Some people call "vulgar" the most important film in American cinema in the 90s; Others believe that "vulgarity" opens up a whole new form of film script writing; Others believe that it was only after "vulgarity" that independent films really entered the mainstream media's attention.

History has also proved that "vulgarity" does have such a height, so it and "Forrest Gump" and "The Shawshank Redemption" have become one of the indispensable troikas in 1994, which is full of good films.

The storm of public opinion set off by "vulgarity" began at the Cannes Film Festival, after the "Film Manual" and "Empire" wrote reviews successively, the famous Roger and Ebert still did not move, even if many American media began to write film reviews one after another, Roger still did not do it.

It wasn't until the 21st, that is, four days after the release of "Vulgar", that Roger's film review was long overdue!

"For four days we sat in the dark, scene by scene, trying to figure out the 'vulgar' work. We turned the DVD player upside down, paused, slowed down, and there were three hundred of us, and it was very democratic: whoever found something, we would stop and discuss. The goal was to study this labyrinthine film. ”

Just an opening sentence explains everything, and the reason why Roger didn't write the review until four days later was because he had been watching the work!

"Of course, there are people who don't like 'vulgarity' and may even be the least popular of all American films. I can hear a lot of viewers saying that this movie is too violent, too superficial, too low. Stream, like a pile of shit. They watched for twenty minutes, thirty minutes, or an hour, and walked away.

However, for those who love this film, Quentin Tarantino's film is one of the most fascinating in recent years. They discuss every detail of the film, and that enthusiasm is probably only seen when discussing 'Space Odyssey 2001'.

From 'Citizen Kane' to 'The Silence of the Lambs,' I've done this kind of shot-by-shot analysis of a lot of films. I've found that if you take a large group of people who are strict about movies, sit in the dark, and ask them to speak freely, any question can be answered. This time, for example, there is no doubt that it was the voice of an eleven-year-old child who spoke out in the dark.

After four days, I admired the film more and more. It's much more subtle and complex than it seems. The problems that plague people who are watching this movie for the first time are actually found in Quentin Tarantino and Roger Avari. Avery has the answer in the script. Of course, people who see it for the first time can't figure it out.

The story of the film is intertwined rather than unfolding chronologically, so the beginning and end of the film echo, and the middle part of the film actually takes place later in the end of the story. Why is the movie told this way? There are probably three reasons.

One is because Quentin, as his fans say, is tired of that kind of linear story thread that drags and on; One is to make his script resemble text on a computer, for example, if you click on the gold watch, you will see the story of Butch, and if you click on the foot massage, you will see Vincent's hapless date.

The last reason is that several of the storylines of the movie end in some kind of redemption, the most important of which is that Jules decided not to die in the catastrophe and decided not to dry his hands. Because, even though this time is not the last thing to happen, it makes sense to put it at the end of the film.

The first time I watched this movie, I thought it was violent, but when I watched it a second time and a third time, I realized that it was not as violent as I thought it would be. But why does it look violent? Because movies always use humorous language to adjust the atmosphere and postpone the occurrence of violence.

In fact, the movie can only count the deaths of seven people. The three thugs in the apartment, one on the chair, one on the couch, and one in the toilet, are killed by Vincent and Jules; Marvin, Jules' insider, was accidentally killed by Vincent in the back seat of the car; Vincent is killed by Butch; Maynard and Sade were killed in the second-hand store; There are also two deaths that are not directly expressed: the opponent that Butch killed in the boxing ring, and the sex in the basement of a second-hand store. Slave.

In contrast, several people are rescued in the film.

Mia sucks. After an overdose, Butch rescues Marsha in the basement, and Jules convinces Bunny and Pumpkin to save the diner's guests during a visit. and Jules and Vincent were shot indiscriminately at gunpoint and survived. Jules thought it was a miracle, the will of God, and decided to wash his hands; And Vincent didn't care and ended up paying the price.

As we watched the film carefully, we found that many of the violent elements of the film were kept off screen. When the thugs in the apartment are killed, the camera is focused on Vincent and Jules; When Mia is saved, the camera switches to Mia sitting up at the last moment; Gunfire in the back seat of the car was also not shown. The violent scenes in the basement are visible, but they also don't have more than half of the fight scenes in the film.

