Pumpkin Loves Honey Bunny
Pulp Fiction begins with a robbery scene in which the character "Yolanda" (aka "Honey Bunny", played by Amanda Plummer) offers the crowd a threat that ends with "I'll execute every last motherf*ckin' one of you!"
Near the end of the film, we return to this scene, but the line is altered to end with "I'll execute every last one of you motherf*ckers!"
However, the scene is clearly being shown from a different camera angle. Am I giving Tarantino too much credit in assuming that the different angle is meant to represent the viewpoint of a different character? In the latter case, I believe it is fairly clear that we are seeing the scene through the eyes of "Jules" (Samuel L. Jackson). Thus, it is my contention that the slight alteration in the line was deliberate, an illustration of the slight differences in the perception of the same scene by different individuals.
It was too noticeable to have just been a "mistake," right?
Near the end of the film, we return to this scene, but the line is altered to end with "I'll execute every last one of you motherf*ckers!"
However, the scene is clearly being shown from a different camera angle. Am I giving Tarantino too much credit in assuming that the different angle is meant to represent the viewpoint of a different character? In the latter case, I believe it is fairly clear that we are seeing the scene through the eyes of "Jules" (Samuel L. Jackson). Thus, it is my contention that the slight alteration in the line was deliberate, an illustration of the slight differences in the perception of the same scene by different individuals.
It was too noticeable to have just been a "mistake," right?
posted by haahnster at 5:20 AM
7 Comments:
That has long since bothered me and I really like that you're giving Q so much credit. It was clearly a mistake though, in the same way that me just saying that was.
Or could it be Tarantino's nod to Rashomon? That's how I always interpreted it.
That scene is obliterated from my memory due to the intensity of the rest of the movie. Could be intentional.
Why did the briefcase always glow?
you're discounting two things:
1. Drug use
2. Weirdness
I don't think he meant to do that. He was so excited in reviving John Travolta's (thetan purification level 7) career that he just got in too big of a hurry.
I don't know, Keith. Tarantino is too much of a film geek to let a mistake like that slide through.
I have to agree with AOL. As would Mr. Stipe; he hates the song so much, he gives all those royalties to charity. But "Furry Happy Monsters" rocks. Maybe I'll upload that this week.
Haahnster,
"It was too noticeable to have just been a "mistake," right?"
More than likely, it was just a mistake. On every set, there is a person who is supposed to check continuity and tell the director when a gaffe like this has happened after the take. Either that person wasn't on the set or they were daydreaming.
Old Lady,
"Why did the briefcase always glow?"
It was a tribute to another movie called "Kiss Me Deadly." It was a originally a Mickey Spillane book, that got away from what the author had intended.
The briefcase was a ultimately a McGuffin, but it was also symbolic of nuclear war hanging over the World's head.
Post a Comment
<< Home