# Quentin Tarantino a "sick fuck?" Why? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [December 21, 2004, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quentin-tarantino-a-sick-fuck-why/280897 "2004-12-21T01:53:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![vetbridge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b5e925/32.png) [@vetbridge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vetbridge)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quentin-tarantino-a-sick-fuck-why/280897/21 "2004-12-21T17:14:37Z")
> [@Ogre](#): > > Quentin Tarantino a “sick fuck?” You say it as if it is a bad thing. ---
**Author:** ![JohnBckWLD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d6d6ee/32.png) [@JohnBckWLD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnBckWLD)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quentin-tarantino-a-sick-fuck-why/280897/22 "2004-12-21T17:36:43Z")
Comparitively speaking, nothing Tarantino’s ever done is even remotely as ‘fucking sick, disturbing, realistic, graphic, gratuitous or violent’ as the stuff you see coming from some non Hollywood sources. The 1st three that come to mind… The Killer (From Hong Kong) Funny Games (From Austria) The Last Horror Movie (From the UK) …make Tarantino’s stuff look like a Teletubbies episode. It would probably be alot easier to answer why QT’s a rich (as opposed to ‘sick’) fuck. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quentin-tarantino-a-sick-fuck-why/280897/23 "2004-12-21T21:17:44Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Not to get all snarky, but you’re looking at evidence of it right now. I’m a fan. I take his films seriously as dark movies. [And](http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20010610/REVIEWS08/106100301/1023) [I](http://movies2.nytimes.com/mem/movies/review.html?oref=login&title1=&title2=PULP%20FICTION%20%28MOVIE%29&reviewer=Janet%20Maslin&pdate=19940923&v_id=131235) [am](http://www.startribune.com/stories/1553/4143696.html) [hardly](http://www.movie-gurus.com/content/reviews//752/) [alone.](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110912/awards) Now that’s awfully funny. 'Cause over in [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5609304&postcount=106), you said: > [@Miller](#): > > The fact that a bunch of people have come to the same conclusion as you has absolutely no relevance to the validity of your conclusion. As for me, I think we can apply Occam’s Razor to Mr. Tarantino. I don’t think his use of graphic violence has any deeper meanings. I just think Tarantino has a near-pornographic fascination with graphic violence. But I might be wrong. Has Tarantino himself claimed otherwise? ---
**Author:** ![Raygun99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Raygun99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raygun99)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quentin-tarantino-a-sick-fuck-why/280897/24 "2004-12-21T21:34:45Z")
> [@spoke-](#): > > Now that’s awfully funny. 'Cause over in [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5609304&postcount=106), you said: > > Quote: > Originally Posted by Miller > The fact that a bunch of people have come to the same conclusion as you has absolutely no relevance to the validity of your conclusion. Totall different situation. He was asked for evidence that fans of Tarantino’s movies treat them in that way, of which he (as well as me, BTW) are examples. The analog to the Incredibles thread were if someone were to say, “I don’t think anyone could interpret the film with a conservative agenda” and links were provided to your posts in response. That doesn’t make them right, the majority ratio doesn’t factor in, they just exist. **GuanoLad** seems to be claiming that all Tarantino fans are in it only for the blood and violence, and Miller has demonstrated that’s not so. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quentin-tarantino-a-sick-fuck-why/280897/25 "2004-12-21T21:36:08Z")
> [@spoke-](#): > > Now that’s awfully funny. 'Cause over in [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5609304&postcount=106), you said: Jesus. At least try and read for context, okay? I said that in response to a specific allegation about _the sort of people who like Tarantino movies_. **Not** as some sort of objective evidence that my interpretation is correct. Remember that little lesson you got about when an appeal to popularity is and is not a logical fallacy? This is one of the “is not” cases. > [@](#): > > As for me, I think we can apply Occam’s Razor to Mr. Tarantino. I don’t think his use of graphic violence has any deeper meanings. I just think Tarantino has a near-pornographic fascination with graphic violence. But I might be wrong. Has Tarantino himself claimed otherwise? Don’t know, don’t care. The art speaks for itself. ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quentin-tarantino-a-sick-fuck-why/280897/26 "2004-12-21T21:44:21Z")
