Pulp Aesthetics

261

PART II
Chapter

Pulp Aesthetics
Tarantino and violence as an aesthetic issue

"I'll have a cheeseburger and a milkshake please!":

On a Tarantinian World
To me, violence is a totally aesthetic subject

Quentin Tarantino

After seeing the "Like a Virgin" scene of Reservoir

Dogs, it is almost impossible not to grin in scepticism
while trying to understand Tarantino's films.
Let me tell you what "Like a Virgin" is
about. It is all about a girl who digs a guy
with a big dick. The entire song, it is a
metaphor for big dicks it hurts, it hurts
her The pain is reminding a fuck machine
what it once was like to be a virgin. Hence,
"Like a Virgin"(1)

Will my explanation become another "Like a Virgin"

interpretation?

Is

there

anything

like

better

interpretation in this context? In Tarantinos world any

explanation is good ("Like a Virgin" is a metaphor for
big dicks) or in some cases no explanation is even better

Quentin Tarantino, Reservoir Dogs (London: Faber and Faber, 2000), p. 4.

Pulp Aesthetics

(like

the

262

question posed

in Pulp

Fiction:

What's

in

Marcellus Wallace's briefcase?).

For Tarantino a discussion on the importance of depth
of field in Citizen Kane is as relevant as one on why
Burger King's
different

and Mac Donald's hamburgers

names

in

different

countries.

are called
Tarantinos

voracious attitude towards low and high culture can be

seen in his films. Fast food, TV sitcoms, crime movies
and other cultural manifestations are important.
In a selection Quentin Tarantino did for the National
Film Theatre in London of some of his favourite films
this attitude can be clearly seen. From obvious choices
like Scorsese's Taxi Driver and Godard's Bande a part to
the less obvious Hawks's My Girl Friday and the almost
incredible

inclusion

of

Abbott

and

Costello

Meet

Frankenstein, the list shows how heterogeneous his tastes

are.
In The Man from Hollywood, the fourth segment in a
four-part film called

Four Rooms, Chester (played by

Quentin Tarantino, who also directed and wrote it) says

in an obvious reference to the disdain that some people
feel about mass culture:

Pulp Aesthetics

263

How many actors can pull that off? And he

has to go to France to get respect. That
says it all about America right there. The
minute Jerry Lewis dies, every paper in this
fuckin' country gonna write articles calling
the man a genius. It is not right.
It is not right and it is not fair. But why
should that surprise anybody? When has
America ever been fair? We might be right
every once in a while, but we're very rarely
fair.

Tarantino was born on March 27 1963 in Knoxville,

Tennessee. When he was two years old he and his mother
moved to Los Angeles. Later, when he decided to become an
actor, he changed his name to that of his father's (up to
that moment he had been using his stepfather's last name
Zastoupil). Even though what he really wanted was to
become an actor, the only real acting job he got before
directing Reservoir Dogs was an Elvis impersonation in
the TV show The Golden Girls. In 1983 he started working
in

video

store

called

Video

Archives

in

L.

A.'s

Manhattan Beach. How much or how little this had an

impact

on

exaggerated

Tarantino's
by

the

directorial

media

and

by

career
Tarantino

has

been

himself.

According to his friend Craig Hamman, a fellow acting

student and screenwriter:
Video Archives is a cool place, but before
he ever got there Quentin was a film nut. He
already was who he was. It is almost like it
takes away from him. It is not what video
archive brought to him, it is what he

Pulp Aesthetics

264

brought to them. But it makes an interesting

story. (2)

After quitting Video Archives in 1989, Tarantino had

under his arm the script of True Romance, which he tried
to

direct

with

money

from

independent

production

companies. Afterwards he wrote Natural Born Killers, but

since he could not make any of them he wrote Reservoir
Dogs, a movie that needed a much lower budget than the
ones

just

mentioned,

which

meant

he

did

not

depend

monetarily on anyone and so he could direct it himself

with the money he won from selling the other scripts.
Harvey Keitel read the script, liked it and thanks to him
the very low budget 16mm film, became a low budget 35mm
film with renowned actors. The rest is history; Tarantino
became, thanks to his next film Pulp Fiction, one of
those few directors that have the appeal and fame of a
rock star.
Tarantino has been labelled more than once a "film
geek" for his openness towards everything that culture,
in the broadest sense of the word, has to offer. This is
something that differentiates Tarantinos work to that of
Scorseses.

