Pulp Fiction Analysis | Why the 'Man Who Believed in Miracles' Survived and the 'Man Who Laughed' Died

1994 | USA | Director: Quentin Tarantino

'I'm trying, Ringo. I'm trying real hard to be the shepherd.'

Friday, March 6, 2026. It's March, yet it's cold again today. On days when the wind is biting, I always end up leaving the house underdressed. I zip my coat all the way up and walk to the station.

I've watched Pulp Fiction three times.

The first time was on a streaming service. I stopped it halfway through, thinking, 'This is one of those movies I don't get.' Still, I watched it to the end. Five minutes after it finished, my brain started rearranging it on its own. Before I knew it, I was playing it a second time. It was a movie that made me want to rewatch it in a way that felt almost unsettling.

The third time was last night. This time, I watched it focusing only on 'Jules and Vincent.' And then, it became a different movie. Same footage, yet a different movie. I still can't explain that feeling well.

I heard the sound of the train doors closing. 'Clunk.' The moment I thought it sounded like a gunshot, the opening diner scene from Pulp Fiction flashed through my mind. My brain has been completely hacked.

Today, I'm going to storm in on Sensei as a 'prosecutor.''Isn't this the worst for time performance?'I've prepared myself to say that. But can I, having watched it three times, really call it an 'unfriendly movie'? My face reflected in the train window watches me, without giving an answer.

[Character Introduction]

[Work Information]

• Original Title: Pulp Fiction

• Release Date: 1994 (Japan: October 1994)

• Director: Quentin Tarantino

• Screenplay: Quentin Tarantino, Roger Avary

• Starring: John Travolta, Samuel L. Jackson

• Co-starring: Uma Thurman, Bruce Willis, Harvey Keitel, Tim Roth, Amanda Plummer, Ving Rhames, Christopher Walken

• Music: Produced by Karyn Rachtman (The soundtrack makes heavy use of 60s-70s surf rock and existing tracks)

• Runtime: 154 minutes

• Production Budget: $8 million / Worldwide Box Office: approx. $214 million

[Synopsis]

The Los Angeles underworld. Vincent and Jules, two hitmen for the mob, head out on a job to retrieve a briefcase from a man who betrayed their boss—but in the car, they argue endlessly about what they call a cheeseburger at McDonald's in France. A dangerous night with the boss's wife, Mia; a boxer's escape after reneging on a fixed fight; and a couple planning a robbery at a diner.

The stories of people who were never meant to cross paths are dismantled and reconstructed out of chronological order. At the center is a glowing golden briefcase—the contents of which remain a mystery even after 30 years.

Court is in session—is Tarantino guilty of 'unfriendly storytelling'?

🎤 Tok: Professor Cinema, today I am sitting here specifically as a 'prosecutor'.

🎬 Professor Cinema: Oh? This is quite a menacing session.

🎤 Tok: The defendant, Quentin Tarantino. The charge is 'gross unfriendliness toward the audience.' You think someone is dead, and in the next scene, they're perfectly fine eating a meal. You get dragged through a long conversation about watches, only to be hit with boxing out of nowhere. Doesn't this completely ignore the order expected of a film?

🎬 Professor Cinema: As the defense, I would argue that this 'destruction of order' was a holy liberation for the film industry in 1994. Mr. Tarantino did not fail to organize the story. He invented a new pleasure: forcing the audience to organize the story within their own minds.

🎤 Tok: Organize it in their minds? Busy modern people don't have time for that. I just want a single line to follow cleanly.

🎬 Professor Cinema: —Then let us begin the trial. I will examine the evidence one by one.

The meaning of a hitman talking about cheeseburgers—what Tarantino invented with 'small talk'

🎤 Tok: Evidence number one. The 'cheeseburger' talk and the 'foot massage' talk right before they go to kill someone. Is that length necessary? The plot doesn't move forward by a single millimeter. It's terrible for time performance.

🎬 Professor Cinema: The defense would like to call that 'blood flow to the body.' Tok, what has dialogue in movies been up until now?

🎤 Tok: ...A means to convey information, I suppose. Like 'kill that guy' or 'where is the money?'

🎬 Professor Cinema: Exactly. Movie dialogue was a conveyor belt for moving the plot. But Mr. Tarantino turned conversation into the 'breathing of the characters.' The moment Vincent (John Travolta) and Jules (Samuel L. Jackson) are arguing about what they call a Quarter Pounder in France, they transform from symbols on a screen into 'human beings with bodies and chatter' sitting right next to you.