> [@Raygun99](#): > > **GuanoLad** seems to be claiming that all Tarantino fans are in it only for the blood and violence, and Miller has demonstrated that’s not so. No, that wasn’t my original point at all. Though it’s true that I base my dislike of his movies on what the fans have told me about them, I assume that from what I have seen of them and how the fans react that the content would just make me feel awful, which is not my idea of an entertaining way to spend two hours. I have an aversion to most realistically portrayed violence anyway, but Tarantino’s context, which from what I’ve seen (admittedly not much of it) doesn’t match up with those saying it has some kind of point to it, and instead does continue to match up with my assessment that he’s a disturbed weirdo. If you knew me, however, you’d know my tastes in everything don’t seem to always be logical or rational, so maybe I should be more circumspect in some of my more outrageous opinions… ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quentin-tarantino-a-sick-fuck-why/280897/27 "2004-12-21T22:03:07Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Remember that little lesson you got about when an appeal to popularity is and is not a logical fallacy? Nope. Matter of fact, I seem to recall [having to explain that to you](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5609364&postcount=109). But I take your point. You are not making an argument _ad populum_. You are making an appeal to authority. My mistake. As for not knowing or caring what Tarantino has said, since you have been arguing about his _intent_ (as opposed to just setting forth your interpretation), shouldn’t Tarantino’s own words carry some weight? (And for all I know, he _has_ said that his violent scenes have deeper meanings.) Sauce for the gander and all. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quentin-tarantino-a-sick-fuck-why/280897/28 "2004-12-21T23:40:25Z")
> [@spoke-](#): > > Nope. Matter of fact, I seem to recall [having to explain that to you](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5609364&postcount=109). And you were completly wrong in your explanation, as demonstrated _by your own cite._ > [@](#): > > But I take your point. You are not making an argument _ad populum_. You are making an appeal to authority. My mistake. You _really_ need to stop throwing around terms whose meaning you clearly do not understand. I was not making an appeal to authority. I did not offer any of those cites as evidence that my opinion is correct. I offered them as evidence that people do, indeed, take Quentin Tarantino’s movie seriously. Wether those people (or myself, for that matter) are _correct_ is immaterial to the point I was making. > [@](#): > > As for not knowing or caring what Tarantino has said, since you have been arguing about his _intent_ (as opposed to just setting forth your interpretation), shouldn’t Tarantino’s own words carry some weight? (And for all I know, he _has_ said that his violent scenes have deeper meanings.) Any film is, by nature, a form of communication. It is impossible to discuss interpretation without touching on intent on some level. In effect, an interpretation of a movie (or any work of art) is an interpretation of the artist’s intent. I don’t claim that my interpretation of Quentin’s intent is accurate, because I don’t care if it’s accurate. It’s not a factor in my analysis, which is entirely based on what is present in the movie, and not on any extra-textual commentary by the artist. ---
**Author:** ![Fuji\_Kitakyusho](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f0a364/32.png) [@Fuji\_Kitakyusho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuji_Kitakyusho)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quentin-tarantino-a-sick-fuck-why/280897/29 "2004-12-21T23:52:03Z")
> [@JohnBckWLD](#): > > Comparitively speaking, nothing Tarantino’s ever done is even remotely as ‘fucking sick, disturbing, realistic, graphic, gratuitous or violent’ as the stuff you see coming from some non Hollywood sources. The 1st three that come to mind… > > The Killer (From Hong Kong) > Funny Games (From Austria) > The Last Horror Movie (From the UK) > > …make Tarantino’s stuff look like a Teletubbies episode. It would probably be alot easier to answer why QT’s a rich (as opposed to ‘sick’) fuck. Good point. Ever seen “Man Bites Dog”? ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2004, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quentin-tarantino-a-sick-fuck-why/280897/30 "2004-12-22T00:14:15Z")
