• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

How did Pulp Fiction break the writing rules? (SPOILERS)

H

harmonica44

Screenwriting 101 teaches writers not to have scenes that don't drive the character or plot, or have no set up, that pays off later. One example would be Travolta waiting downstairs, for Thurman to put her make up on. They could have cut straight to the restaurant and nothing would have changed. Or another rule is don't have dialogue just for the sake of dialogue such as Travolta and Jackson talking about Europe. They could have cut straight to them arriving at the apartment building, and made no difference.

These are just two examples, as those same two come along at other times in the movies too. So how does it become so big, when it leaves in all the fat, that screenwriting lessons advise against?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
I guess but the books and sites that advise against it, don't even mention Pulp or other movies that have broken it and no one cared. There are of course some other huge hit movies, that also broke them, like The Deer Hunter for example. Such as the scene were Meryl Streeps father beats her, and it's never referred back to in the story, and forgotten about. If you cut that, nothing changes.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Look at classic art. Then cubism. Then surrealism.

Every law or rule is only a guideline. Which you can take or leave at your own discretion.

Classical Physics vs. Quantum Physics.

And this is innovation.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I think the clue here is in the title of the course: Screenwriting 101. It's aimed at beginners. It's designed to show you the very basics of screenwriting. You're then comparing this with what big-shot Hollywood professionals are writing. Hollywood writers have got the basics down. They've served their time, if you like, and they've learned what works, what's solid and where there is room for adaptation and innovation.

To take campbmic's example, it's essentially like asking why Quantum Physics is not taught to 12 year olds. When you're a kid, you learn the things that work most of the time: you can then experiment with exceptions.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
brianluce said:
I've thought about it and thought about it and I don't know how he's able to make moronic banter interesting and compelling. But he does. Tarantino is an outlier.
Click to expand...

There were two men who painted pictures. One thought hey I would like to hang these on the outside of my house. One thought hey I would like to hang these on the inside of my house.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Pulp Fiction didn't break any rules actually. According to Christopher Vogler in his book "The Writer's Journey", if you look at the structure of the individual stories each of them basically follows the conventions of "The Hero's Journey".
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I'd argue that a lot of the dialogue, although seemingly redundant, does tell us a lot about the characters. Take the "Royale with cheese" conversation. There's no real point to it. It didn't need to be there. But it does set these two characters up a ordinary guys, with ordinary lives, who like to discuss everyday shit. It's not until a few minutes later that we realise they are in fact dangerous criminals, working for the citys criminal over-lord.

Again though, this is Tarantino's style, something he damn near invented. It worked for him. Others have tried to copy him and fallen flat on their faces. Stick to the "rules" until you understand them, then maybe consider breaking them.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Part of the allure is watching famous people do nothing. It would have been a lot harder to pull off with complete unknowns.

Another aspect is that there was an overall tone with Pulp Fiction (and all of Tarantino's work) that is slow, plodding and enveloping the viewer into the world he's created. It's the ebb and flow of buildup/release so when his dramatic tensions pay off; they are that much more powerful.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
If Tarantino wrote dialogue that really pushed the story forward rather than developed the characters it would've been just another movie and not PULP FICTION. Like someone said 101 is aimed at the beginning writers who don't know format, transitions into conflict/resolution, character development etc. Any good writer can break the rules, or rather guidelines, to make new limits. Think about Clerks, half the conversations did nothing but fluff up the day in the lives of the shop clerks.

I spoke with my professor a couple years back in a poli sci class and I think what he said holds great weight here. "Why follow the rules when you can make the rules?" Just write natural dialogue your characters would say, not because its fits in your story and brings it to your desired outcome, but because that's what they'd say, ya dig?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
A lot of Tarantino's dialogue is the same from one character to the next. It's like the same person cloned. A good example is the "I want to be Mr. Blue" scene in Dogs. The only thing that scene tells us about character is that it's a room full of morons. We quickly understand it's a heist plan so not a lot of story is squeezed out. And yet, we watch, hypnotized. There's only one Tarantino. Dunno how he does it. I agree though that he benefits from shrewd, even brilliant casting -- but I don't think that fully explains it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
harmonica44 said:
The Deer Hunter for example. Such as the scene were Meryl Streeps father beats her, and it's never referred back to in the story, and forgotten about. If you cut that, nothing changes.
Click to expand...

Not really true; it has a great affect on your perception of the character.

mad_hatter said:
I'd argue that a lot of the dialogue, although seemingly redundant, does tell us a lot about the characters. Take the "Royale with cheese" conversation. There's no real point to it. It didn't need to be there. But it does set these two characters up a ordinary guys, with ordinary lives, who like to discuss everyday shit. It's not until a few minutes later that we realise they are in fact dangerous criminals, working for the citys criminal over-lord.
Click to expand...

Although seemingly innocuous, it implies that Vincent was out of the country, presumably to avoid the authorities. We just don't realize that until we get to know who and what Vincent and Jules really are. The pointless banter also highlights just how cold-blooded and remorseless the characters truly are.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
brianluce said:
I agree though that he benefits from shrewd, even brilliant casting -- but I don't think that fully explains it.
Click to expand...

That's why I used the qualifier "part of the reason", but you are right - big names are not the only way he can get away with breaking the 101 rules.

Critics and fans alike also see his exposition as character development by making them relatable to every day conversation for many people.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
One can see what Quentin Tarantino did in Pulp Fiction (screenwriting) in most of his screenplays. While some are better than others, I admire his character development through 'reel' dialogue. Yeah REEL dialogue. While watching his stories unfold, almost makes you want to join in on the conversation -- until you realize who is behind those words, or where those words will lead to. It is Q Tarantino's signature. Kind of sucks you into the story. True character development adding to plot points and character arcs on so many levels.

Just like most great writers or directors that have a foot in the concrete of establishing their uniqueness, through a long, well thought-out progression in developing a unique style or signature. Didn't happen over night. Or by chance. Happens by practice. Seeing what he sees in the way he sees it. And writing accordingly.

I don't know how much editing of word(s) Tarantino does, but I bet there is a lot. Tight and clever dialogue is never by chance.

Tarantino's well thought out, practiced way of listening, discerning, collating and reproducing life to fiction through dialogue took years to put on paper. Add to that, quality casting, allowing the actors to act... I like his work a lot but would never attempt to even try to copy his style.

So, is Tarantino breaking rules?

Live and learn. Rules work fine for me. And.

I can't wait to see Django Unchained or Kill Bill: Vol. 3.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
NickClapper said:
If Quentin Tarantino makes a Kill Bill Volume Three then I will find my nearest desert (probably Sahara) and I will literally bury my head in the sand.

Call me an ostrich but I will not see that movie.
Click to expand...

Ostrich!

I loved Volume One but the second was so-so… really looking forward to Django Unchained, though.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top