp Fiction about his character. What do we remember most about Jackson's performance? His Biblical recitation. We remember this because we're supposed to do and we're supposed to because it's freaking important!

Tarantino shows it twice, after all. We see it in the first section and the third section opens with its reprise. Jackson's character Jules uses the Bible as justification for his way of violence. God used violence in the Old Testament, after all, so why shouldn't we? If the Bible can justify the use of wrath, then so can we. Jules understands this. It's so important to him that he takes the time to quote at length before killing.

But something happens to Jules this time. This time it is he is almost killed. He narrowly averts death and while Travolta's character merely dismisses it as an unhappy part of their job, Jules takes it to heart. The fact that he almost dies MEANS something. Jules may not be a truly religious person. It's hard to tell from the film. But there is no doubt that he feels very deeply there is a force in the universe that must be listened to. Fate is out there and though he knows you can't escape it, you can ignore it. Travolta's character willfully ignores fate and pays the price. Jules listens closely to it and changes.

Is it redemption? Salvation? We don't know exactly what happens to Jules after he leaves the restaurant with Vince, but we do know he's made a decision about his life. He's going to change. We get the definite impression that he may give up his life of crime. Was the near-fatal shooting in the apartment a scene of redemption? Is Jules reaching for salvation?

In the restaurant, Jules shows a deeper understanding of the Biblical quote he uses earlier. It doesn't hold quite the same meaning as it did. By this point in the movie, we already know Travolta's fate. If the film were made in a linear way, we might very well assume that Willis was going to be tracked down later by Jules. Zed may be dead, Jules is still alive. But the film isn't linear. Jules' absence in the middle part isn't immediately explained. We can't help but wonder where he is and will he reappear unexpectedly to drive Willis off Zed's bike with a gunshot. After all, we've come to expect the unexpected by this point in the movie.

But Jules doesn't reappear in Willis' story. And we find out why. Because he has made a life-changing decision. Travolta's character almost died in that apartment, too, but didn't. And he made the fatal mistake of not learning. There is to be no redemption for him. No salvation. Just death at the barrel of his own gun.

Not so for Jules. I think an argument can be made that Jules is the single most important character in this heavily populated film. I think his absence during the middle is as crucial as Brando's absence during the middle of The Godfather. Even though Michael Corleone has more screen time than Vito in that movie, Pacino only got a Supporting Actor nominated and Brando won Best Actor. Jackson should have been accorded the same thing. His character's redemption is the true heart of this movie.

I'm not as big a fan of Pulp Fiction as most of its supporters. I think the movie drags mercilessly from the time Willis jumps out the window to the time he runs over Ving Rhames. And most of the praise heaped upon it seem to deal with the least interesting parts. Only those who haven't watched a lot of movies would find anything particularly original in it. Even Tarantino admits that it is mostly a homage to the films he loved watching. The parts that most people love seem a little hollow to me, a little too reliant on pop culture referencing. And believe me, I don't think there's anything at all wrong with referencing. I just think that focusing on that part of the movie is missing its true brilliance.

Even many of it most staunch defenders have admitted that it's not a particularly deep and profound film; that it works best as a comment upon filmmaking itself. I must say I disagree. I think it is a profound work, but only when viewed as the story of the redemption of Jules and not as a story about a long-haired gangster taking out his boss' wife on a date.