I think Tarantino has gone on record stating that violence is just another aesthetic element of filmmaking. It’s a device to be used, like any other, to get your point across, and can be just as valid and artistic as any other. I happen to agree with him. From what I’ve seen, though, violence and truly dark humor are the only aesthetic elements/devices that Tarantino uses especially well; and even then, it’s always in a highly derivative manner, suggesting the most vivid elements of his memory that make their way into the pastiche are also the most horrific. I really don’t care if it’s homage or rip-off; I _liked_ Pulp Fiction. When Tarantino is on a roll, he can be wildly entertaining. It’s just that he gets on that roll when the subject matter is egregiously bloody and disturbing. He is a true master of the art of sick, and given some of his other efforts, he probably should just stick with sick. It’s his bag, and he carries it well. What that says about the guy, I can only speculate, but I don’t think I’d want to be stuck in an elevator alone with him. I can admire Roman Polanski’s efforts as well, but I’m not going to hire him to be my babysitter, that’s for damn sure. Fans or Tarantino seem to be offended by the notion their hero could be a pervert. So what? Lots of great artists are perverts; it almost comes with the territory. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2004, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quentin-tarantino-a-sick-fuck-why/280897/31 "2004-12-22T00:26:55Z")
Not one for ditto posts, but that’s pretty close to my take, **Loopydude**. Tarantino writes sparkling dialogue, and his films can be wildly entertaining. But I think too much effort is being expended by some trying to justify the graphic violence of his films in artistic terms. Maybe Tarantino is just (oddly) fascinated with graphic violence. It does say something about him that it’s the graphically violent scenes from other films which seem to have stuck in his brain and which he borrows for his own movies. Why is he seemingly drawn to those scenes? ---
**Author:** ![cbawlmer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/71e660/32.png) [@cbawlmer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cbawlmer)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2004, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quentin-tarantino-a-sick-fuck-why/280897/32 "2004-12-22T00:34:55Z")
QT has said before that few things are cooler than violence in a movie, and few things are less cool than violence in real life. I enjoy his films a great deal and have spent a little time with the man. He’s a hyperactive goofball, but he’s also much deeper and sweeter than his public persona lets on. He has a deep respect for women and for life in general, he’s good with kids, and while he can have a dark sense of humor he’s no “sicker” than me or tons of people on this board. He’s also a good kisser, but that’s neither here nor there. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2004, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quentin-tarantino-a-sick-fuck-why/280897/33 "2004-12-22T00:36:41Z")
Oh, I got no argument against Quentin Tarantino being a freak. That’s self-evident just by lookin’ at the guy. Mind you, I’m generally in favor of freakishness, so I don’t have a problem with that. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2004, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quentin-tarantino-a-sick-fuck-why/280897/34 "2004-12-22T00:37:32Z")
> [@cbawlmer](#): > > He’s also a good kisser, but that’s neither here nor there. 😃 Hmm. Did he do any _biting_? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![cbawlmer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/71e660/32.png) [@cbawlmer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cbawlmer)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2004, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quentin-tarantino-a-sick-fuck-why/280897/35 "2004-12-22T00:57:53Z")
> [@spoke-](#): > > Hmm. Did he do any _biting_? 😉 Hee. No. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Ogre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecb155/32.png) [@Ogre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ogre)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2004, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quentin-tarantino-a-sick-fuck-why/280897/36 "2004-12-22T01:54:17Z")
