Before I tell you what I think was inside…what do you think???
I love that flick…I’ve seen it countless times.
There are a few clues.
Does it have something to do with the bandaid on the back of Marsalis’s neck??
a radioactive quarter pounder?
Darby…you are right on the money
I thought this would be tougher…not for you though I guess.
Do you know what’s inside the case?
This was covered in the mail bag a while back, but I’m not satisfied with any of those possibilities.
I’m convinced it was John Travolta’s shiny white suit from Saturday Night Fever.
No, because nobody does. This has been done recently. Try the thread ‘What’s in the Pulp Fiction briefcase?’.
Quentin Tarantino has admitted publically that it was a novelty plot device, pure and simple, and that he never decided what was in the briefcase.
Yeah…A McGuffin. Plot device.
The earlier thread explains it to a tee.
That was a quick thread.
Eh, who cares what Quentin says. Sure, he may not have INTENDED it to be anything, but I like thinking it’s Marselis’s soul. The concept is just fantastic. And anyone who’s worked on or studied film knows that nothing is unintentional. So the close-up on Marselis’s band-aid for a good 2-3 minutes was there for SOME reason.
I think Quentin’s just being bashful.
The Medusan ambassador, Kollos.
But I still don’t get it…I’m a lame-o…
What ABOUT the Band Aid?
I wondered why we looked at it for so long, and then just forgot about it. i was too busy searching for clocks with the time 4:20 on them.
LOVED the movie though.
Has anyone seen True Romance? The Directors Cut is much better, it gives Alabama way more strength.
Saysha,
I was always under the impression that the bandaid represented where the devil sucked out Marsalis’s soul, but as earlier stated, QT has never acknowledged what was in the briefcase.
What is this about clocks at 4:20? Man now I have to go put the DVD in.
Does anyone have my fathers watch???
Now you want to know about the band-aid too?
I’m afraid the true answer is quite mundane – I have no cite, but I think it came from the British film magazine Empire. The only reason for the band-aid is that the actor who played Marcellus Wallace, Ving Rhames, has an unsightly scar on his neck.
It’s amazing what people can convince themselves of.
His Soul? Hmm, that’s interesting. Mr. Nipples?
Yeah, on one of those endless and ubiquitous “Did You Know” emails I got once it said that all of the clocks in PF were set to 4:20. But then, funny thing, I forgot to look for them. Uuh…it could be hogwash. The Web has opened up a whole new venue for the splashing of hogwash.
But now I wanna knoooooow!!! Yes, mattk I do…unsightly scar? Now THAT sounds like hogwash fer shure…
I’ve read what mattk said (the band-aid is there to cover a scar.) And I’ve also read that the reason for the long close-up was to make sure that the audience recognizes Marsellus (Ving Rhames) character when the boxer (Bruce Willis) sees him on the crosswalk, to prevent confused people in the audience nudging their date and whispering (who is that guy?)
As far as “nothing is unintentional”, isn’t that too strong of a statement? How about the child’s ghost visible in Three Men and a Baby?
You’re way off matt. Swimming Riddles has it right…nothing in film is unintentional…unless its a mistake…and a slow pan across his neck was no mistake. The soul in the brief case might be a “going nowhere sub-plot”, but there were just too many clues to even consider it to be something we would (or could) make ourselves believe.
I admitt, you do have to take a very small leap of faith in this case, but it isn’t a stretch at all.
I consider myself to be fairly knowledgable Tarintino fan…most of his flicks are riddled with interesting sidebars and quirks.
Thats enough for now…Peace
I believe I sent that question to Cecil and it was featured in The Straightdope mailbag. I’m not sure how to get to it but if you know how, enlighten me. That was my 15 minutes of fame anyway.
JimmyNipples – no offence, mate, but do you have any evidence to back up your belief?
I’m not sure I buy the “unsightly scar” theory. The close-up from the rear is our introduction to Marselis. Why not just show his face in close-up for all that time, especially if the actor is self-conscious about a scar on the back of his neck? Seems strange to draw such attention to it.
When I first saw the movie, I thought we were being introduced to this character whose face we would never see, hence the band-aid as an identifier. Not so.
I first saw the film after reading the other thread about his soul being in the briefcase, so I wasn’t sitting around puzzling about it. I don’t think the band-aid confirms that it is his soul. I’m just saying I don’t buy the scar explanation. There are other ways around it, and QT lingers on it for a long time.
The Three men thing was a continuity error. The continuity person wasn’t doing his/her job. It hardly compares to a four 3 minute closeup of a man’s neck. And if it WAS a scar, why didn’t they just cover it with makeup? Trust me, most small area scars can be VERY well hidden by a professional make-up artist.
I stick to my theory. Quentin is smarter than he wants us to know.
OK, new theory. Product placement. Band-Aid paid to have that close-up.
If you stick to your belief (which I assume is that the briefcase contained Marcellus’ soul), I recommend that you read the statement by Pulp Fiction co-author Roger Avery as quoted in the thread mentioned by mattk. Of course, I can’t prove that Quentin Tarantino didn’t intend later on to show that the briefcase contained Marcellus’ soul, but a band-aid on the neck seems to me to be much too subtle of an indication.
But I don’t disagree that Quentin Tarantino may be more profound than it appears at first glance. On the other hand, he may not be.