🎤 Tok: But Professor, why make them 'hitmen' then? Couldn't it be normal people having daily conversations?

🎬 Professor Cinema: Good question. It's meaningful precisely because they are hitmen. 'A man about to kill someone is talking about a cheeseburger'—this contrast is Mr. Tarantino's invention. The eeriness that daily life and violence are continuous. The longer that small talk goes on, the more the impact of the gunshot that follows is doubled.Would you call the time spent enjoying the aroma of a sauce before eating a steak 'a waste'?

🎤 Tok: ...I wouldn't say that. But as a prosecutor, I'll add that 'I'm not sure about a chef who spends 30 minutes explaining the sauce.'

🎬 Professor Cinema: I shall note that for the record.

The real reason for scrambling the timeline—the structure that doesn't make Vincent's death the 'finale'

🎤 Tok: Evidence number two. The shuffled timeline. Professor, if you put this movie in chronological order, it would look like this, right?

1. Vincent and Jules retrieve the briefcase

2. The diner robbery

3. Vincent goes on a date with Mia, and Mia overdoses

4. Butch betrays the fix and goes on the run

5. Vincent is shot and killed in Butch's apartment

🎬 Professor Cinema: Accurate.

🎤 Tok: It would definitely be easier to understand if we watched it in this order. Isn't breaking it up just pretentious vanity?

🎬 Professor Cinema: I object. The moment you arrange it chronologically, this movie ends as a 'story about a hitman who dies.' It would be consumed as just another B-grade crime film, and we wouldn't be here talking about it 30 years later.

🎤 Tok: ...That might be true, but still.

🎬 Professor Cinema: Mr. Tarantino didn't dismantle the timeline for the sake of style. It was to 'turn the audience from consumers of the story into accomplices in the story.' Because you assemble the puzzle pieces yourself, the catharsis when it's completed is multiplied. —But Tok, the true meaning of the timeline shuffle lies even deeper.

🎤 Tok: Even deeper?

🎬 Professor Cinema: Let's talk about that in the next chapter. It's the core of this film.

Jules and Vincent—The man who grasped 'revelation' survives, and the man who laughed dies

🎬 Professor Cinema: Tok. Who is at the center of this movie?

🎤 Tok: ...Vincent? He has the most screen time.

🎬 Professor Cinema: Many people think so. But I believe the true protagonist of this film is Jules.

🎤 Tok: Jules? Samuel L. Jackson's character?

🎬 Professor Cinema: In the briefcase retrieval scene, Jules and Vincent are shot at from point-blank range. Every bullet misses. Physically, it's impossible. Jules accepts this as a 'divine miracle.' Vincent laughs it off as 'just a coincidence.' —This is the turning point of their fates.

🎤 Tok: ...Oh. Wait a second. I think I might have just realized something amazing.

🎬 Cinema Sensei: Go on.

🎤 Tok: Vincent laughs it off as a 'coincidence,' and then... he gets shot and killed while he's off his guard in the bathroom at Butch's apartment, right? But Jules accepts it as a 'miracle' and decides to quit being a hitman. Even when a robber holds a gun to him at the diner, he lets him go without killing him. In other words, the 'man who believed in the revelation' survives, and the 'man who laughed at the revelation' dies.

🎬 Cinema Sensei: ......

🎤 Tok: And because the timeline is all over the place, we see the 'scene where Vincent dies' in the middle of the movie. Yet in the final scene, Vincent is perfectly fine, drinking coffee at the diner. A dead man is alive. Wait, this is...

🎬 Cinema Sensei: Continue.

🎤 Tok: By shuffling the timeline, the end of the movie becomes a 'scene after death.' In other words, Mr. Tarantino rejected the 'story that ends with Vincent's death' and rewritten it into a story that ends with Jules's transformation. Isn't this the 'real reason' why the timeline was scrambled?

🎬 Cinema Sensei: —Tok.

🎤 Tok: Yes.

🎬 Cinema Sensei: The defense would like to admit the prosecutor's statement as evidence. Your analysis just now is almost everything I was about to say.

🎤 Tok: ...Huh?

🎬 Cinema Sensei: This movie pretends to be a 'super cool crime film' while actually asking whether or not you can choose 'salvation of the soul.' Life suddenly gives you a 'revelation' one day. Whether you grab it or laugh it off. Jules grabbed it. Vincent laughed. And by breaking the timeline, Mr. Tarantino left behind a mysterious lingering feeling that 'the dead man is alive at the end.' Is that mercy, or is it cruel? Even after 30 years, I still don't know.

🎤 Tok: ...Sensei. Even though I'm the prosecutor, haven't I just proven the defendant's innocence?