Thanks, **Miller** , **Wendell** , **gobear** et al. I find myself agreeing solidly with you guys. The way the dialogue supports the action, and often throws it in sharp relief, is, IMO, high art. I see no “near-pornographic fascination with graphic violence.” What I see is an extremely thoughtful application of violence in the light of incongruous humor or banal conversation. This makes it disturbing, yes, but not some sadistic application of directorial bloodlust on celluloid. It seems to me, as **Miller** said, that it’s entirely the opposite. The killers crack jokes and wisecracks while murdering people in cold blood. It seems obvious to me that this is as much a commentary on American action movies and our attitudes toward them as story devices in themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2004, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quentin-tarantino-a-sick-fuck-why/280897/37 "2004-12-22T03:10:24Z")
A couple of thoughts. First, not all the violence in Tarantino’s films (with the exception of _Kill Bill_, which I’ll get to in a minute) is as graphic as people seem to remember. You don’t see the bullet hit Marvin in the face in the back of the car, you just see the splatter of blood. You don’t see Michael Madsen cut the cop’s ear off, the camera tracks over to a blank wall and the sound of screaming makes the scene all the more chilling because you have to imagine the brutality. When Jules and Vincent are firing away in the hotel room, the camera is facing them. You see them shooting but you don’t see bullets hitting flesh. You don’t see the QT character actually rape and murder the woman in _From Dusk 'Til Dawn_. You just see the body afterwards. In _Jackie Brown_, we see Samuel L. Jackson firing into the trunk f the car but we don’t see the bullets hitting Chris Tucker. Tarantino often implies more than he shows you. He seems to pull away from the worst things. Except, of course, for _Kill Bill_ which brings me to my second point. QT is on record as saying that he doesn’t view his stories as taking place in the real universe but what he calls his “movie universe.” He plays with movie conventions, archetypes and situations to create stories that conform to a different kind of logic, Not real world logic but movie logic. Jules and Vincent are not hitmen, they are “hitmen.” KB is a revenge film and is a conscious ode to a variety of exploitation films and genres, the most obvious being martial arts movies but also including the classic B movie revenge plot. Because KB is a movie _about_ those movies it quotes liberally from them and is honest enough to revel in the prurient aspects of exploitation films that make them a guilty pleasure. Please take note, however, that he is revelling in movie violence _as movie violence_, not as real world violence. In KB he amps up the gore to such a level that it _cannot_ be taken seriously. He pushes the spurting blood and severed heads to such a level that it deliberately breaks the boundaries of belief. He wants you to _know_ you’re watching a movie. He wants you to _know_ that blood is being pumped through the neck of a mannequin, because that scene is not about a guy getting his head chopped off, it’s about a _movie scene_ where a guy gets his head chopped off. I don’t know if I’m doing a good job explaining what I mean about “movie” reality but I hope something comes across. QT explains himself better than I do. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9bd4f/32.png) [@The\_Cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Cat)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2004, 9:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quentin-tarantino-a-sick-fuck-why/280897/38 "2004-12-22T09:43:56Z")
Well for starters I’m someone who used to hate QT, and now I’m one of his biggest fans. The gritty violence, especially in Reservoir Dogs really bothered me. Part of that is because I was 14 when I first saw Reservoir Dogs. I couldn’t get past the brutal violence and cussing and I didn’t see the point. The film was not enjoyable. I’ve changed my views. The beauty of his movies is that the characters act like real people. Yesterday on the way home from work my buddy and I had probably a 20 minute conversation discussing how the local mcdonalds used to charge a fee to use credit cards, and now they don’t. and we were ba da ba ba ba…loving it. This is the kind of stupid mundane stuff real people talk about. Just because the characters in the movie are hitmen and criminals doesn’t mean they should act shocked by the violence they create. They deal with death and violence and depravity all the time. The violence they inflict is supposed to be shocking. There are ups and downs in a movie like reservoir dogs. The scene at the beginning where Steve Buscemi talks about tipping waitresses is hilarious and enjoyable. The scene where the cop loses an ear is certainly gross, but what do you think a hardened criminal would do to a cop in that situation. Leave