While

the

latter

has

more

academic

Jeff Dawson, Revenge of the Nerd, in Paul A. Woods (ed.), Quentin Tarantino: The Film Geek Files (London:
Plexus, 2000), p. 14.

Pulp Aesthetics

265

knowledge and approach to cinema, the former has mixed TV

and

cinema

with

fast

food

restaurants

for

his

inspiration.
On one hand we have a formal education on cinema, and
on the other hand
The geek devours and assimilates everything
that TV, video, the local multiplex and
arthouse can offer him. His overview may be
less structured, his opinions more eccentric
-his relationship to cinema is purely
personal, more often enhanced by movie
magazines and books than by film-school
training. The way in which his sensibilities
developed
allows
little
room
for
the
respectable consensus view - Citizen Kane
may be an okay movie, but it is not going to
make his All-Time Top Ten.(3)

We will now analyse Taratinos style and it will be

shown

the

way

in

which

he

tries

to

make

violence

enjoyable. Using the theory previously developed we will

see how

the safeness

necessary to

enjoy violence

is

achieved by making us understand that it is not real. At

the same time we will compare Scorseses and Tarantinos
style to show how the difference between the way these
two directors understand and portray violence is clear.

Woods, Quentin Tarantino: The Film Geek Files, p. 18.

Pulp Aesthetics

266

The Aesthetics of Quentin Tarantino's Cinema

When Tarantino and Oliver Stone met for the first
time, Tarantino had already made Reservoir Dogs and his
success and fame were about to start. Stone had liked
Reservoir

Dogs,

but

had

an

advice

for

Tarantino:

'Reservoir Dogs is very good, but it is a movie. I make

films, and you make movies. John Woo, he makes movies.
But after you've been working for 15 years, you may look
back and say, "Hey, all I've done is make a bunch of
movies," and you might want to try and make a film
someday.'(4) From the context it could be assumed that
films are more serious than movies and that after years
of doing movies the logical choice would be to make
films.

After

having

this

conversation

with

Stone,

Tarantino said that he realised he wanted to make films

and not movies in Stones sense of both words. What he
wanted was to make films that would entertain people.
Entertainment and enjoyment for Tarantino are two
very important concepts when doing a film. As a lover of
mass culture, he does not distinguish between the kind of
pleasure that you get from eating a great meal at Le pont

Tom Shone, 'What Makes Tarantino Tick?, Premiere, 1994, November Issue, p. 56.

Pulp Aesthetics

267

de la Tour or eating a nice BigMac in McDonalds. The fact

that it takes longer and that it takes a more experienced
chef to prepare a meal in a fancy restaurant is no
consideration when evaluating the pleasure.
Once and again he reminds us that he wants his movies
to be funny, and his proudest moments are when people
laugh while watching his movies. The message? That's not
something that matters to Tarantino. He does not want to
communicate anything to anyone, and as he himself says,
if you have something to say, just say it.
Any time you try to get across a big idea,
you are shooting yourself in the foot.
First, you need to make a good movie. And in
the process, if there is something in it
that comes across, that's great. And it
should not be this big idea. It should be a
small idea, from which everyone can get
something different. I mean, if you are
making a movie and your big idea is that war
is bad, why do you even need to make a
movie? If that's all you are trying to say,
just say it. It is only two words: War is
bad.(5)

Unlike Scorsese, Tarantino does not use the screen as

a

pulpit,

important

but
point

rather
to

as

make

circus.

here.

In

But
order

there
to

is

an

properly

understand the aesthetics of Tarantino's cinema, it is

necessary to understand Tarantino's world. For Tarantino

Playboy, 1994, November Issue.

