You answered your own question. He doesn’t love and study “classic films”. He loves and studies kung fu movies, blaxploitation films, cheesy WW2 melodramas, and other second-run fare.
I saw this movie when it opened in Montreal. I thought it was one of the most intelligent, original and entertaining movies I had ever seen, and the crowd seemed to agree. Everybody left the theatre smiling and enthused.
Discussions, repeat viewings, online fans and deep analysis revealed a rich tapestry of clever subtleties, offbeat theories and the stylish antecedents which influenced Tarantino - much of which would be easily missed on a single casual view. It’s easily Tarantino’s best movie, and a masterpiece that people will enjoy a hundred years from now.
The idea that extreme language or violence necessarily degrades a film is incorrect.
Naw, it’s just an opinion, which is neither correct nor incorrect.
However, saying that Tarantino studied “classic” films… well, that is incorrect.
I like the opening to Pulp F.
Two guys driving to work are talking casually. The viewer thinks it’s a normal everyday morning.
Opening the trunk is the viewer’s first clue. But the two men are still relaxed
It’s only after getting off the elevator that we can see their attitude shift into work mode. By the time they knock on the door they’re fully ready for their job.
Tarantino made an interesting choice to show the two hitman headed to work. Showing their humanity before the action begins.
Both actors do a great job making that transition.
At the time, rec.arts.films (remember Usenet?) had threads deconstructing every frame of the film for months afterwards. It was nuts.
I loved the film. Read a book on it. But I’m not obsessed with Tarantino nor Pulp Fiction, and his other movies are often very good but not five-star. I enjoy talking about a fun theory, but not to the extent it loses the fun. Those Usenet folks might disagree, but I believe what I believe. Sometimes a bandage or a suitcase is just that.
This could be from a film appreciation class.
Excellent analysis. Hard to say if Tarantino really thought this way. But it’s probably close.
When I was teaching English as a foreign language, I showed the movie to each of my classes after giving them a glossary. It would always take at least two sessions of viewing and discussion, followed by a thorough analysis. It was easy to spend six or more hours on it over two weeks.
Pulp Fiction is violent, but it’s not as violent as people seem to remember it. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say it’s not as graphic as people remember. When Jules and Vincent kill Brett, we see them firing, but not the bullets hitting Brett. When Butch stabs Maynard, we don’t see the sword actually make contact. Butch kills the other boxer in his fight, but we only hear about that on the radio. The most graphic scenes are when Butch shoots Vincent, and when Vincent shoots Marvin (we see the blood spatter across the back window of the car). I think the impact and intensity of the movie make it feel more violent than it actually is.
Actually that’s also an opinion. If you’re going to pedantically “correct” people, be mindful.
I just finished rewatching the movie. It’s better than I remembered.
It’s interesting how Butch and Jules pivotal actions leads to redemption and survival.
Vincent had his chance at the diner table. Arguing if a miracle saved him and Jules earlier that day. Jules accepted it as a sign to change his path. Vincent goes to take a shit. That decision also permanently changed the direction and length of Vincent’s life.
Copied from the script.
Jules confronting the diner robbers.
Yeah, it’s an inside joke that Vincent goes to the bathroom three times and bad stuff happens right after he comes out.
The OD, diner robbery, and facing Butch.
In Butch’s case, it also becomes part of the legacy of the wristwatch. When he, someday, passes the watch to his son, he can tell him of the four generations that had it before him. I’m not sure the kid is going to want the watch at that point, but it will have a history.
I said it was a morality tale.
I love the movie but honestly I kind of prefer if the film was told chronologically because I feel The Watch is the strongest segment and having the film end with “Zed’s Dead Baby” would be absolutely perfect. Having it end on the diner robbery is a good bookend and thematically important but also I just think it ends with a dud like that.
I may be seeing something that isn’t really there, but: imagine that you’re Tarantino, and imagine that you hadn’t bothered with the rest of the movie but had pretty much only ever just shown me those bookends as a short ‘morality tale’ of a film.
What’s left?
Well, these two low-lifes decide to rob a diner, but run into a guy who (a) is more a plot device than a character, and who (b) pulls a gun on Ringo but then spares him — expositioning, though in general terms, that something like this once happened to him, such that he now finds meaning in words he used to recite unthinkingly, and is now giving you a second chance, lo even as he too was once given one. And that, in its entirety, is the short film.
The End.
So I’m left asking: who is this guy? What are the details of his backstory? Why is he there right then, dressed like that and vaguely referring to some epiphany — and, hey, that second gunman backing him up, who has even fewer lines and is even more of a blank slate, what’s his story?
So say you roll your eyes and sigh for effect and go back to split that short film into bookends: interrupting it, to insert an entire movie-length tale explaining the story of these guys — and then, if everybody is now satisfied, we’ll return to the tale of Ringo getting that second chance, okay?
Was that the whole point? As if the bulk of the feature-length film is, like, the mere parenthetical backstory of a hypothetical short film?
Better not tell the kid the kid the whole story. 
Send it to the Wristwatch Revival guy on youtube for cleaning.
From the script. Not my words…
There has also been speculation that Butch’s girlfriend, with all her talk about “pot bellies,” might be pregnant. Which would give Butch additional motivation to recover the watch for his own not-yet-born son.
You left out the basement rape. I think most people (especially in 1994) would have pegged that as the most shocking violence in the film even though it was being perpetrated on an unsympathetic character. That, somehow, made Zed a more reviled character than any of the cold blooded killers in the movie.
When I analyzed the film with my students, its “religious content” was obvious. It has a Judas, a resurrection with a Jesus figure, repentance, non-repentance, sacrifice, marching into a lion’s den, divine intervention and retribution, and other things that could only have been intentional.