him tied up and healthy? If it were me I’d be taking a sledgehammer to the guys toes to find out exactly what the cops know. Would I rather go to jail for life for all the other cops I killed? Real criminals do what they have to do. If you find the movies disturbing, than I can understand that. I used to feel the same way. QT doesn’t care whether or not you like his movies. He’s got a healthy fan base, and he makes movies for himself and the real fans. I mean Led Zeppelin didn’t make tunes that everybody liked, they left that to the BeeGee’s 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2004, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quentin-tarantino-a-sick-fuck-why/280897/39 "2004-12-23T19:58:58Z")
Okay, it’s no secret that I’m a Tarantino fan. Ignoring for the moment all the film-geek reasons for appreciating his work, I’d like to say that I’m totally perplexed at how people can consider his films glorifications of violence or, in particular _amoral_. (Heard that tossed around a lot in comparing _Pulp Fiction_ to the saccharine _Forest Gump_.) You can only consider _Pulp Fiction_ amoral if you don’t actually pay attention to it. The entire structure of the film is about ethical choices that various characters are faced with, and the results of their decisions. It is strictly a _morality play_. Beyond being a simple morality play, the script continually returns to the idea of redemption – that even those who have long since wandered way off the path can turn around and heroically choose to set things right. _Pulp Fiction_ is brilliant because it’s written in such a way that the dialogue feels casual and natural to almost the point of triviality, but every line is weighted with additional significance – whether it be the densely-packed references to films of the French _avante garde_ or the carefully contrived subtext of the film. This allows different people to sit next to each other in the dark and watch two entirely different films. Someone who likes Steven Seagal action vehicles will watch _Pulp Fiction_ without feeling like they’re being preached to, and someone who likes “serious” movies will watch it without feeling like they’re being pandered to. Just to give an indication of the obsessive level of subtext in _Pulp Fiction_, let me quote a post from an [old Pit thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=2818646#post2818646), outlining the subtle _leitmotif_ of symbolic washing that runs throughout the film. (And keep in mind that this is just one of _several_ complimentary subtextual themes.) > [@](#): > > The exterior of Jules’ car is not clearly shown until the interior is being cleaned. While it is being cleaned, the exterior appears to be black. After it is cleaned, it’s plain that it’s white. (Possibly this is an illusion due to the change in lighting-- the garage door has been opened.) Jimmy (Tarantino) says “I can’t believe this is the same car.” I think it may have been intentional, though. […] > > One of the central themes of the movie. Washing-up takes on a symbolic meaning, too. The first time Vincent washes up, what’s he thinking about? > > ```auto > > Vincent dries his hands on a towel while he continues his > dialogue with the mirror. > > VINCENT > ...it's a moral test of yourself, > whether or not you can maintain > loyalty. Because when people are > loyal to each other, that's very > meaningful. > > ``` > > Same goes for Butch: > > ```auto > > ESMARELDA > No c'mon, you're him, I know you're > him, tell me you're him. > > BUTCH > (drying himself with a > gym towel) > I'm him. > > ESMARELDA > You killed the other boxing man. > > BUTCH > He's dead? > > ESMARELDA > The radio said he was dead. > > He finished wiping himself down. > > BUTCH > (to himself) > Sorry 'bout that, Floyd. > > He tosses the towel out the window. > > ``` > > A little later: > > ```auto > > BUTCH > (in a Mongoloid voice) > My name is Fabby! My name is > Fabby! > > FABIAN > Shut up fuck head! I hate that > Mongoloid voice. > > BUTCH > Okay, sorry, sorry, sorry, I take > it back! Can I have a towel > please, Miss Beautiful Tulip. > > FABIAN > Oh I like that, I like being called > a tulip. Tulip is much better than > Mongoloid. > > She finishes drying her hair and wraps the towel like a turban > on her head. > > BUTCH > I didn't call you a Mongoloid, I > called you a retard, but I took it > back. > > She hands him a towel. > > ``` > > ```auto > > Jules rises and dries his hands. Vincent takes his place at > the sink. > > VINCENT > Just tell 'im not to be abusive. > He kinda freaked out back there > when he saw Marvin. > > JULES > Put yourself in his position. It's > eight o'clock in the morning. He > just woke up, he wasn't prepared > for this