The more you watch this movie, the more strongly you will feel that underneath the storyline, there is something that hides some kind of religious flavor. A lot of this has to do with the suitcase in Marsha, the one that Vincent and Jules snatched back from the apartment. What was in the box, we don't know, we just saw what was shining inside. There's a lot of speculation about suitcases, but we'll never know.

We notice that the code on which the box is opened is "666" - the mark of Satan. So some people speculated that the sword sticker on the back of Marsha's neck might be covering "666", is he a demon? You know, Jules, who believed that he was saved by God, survived, while Vincent, who despised God, eventually died.

Vincent was shot dead by Butch when he came out of the bathroom, and one detail I didn't notice when I first saw it was that Butch used Marsha's gun - he went out to buy food and left the gun on the kitchen counter, so Vincent didn't go to the toilet defensively, so Butch didn't meet Marsha until he left the house.

Some people say: the guys who write the script are not lazy at all, they spend a lot of time on details that most people don't notice; They also spend a lot of time on conversations, which are often perceived by the audience as meaningless nonsense.

There is also a clue in the movie that many weapons are not used in the right places: the gun that didn't hit Vincent and Jules, the gun that killed Vincent, the gun that went off in the car, the gun that was supposed to rob a restaurant, the gun that was supposed to rob a second-hand store. After Jules' mental transformation, his own gun was even used to stop violence in restaurants.

We also discover a little secret in a less important part of the movie, the bar where Masha gives Butch a mission called "Jack". rabbit。 slim,s", and when Butch sneaks through a window in his apartment, he can see through the open window "Jakc." rabbit。 slim,s".

Another very interesting detail is that you can see a neon sign in the second-hand store, "Killian, S." red。 beer", but some of the letters are broken, and the rest is "kill." Later, when Butch escaped on Sade's motorcycle, he glanced at the key chain of the motorcycle, which had the initials "2" of Sade, and put this letter together with the subtitles left by the neon sign to get "kii11." zed", "kill Sade", when in fact, Butch had just killed Sade. There's a "grace" on the motorcycle's fuel tank, and isn't Butch's escape a gift from God?

There are two shots that we talk about a lot. One is that when Vincent and Jules go on a killing spree in their apartment, the screen is glittering with gold, is that related to the suitcase? The other is when Masha instructs Butch to fake boxing, facing the shot of Bruce and Willis, Bruce's face is half-light and half-dark, and the division is so clear that we even wonder if makeup is used to enhance this effect.

What is the deep meaning of these two shots, or is it interesting, we have not been able to reach a consensus so far.

The dialogue is very humorous, and in some places it is clearly a nod to some classic writings, but the format is more modern and obscene.

At the beginning of the film, Vincent and Jules discuss the difference between the Dutch and American names of hamburgers, reminiscent of 'Huckleberry and Finn's adventures. of。 huckleberry。 finn), the plot inside; Jules always likes to quote a passage from the book of Ezekiel, but only a small part of it is the same as the original text, and more of his own nonsense.

One of the film's basic strategies was to push the violence back with character dialogue.

For example, when Mia was lying on the ground and dying, the two men were studying how to use the syringe; For example, at the beginning of the movie, Vincent and Jules are walking in the hallway of their apartment while discussing foot massage, and the camera follows them all the time. When the two men reached the door of the room they were going to, they found that the time was not yet yet, so they continued to walk deeper into the corridor, and continued their discussion, but at this time the camera stopped, staying in the doorway, as if telling us in the language of the camera: this is where the story will happen. But the two of them were still talking unhurriedly, and it seemed that even the camera was impatient, so the atmosphere became more and more tense.

Some people like 'vulgarity' and some people hate it. But the reason is the same: because this work always seems to play with the expectations of the audience and never follow the rules. It organizes the material as it pleases, and in contrast, the current gangster movies, action movies in the United States have fallen into a formulaic quagmire. Quentin Tarantino threw away the rules and regulations taught in Hollywood's screenwriters' factories and created a new way of writing from scratch.

"Vulgarity, probably the most influential film of the next five years, because it saves us from a myriad of predictable formulaic plots."

So thank you Quentin a Tarantino. ”

Although Roger's film review is long overdue, it is full of wonder, pushing "vulgar" from the position of a masterpiece to the height of a classic in one fell swoop! Later historical developments also proved that Roger's vision was vicious. (To be continued.) If you like this work, you are welcome to come to Kazakhstan to read and vote for the work to vote for the monthly ticket. Your support is the biggest motivation for me to continue creating! ）