🎬 Cinema Sensei: In court, that happens often.

The $8 Million Miracle: Why Was Travolta Able to Make a Comeback?

🎤 Tok: Also, Sensei, the production budget for this movie was $8 million, right? Even though Titanic in #09 was $200 million.

🎬 Cinema Sensei: One twenty-fifth of that. But this movie earned $214 million worldwide. About 27 times the production budget. In terms of investment efficiency alone, it is one of the most 'profitable' films in cinema history.

🎤 Tok: How were you able to gather this cast on such a low budget? Bruce Willis was getting over $10 million per film back then, right?

🎬 Cinema Sensei: The reputation of Mr. Tarantino's debut film, Reservoir Dogs, is the key. Hollywood actors who saw that movie thought, 'I want to be in this man's movie.' Everyone agreed to appear for a salary close to the union minimum wage. However, they had contracts that included a percentage of the box office revenue, so as a result of the big hit, some ended up earning more than usual in the end.

🎤 Tok: Win-win, then.

🎬 Cinema Sensei: The casting of John Travolta, in particular, is legendary. He took the world by storm in the 1970s with Saturday Night Fever, but by the early 1990s, his career had completely stalled. Mr. Tarantino dared to cast a 'washed-up actor' and made the 'former dance star' dance once again.

🎤 Tok: The twist scene with Mia. That is incredibly cool.

🎬 Cinema Sensei: That dance scene superimposes Mr. Travolta's 'past' and 'present.' The king of 1970s disco dancing in a 1990s retro diner. The audience sees Mr. Travolta's career itself within the film. As a result, Mr. Travolta was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Actor and made a full comeback to Hollywood. Without this film, neither Mr. Samuel L. Jackson nor Ms. Uma Thurman would have the careers they have today.

🎤 Tok: Eight million dollars changed the history of film and the lives of the actors. ...That's the exact opposite of Titanic.

🎬 Cinema Sensei: It's not about the amount of money. It's a question of 'who you believe in.' Mr. Cameron believed in his own eyes. Mr. Tarantino believed in his own ears—in other words, the 'power of conversation.'

Closing Argument—'Life goes on after the carnage, just like drinking coffee'

🎬 Cinema Sensei: Now, let's move to the closing argument. Prosecutor Tok, you indicted this film for the 'crime of being unfriendly.' Before I ask for a verdict, I want to confirm one thing.

🎤 Tok: What is it?

🎬 Cinema Sensei: How many times have you watched this film?

🎤 Tok: ...Three times.

🎬 Cinema Sensei: You watched it three times while calling it 'unfriendly'?

🎤 Tok: ...............

🎬 Cinema Sensei: This is the defense's closing argument. The true final scene of this film is the diner. After the carnage, Jules and Vincent walk out as if nothing happened. A hitman drinks his morning coffee, pushes open the diner door, and walks outside. That alone is how this film ends.

🎤 Tok: ...

🎬 Cinema Sensei: Everything about Mr. Tarantino is packed into those few seconds. 'Life continues after the carnage, just like drinking coffee'. Jules quits being a hitman and steps into a new life. Vincent doesn't change at all and eventually dies. But the film stops at that moment where the two are walking side by side. At the very last instant, before they have diverged.

🎤 Tok: ...Sensei. I just proved my own innocence a moment ago, but there's one more thing.

🎬 Cinema Sensei: What is it?

🎤 Tok: It's true that this film is 'unfriendly.' You can't understand everything in one viewing. The timeline is scattered, and the foreshadowing isn't explained. But that also means there is a 'view that only I, who watched it three times, can see.' It's not a bad time-performance ratio. It packs three times the film experience into one. ...Prosecutor, I am dropping my indictment.

🎬 Cinema Sensei: ...That is the magic of this film.

Rating: Sensei 4.5 stars vs Tok 4 stars—A film that is 'unfriendly but makes you want to watch it again'

🎤 Tok: I dropped the indictment, but I'll be honest with my rating. I give it ★★★★ (4.0). It was 3.5 in the old version, but once I noticed the divergence between Vincent and Jules, it went up by 0.5. However, the fact that it 'has no intention of letting you understand it in one go' is a point deduction. A 19-year-old doesn't have the time to watch it 10 times like you do, Sensei.