shit. Don't forget who's > doin' who a favor. > > Vincent finishes, then dries his hands on a white towel. > > VINCENT > If the price of that favor is I > gotta take shit, he can stick his > favor straight up his ass. > > When Vincent is finished drying his hands, the towel is > stained with red. > > JULES > What the fuck did you just do to > his towel? > > VINCENT > I was just dryin' my hands. > > JULES > You're supposed to wash 'em first. > > VINCENT > You watched me wash 'em. > > JULES > I watched you get 'em wet. > > VINCENT > I washed 'em. Blood's real hard to > get off. Maybe if he had some > Lava, I coulda done a better job. > > JULES > I used the same soap you did and > when I dried my hands, the towel > didn't look like a fuckin' Maxie > pad. > > ``` > > ```auto > > The two men, trembling, scrub themselves. > > THE WOLF > Don't be afraid of the soap, spread > it around. > > The Wolf stops the hose, tossing it on the ground. > > THE WOLF > Towel 'em. > > Jimmie tosses them each a towel, which they rub furiously > across their bodies. > > THE WOLF > You're dry enough, give 'em their > clothes. > > JIMMIE > Okay fellas, in the one-size-fits- > all category, we got swim trunks, > one red -- one white. And two > extra-large tee-shirts. A UC Santa > Cruz shirt and an "I'm with Stupid" > shirt. > > JULES > I get the "I'm with Stupid" shirt. > > ``` > > Think about the significance of the print on the t-shirts for a second. Got it? Sometimes baptisms “take”, and sometimes they’re just empty ritual. > > Within the movie, every time someone is seen washing themselves, there’s an association with moral purity. Things turn out badly for folks who come out of the bathroom without washing first, too. The last time Vincent comes out of the bathroom, we hear him flush, and then he comes straight out-- no pause to wash first, and after a poop, too. The dirty bastid. Mia stands at the sink in the bathroom of Jack Rabbit Slim’s, but doesn’t wash, she does a big line, after which she significantly says, “I said Goddamn!” The script specifies that she is imitating Steppenwolf. (“Goddamn the pusher man…") This may foreshadow the ill-fortune she’s going to have later. If so, she’s not washing, and it might be possible to interpret her words as a sign that she doesn’t take personal responsibility for her actions. The script specifies that during her OD, “Mia is on all fours trying to crawl _to the bathroom._” Afterwards, like Jules and Vincent, she is given a clean T-shirt. > > The one other character that we see in a bathroom who doesn’t wash is “The Fourth Man” (Yet another paratextual film reference, which has a sort of thematic integrity with Vincent’s just having returned from Amsterdam, and Mia’s assertion that she goes there once a year. Oh yeah, and the whole mystical vision thing.) After hearing Jule’s neo-biblical spiel, The Fourth Man makes the wrong decision, (violent aggression) and it doesn’t work out very well for him. > > “Make it clean” comes up in other contexts, too: > > When Lance is looking for his all-important “Black medical book” during MIA’s OD: > > ```auto > > JODY > While you're lookin' for it, that > girl's gonna die on our carpet. > You're never gonna find it in all > this shit. For six months now, > I've been telling you to clean this > room -- > > ``` > > And of course: > > ```auto > > Jules DROPS his wallet in the bag. Using his gun as a > pointer, Pumpkin points to the briefcase. > > PUMPKIN > What's in that? > > JULES > My boss' dirty laundry. > > PUMPKIN > You boss makes you do his laundry? > > JULES > When he wants it clean. > > PUMPKIN > Sounds like a shit job. > > JULES > Funny, I've been thinkin' the same > thing. > > ``` > > I noticed Vincent’s inability to wash the blood off his hands first, it being the most obvious-- then, on repeated viewings, all the other incidents take on extra colours. I love this movie. ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2004, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quentin-tarantino-a-sick-fuck-why/280897/40 "2004-12-23T21:03:57Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > If you’ve just watched someone put a bullet into the head of an innocent man and then crack a joke about it, and that doesn’t disturb you, then there’s either something wrong with you, or something wrong with the movie. Well, I must be a sick fuck, because it wouldnt bother me…but then again if it _was_ in a movie and it was action-appropriate for the movie that is one thing. If it was in real life, _that_ would bother me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quentin-tarantino-a-sick-fuck-why/280897.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/quentin-tarantino-a-sick-fuck-why/280897.md?page=3)