I feel like you guys are agreeing here without realizing it. Seems to me that you are, anyway. Before his epiphany, Jules WINNFIELD (not Winnifred) gives his “Path of the Righteous Man” speech by rote, without considering the meaning of it. He just wants to put the “fear of God” into his victims before he kills them. It isn’t until his ephiphanic field conversion that he realizes the truth of what he’s been saying all along.
Vincent, on the other hand, is totally focused on the material, on the things of this world. He goes on and on about the keying of his car, like that’s the worst thing in the world anyone could do-- rather ironic considering what he does for a living. Argues for eating bacon based purely on how good it tastes, and against turning away from a life of crime because “without a job and legal tender, you’re a bum.” That’s why his life is snuffed out in a very random, violent way. The wages of sin are death, after all.
**Rubystreak. ** We probably do agree, but it was the “ugh” and “did you even see the end of this film?” that got me riled. My point: Tarantino is a funny writer, and Jules says funny things deliberately, and he was definitely cracking jokes right after he killed the guy on the couch. Everything he did in Brett’s apartment right before the Fourth Man came out was a performance… remember when he stops in front of the door to get into character?
I always get Jules’ last name mixed up… thanks for the correction.
Absolutely. I don’t think that means Tarantino wants the audience to trivialize the violence, just because the characters do. That humor is a coping mechanism, a way that Jules distances himself from his actions. Of course people who commit murder for money are going to trivialize violence; if they didn’t, how would they be able to do the job?
Jules gets into character and behaves as if his job an act, so it’s not really him-- it’s this hitman persona that he puts on in order to do his job, replete with dire Biblical quotations and witty intimidation banter. It’s not until the so-called Act of God pierces his facade that he realizes the enormity of what he’s done on behalf of Marcellus Wallace and can no longer be the tyranny of evil men. Just my take on it. Vincent Vega continues to view violence as trivial, and look what happens to him.
You could say that Jules was amusing himself. I don’t agree, but I can see your point.
When he shot the guy on the couch (BTW, he definately killed the dude on the couch), there was an immediate reaction shot of Brad and his terror. Up until that time, Brad thought he might be able to schmooze his way out of the situation. Now Brad is no longer cool, no longer trying to schmooze, and he knows he’s about to die.
I saw the comments much the same way that Brad must have seen them, chilling and cruel.
Exactly. When violence is a way of life, it stops having meaning, stops being a moral dilemma ever time. If Jules Winnfield and Vincent Vega were emotionally tortured every time they killed someone, they’d be in the wrong line of work. Virgil in True Romance says now he kills people “just to see their expressions change.” Jules comes up with a schtick, stylizes the job, because he’s emotionally disconnected from it.
Those who think Jules’ humor is glorifying violence: how else would you have a hit man be depicted? Do you think it’s unrealistic that Jules would be witty in that situation? Or do you just not like watching that kind of thing? And if so, how does that make Tarantino a sick fuck? The other option is for movies just not to show hitmen and psychopaths at all, and I just can’t agree with that line of thought.