🎬 Cinema-sensei: I give it ★★★★☆ (4.5). Same as the old version. But I will add the reason. The reason I don't give this movie 5 stars is that Butch's (Bruce Willis) episode is slightly further from the "core of the film" compared to the other two. The father's watch episode is wonderful, but its connection to the theme of Jules's "soul salvation" is somewhat weak. —That said, it rewrote the grammar of film with an 8 million dollar budget, resurrected "washed-up actors," and even 30 years later, makes people say, "It's unfriendly, but I want to watch it again." This can only be a 4.5.

Cinema-sensei's rating: ★★★★☆
Tok's rating: ★★★★

Recommended for people who:

• Want to be shocked by the realization that "movies can be this free"

• Want to experience seeing a completely different movie on the second or third viewing

• Like dialogue-driven films (half of this movie is just "chatter")

Not recommended for people who:

• Want to understand everything in one go

• Dislike depictions of violence

• Seek a "correct answer" in movies

[Sensei, what was that?]

🎤 Tok: Sensei, there's one thing that bothered me—Marcellus Wallace (the boss) has a Band-Aid on the back of his neck, right? The one that only shows up for a second. What is that?

🎬 Cinema-sensei: ...That's a good question. It's one of the mysteries that fans around the world have been debating for 30 years.

🎤 Tok: I want to hear your take on it, Sensei.

🎬 Cinema-sensei: I have one theory. But if I say it, I would be robbing you of the "joy of discovering it yourself" when you watch this movie again.

🎤 Tok: Wait, you're not going to tell me!?

🎬 Cinema-sensei: I'll just give you a hint. Try to remember the fan theory that the contents of the briefcase are "Marcellus's soul." And, where has the human soul been said to escape from since ancient times? Mr. Tarantino has neither denied nor confirmed it. For 30 years, he has maintained his silence. —The rest is for you and the readers to think about.

[A word from the staff]

This article was born after the "Titanic" episode, originally planned as the "9th installment," was transcribed and then ordered to be rewritten. I couldn't help but feel that some parts just didn't sit right, so I had the structure rethought. As a result, I think it turned out to be an interesting piece.
The fact that Tok and Cinema-sensei mention the "old version" in their ratings refers to the evaluation of the manuscript before this rewrite. You might think, "Is that allowed?" but since it's the Pulp Fiction episode with its non-linear timeline, let's just call it fine.
Regarding the development, I had envisioned a structure where Tok-kun would support and Cinema-sensei would admonish him... but in reality, it turned out completely the opposite. How would young people today feel if they watched Pulp Fiction? Would they be drawn to the unique retro sensibility of this work, which is the polar opposite of the modern era that prioritizes "time performance" (taipa)? Or would they just think, "What is this movie? I don't get it"? We were also taken aback at the time by the style of pushing through with a flood of homages and scenes that leave a strong impression. The destructive power of the poster with Uma Thurman lying down was also outstanding, wasn't it? It is a representative stylish movie of the 90s, and that twist dance scene alone will likely never fade, even in 100 years.
By the way, director Quentin Tarantino and director Hideaki Anno are both creators who represent the 90s. I feel they share a commonality of being "otaku-natured and loving homages." Looking back now, perhaps the era at the time was exactly what was seeking that kind of style.

(Staff/Time Performance Eradication Committee)

fin.

🎬 Mr. Cinema: Movies never betray you.

🎤 Tok: This time it ended on a rare, smug note, didn't it?

🎬 Mr. Cinema: Sometimes that's fine. Like a cup of coffee after a chaotic scene.

👉 The Day a Video Store Clerk Broke Hollywood—Tarantino's Origins →

👉 Is Danny's Final Smile Salvation or Madness?—Decoding the 'Violence of Empathy' →

Click here for guides & recommended reading

If you want to search by purpose, the site map is recommended

📌 Next Episode Preview

🎤 Tok: Sensei, what are we watching next?

🎬 Mr. Cinema: Midsommar (2019).

🎤 Tok: Oh, that's the one they call a bright horror movie, right? What does it mean to have a horror movie filmed in broad daylight?

🎬 Mr. Cinema: What's truly scary about that film isn't the brightness of the screen. It's the madness within the smiles.—Midsommar can be fatal if you watch it while nursing a broken heart.

🎤 Tok: Wait, a broken heart...

🎬 Mr. Cinema: What's wrong? Do you have painful memories of love too?

🎤 Tok: No, it's not a broken heart.

🎬 Mr. Cinema: Then you're safe. ...Probably.

📢 Next Release: Movie Talk #05 'Midsommar'

【Q&A Corner】

Q1. What is actually inside the briefcase?

🎬 Cinema-sensei: Tarantino himself has stated that he 'leaves it to the audience's imagination.' On set, there was just a golden lightbulb inside.

