Nothing to add…just wanted to point out how cool this analysis is. It sounds like something a lit teacher would say, in the same way they might be talking about the symbolism in The Great Gatsby.
He had a sentimental attachment to the wallet. He wasn’t a Good Samaritan who stopped the bandits, either: he let them leave with all the other wallets and purses they collected from the other diners.
Or, given that he’s walking the earth, he feels that the important part of the scene is to bring enlightenment to Hunny Bunny and Pumpkin. Stopping the robbery isn’t important, teaching them a lesson is important.
Obviously, maybe Caine from Kung Fu would have taught them a different lesson, probably involving more boot to the head.
Ellis Dee’s timeline is quite good. It even includes the Capt. Koons/Butch scene that a lot of PF timelines leave out.
But …
(There’s always a “but”.)
Pumpkin/Ringo and Honey Bunny/Yolanda rob the diner twice. One, shown at the beginning has Honey Bunny holding the gun with one hand while she’s screaming the “execute” line at the customers and freezes into the titles. The other, she is holding the gun with both hands while she threatens executing the customers.
(The fact that they are robbing the same place in the same way can be explained by them being stoners who can’t remember stuff. And Ringo’s repeated use of the “garçon” bit is maybe just his thing. Despite being told already it means “boy”.)
Her “Execute all you motherfuckers!” line is delivered differently in both takes too.
I always assumed the discontinuities were due to either (a) Tarantino exploring the tantalizing possibilities of multiple timelines or (b) some cockup in scriptwriting or film editing.
The first one was intended to halt on Honey Bunny from the front and freeze for the opening credits. The second was intended to continue and show the pair moving thru the diner which required a different camera angle from the side. Choosing to switch angles midway thru Honey Bunny’s rant rather than afterwards inevitably results in mismatches.
As to the multiple timeline issue: There is the alternate timeline showing Bonnie entering the house to see a bunch of gangsters doing gangster stuff.
Given the whole timeline timewarp it is an interesting question as to whether the events in general all belong to the same timeline.
When I was an EFL teacher, I used to show Pulp Fiction to my students at least once a year, and we would then analyze the hell out of it. I think the way the film is structured is to give us a God’s-eye-view of the events in it by flashing back and forth in time. The robbery in the diner suggests there were other ways in which they might develop.
When the movie’s scenes are reassembled in their correct chronological order, BTW, the whole focus of it changes. It becomes the story of Jules’ conversion and what happens to Vincent when he fails to follow suit.
