Comments on Pulp Fiction
seem to be split between those who
just love
the movie to little warm moist bits, and those who are put off by its content.
There hasn't been
much dialogue (as we say in the critical theory biz) between the
two types of comment. As a Tarentino fan who's also put off by the
movie's content, and as someone just stupid enough to get in the middle
of dogfights, I might as well try to explain why we wet-blankets feel it necessary to
branish the S-word.
Like True Romance, but unlike Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction is a fantasy, a mug full of familiar movie situations and stereotyped characters whose appeal is in the skill with which Tarentino whips 'em into a froth. No problem; after all, male stereotypes cover a pretty wide dramatic territory, and Tarentino does a lovely job of giving them individual touches without losing their force as clichés. But Tarentino just doesn't have much in the way of individual touches for the actresses. And when the only women you show are weak female stereotypes, well, back in Missouri, we call that sexism.
Tarentino is hardly unique in this approach. As my colleague Alexander Pope recently pointed out, the biggest problem with '90s movies is that most women have no characters at all. But it's Tarentino's job to be unique, dang it!
All of Pulp Fiction's female characters are hopeless saps. True, there's one male character who's also a hopeless sap, and there wouldn't be much of a screenplay without him, since each of the three stories in the film pivot on mistakes by John Travolta's Vince Vega and at least one irritatingly out-of-it woman:
On a more hopeful note, Vince Vega's favorite reading matter is Modesty Blaise, a fantasy about a sex kitten who can fight like a man. Now, if we could figure out a way to shove her, Brenda Starr, and Michelle Khan, say, into Tarentino's Cuisinart of a brain, he might get something more flavorful on the stove. As the lumberjack said, "This is a mess o' stereotypes! ...but it's good."