🎤 Tok: A golden lightbulb!? Then what about the 'Marcellus Wallace's soul' theory...?

🎬 Cinema-sensei: It's a famous fan theory, but Tarantino has neither denied nor confirmed it. The briefcase is a 'MacGuffin'—a device to drive the story forward, where the contents themselves have no meaning. I believe it is the most beautiful example of a technique Hitchcock loved to use.

Q2. How did Tarantino become a film director from being a 'video rental store clerk'?

🎬 Cinema-sensei: He watched a vast number of films while working for five years at the 'Video Archives' rental store in Los Angeles. He didn't go to film school. However, he had the talent to accumulate the films he watched as a 'database of references' and reconstruct them with his own unique sense.

🎤 Tok: Not going to film school is really hopeful.

🎬 Cinema-sensei: The script for his debut film, 'Reservoir Dogs,' caught the eye of industry insiders, and he won the Palme d'Or at Cannes with this, his second film. This, too, is one of the miracles of film history.

Q3. Is the adrenaline injection scene really played in reverse?

🎬 Cinema-sensei: Tarantino himself admitted it in the DVD audio commentary. In reality, they filmed the action of 'pulling out' the needle and played it in reverse to make it look like the action of 'stabbing' it in.

🎤 Tok: That wasn't CGI!?

🎬 Cinema-sensei: It wasn't CGI, but an analog trick. That unnatural movement, which seems to defy gravity, plants a sense of tension in the audience's subconscious that 'something is wrong.' It's a legendary scene in film history.

Q4. Who came up with the choreography for the dance scene between Travolta and Thurman?

🎬 Cinema-sensei: There was no choreographer. Tarantino told Travolta and Thurman to 'dance however you like,' and the two improvised.

🎤 Tok: Improvised!? That was improvised!?

🎬 Cinema-sensei: That twist was a mix of Chubby Checker's 1960s twist and Travolta's own disco experience. Incidentally, the dark red nail polish Mia (Thurman) wore in this scene was Chanel's 'Vamp,' and it is said that it sold out globally due to the influence of the film.

Q5. How is this film connected to Tarantino's other works?

🎬 Cinema-sensei: Vincent Vega's surname, 'Vega,' is the same as the real name of Mr. Blonde (Michael Madsen) from 'Reservoir Dogs,' Vic Vega. The two are set as brothers, and Tarantino had long envisioned a spin-off about the 'Vega Brothers.'

🎤 Tok: Brothers!?

🎬 Cinema-sensei: It never materialized, but Tarantino's body of work is loosely connected as the 'Tarantino Universe.' Sometimes the movies that characters in a film watch are other Tarantino works.

[Fact Check]

✅ Verified Facts

• Director/Screenplay: Quentin Tarantino, Co-writer: Roger Avary, released in 1994, runtime 154 minutes

• Production budget of $8 million, worldwide box office of approximately $214 million (over $100 million in North America alone)

• Winner of the Palme d'Or at the 47th Cannes Film Festival, winner of the Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay (nominated in 7 categories)

• John Travolta was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actor for this film, which revitalized his career

• The injection scene was filmed in reverse: Tarantino confirmed this in the DVD audio commentary

• The cast members were paid near the union minimum wage and had contracts to receive a percentage of the box office revenue

⚠️ Interpretations and Analysis (Various Theories)

• 'The contents of the briefcase are Marsellus's soul' theory: A famous fan theory. Tarantino has suggested it is 'just a MacGuffin,' but he has not explicitly denied it either

• 'Intent of the chronology': The official view is 'to maintain the tension of the story,' but there is also a philosophical interpretation that 'by ending with a scene where Vincent is alive rather than with his death, the film is locked in an eternal loop'

• The interpretation in this article that 'Jules is the true protagonist' is the unique reading of Cinema-sensei

• The anecdote about Chanel's 'Vamp' nail polish selling out: Reported by multiple media outlets, but confirmation from Chanel official sources is unknown

About Cinema-sensei and Tok's Movie Comedy Routine

　Thank you for reading this far. This 'Cinema-sensei and Tok's Movie Comedy Routine' is created as a hybrid of AI and human.
The ideas for the comedy routine, the film themes, and the structural design are conceived by the person behind the scenes (the author), and the AI (mainly Claude) is used to assist in text generation. The final text is always checked, edited, and rewritten in its entirety by the person behind the scenes, and the 'Word from the person behind the scenes' is written entirely by human hands. With the question 'Can AI talk about movies?' as the axis, I would be happy if we could explore new ways to enjoy movies together through the banter between Sensei and Tok.