I want to discuss how casually Pulp Fiction goes past a major relationship of one of the characters.
You know the scene.
What I am going to talk about happens at around 1:50 of the scene.
Samuel L. Jackson (Jules) and John Travolta go to get the suitcase and kill a few guys on their trip.
In fact, Samuel is so calm he eats a burger and talks about how he never eats burgers before they light up the room.
Because apparently he has a girlfriend.
And no one says anything about it.
No one thinks it is appropriate to ask this hitman about the current relationship he has with his woman.
His Pulp Fiction page doesn’t even mention it!
And she isn’t even included in the IMDB page!
You would figure that is somehow important to the story.
To his character.
You know, who he is with.
Some characters have that aspect of their lives, become a large part of their identity.
Take Batman for example.
He is a single man.
He has no love connection.
That is part of being Batman.
Or take John McClane who has a wife and family.
That part of his life is a big aspect of who he is.
Yet, Pulp Fiction presents it as if it doesn’t matter.
As if relationships can’t define characters.
But it is fine because that is what Tarantino was going for.
That is not his style.
Give me a break.
He could make a movie about Hitler assassinating JFK with a ray gun and people wouldn’t be insulted by the historical inaccuracies.
Instead we’d praise his artistic view of the situation.
This was a major fault in the writing of the most overrated script of all time.
All he did was cover it up with a witty remark about the relationship between men and women.
How men have to be obedient to women at times.
The movie clearly had some insight on relationships.
Yet what do we get?
We are expected to believe that Jules has no significant other.
That he is somehow a spiritual person all on his own.
And he is not with someone.
His girlfriend doesn’t let him eat cheeseburgers.
Do you really think that he would have a spiritual awakening on his own?
Or maybe she had something to do with it?