Dear Cecil,
I have a question that has been bothering me for years and nobody seems to know the answer (although they might be a part of the conspiracy too). Naturally, you were my only hope.
Several years ago I started noticing strange marks on the backs of peoples’ heads at the base of the skull. It’s difficult to see and usually it is only noticed on men with closely cropped hair. Pinkish in color, it sort of resembles a birthmark but I’m not sure if that explanation satisfies me. It has no distinct pattern and it can be
found on nearly half of the heads I have discretely examined. Is it just a birthmark or a sign of someone who has sold their soul? I believe that Marcellus Wallus (Ving Rhames in Pulp Fiction) had the same mark of the Dark Prince and his head, hence the band-aid. What’s the straight dope?
There is a very common birthmark found on many newborns, (esp lightskinned ones) sometimes on the eyelids or forehead, sometimes at the base of the skull, called a salmon patch. The ones on the face (known by some people as “angel kisses”) almost always fade away. The ones at or just above the nape of the neck (“stork bites”) seem more likely to hang around. My two blond children had them; the facial ones faded but the ones on the back of their heads are still visible if you look closely. I have an adult friend who still has hers; it gets darker red when she is angered.
Despite the various “explanations” floating around about the meaning of the Band-Aid on Marcellus Wallace, it was there for one very obvious reason.
During the early part of the film, we only see the back of his head. Then, when Bruce Willis sees him at the intersection, it is absolutely essential that everyone in the audience (who haven’t seen Wallace’s face up to this point) knows the man crossing the street is Wallace. So they gave Wallace a very obvious marker – the Band-Aid. Once we see it, the scene makes sense. Without the Band-Aid, no one would really know what was going on.
That is probably too prosaic, so other explanations have cropped up.
I’ve seen the IMDB explanation. It doesn’t wash. The audience needed to see something about the back of Wallace’s head that was instantly immistakable later. The scar might have been missed. The Band-Aid gets everyone’s attention. It even spawns threads here; the scar wouldn’t.
I’m sure the IMDB has the “official” explanation. But putting a Band-Aid on the scar only accentuates things – which is what Tarrentino needed to do.
Any good storyteller would do the same – and might even lie about the reasons.