Pulp Aesthetics

268

the enjoyment of a film is as genuine as the one felt

reading a book or playing one of his so much loved table
games.
This

is

why

the

word

'enjoyment'

plays

such

an

important role. As we saw in the second chapter enjoyment

is the essence of aesthetics, even in the cases of such
philosophers as Immanuel Kant.
Enjoyment and laughter are very closely interrelated
in Tarantino's

films.

Every

time

he

talks

about

the

enjoyment of any of his movies, he immediately refers to

the laughter of the public.
If you hear a movie has a homosexual rape,
an OD and a guy's head exploding in it, you
are going to think that sounds like a really
rough violent movie, because any one of
those things would be enough for any other
movie. But the way it is presented, it is
scary and it is funny, a third of the
audience is diving under the chair, another
third is laughing hysterically, and the
other third is doing both at the same time.
(6)

Tarantino took this idea from the Abbott and Costello

meet movies(7). He was so surprised that horror and
comedy could be used in the same movie at the same time,

Mark Salisbury, 'Pulp Fiction: The Greatest Story ever Told?', Empire, 1994, November Issue, p. 93.

This is a series of movies done by William Abbott and Lou Costello. They started in 1948 with Abbott and
Costello Meet Frankenstein and which ended in 1955 with Abbott and Costello Meet the Mummy.

Pulp Aesthetics

269

that he decided that was the secret to handle violence.

If he uses violence, but places it in a funny environment
(just

as

Abbott

and

Costello

did

with

horror)

then

violence becomes aesthetic and can be enjoyed. In fact,

for Tarantino
violence is very cinematic. Seeing a car
crash is more interesting than seeing it
park. (8)

So

we

produces

have

established

laughter

is

that

violence

that

violent
cannot

act
be

that
taken

seriously. But an important question has to be addressed:

What is it about how violence is portrayed
in comedy that would camouflage it so the
viewers do not see it? Is it simply that
humour hides the violence, or is there
something else in the way violence is
portrayed in comedy programs that would lead
viewers to ignore its presence? (9)

This

is

explained

by

psychology

with

the

schema

theory(10). We as human beings develop schemas of how

things work. If something is told to us we basically
recur to the schema we have of that fact and see if it
fits. A schema is a kind of template that we use to see
if something fills the expectation we have of it.

Shone, 'What Makes Tarantino Tick?, p. 52.

W. James Potter and Ron Warren, Humour as Camouflage of Televised Violence, in Journal of
Communication, Spring 1998), p. 41.

Pulp Aesthetics

270

These schema are very important when analysing the

way television and cinema viewers react to what happens
in front of them. If that which happens in front of them
is comic (as in the case with violence in cartoons or in
Tarantinos films) the repercussions are many:
As television viewers, we have developed a
narrative schema about comedy programs. This
schema is composed of a set of expectations
about what happens in a comedy, such as the
pacing of jokes, types of characters, use of
themes, and types of endings. When we watch
television, we look for particular cues
about characters, plot, titles, music, and
laugh track to indicate whether we should
retrieve our comedy narrative schema or
another type of narrative schema.(11)

If

the

viewer

uses

his

schema

of

comedy,

then

violence is immediately drawn out of the picture and he

or she does not perceive what is happening in the screen
as a violent event. In fact, some studies have indeed
argued

that

slapstick,
research

violence

should

for

the

not

in

comic

be

considered

British

situations,

Standards

violent.

Corporation

as
In

in
a

David

Morrison,
...argued that violence does not exist in
humorous contexts such as cartoons. He
criticised content analysis that find high
rates
of
having
poor
definitions
of

10

S. T. Fiske and S. E. Taylor, Social Cognition (New York: McGraw-Hill , 1991)

11

W. James Potter and Ron Warren, Humour as Camouflage of Televised Violence, in Journal of
Communication, Spring 1998), p. 41.

Pulp Aesthetics

271

violence. His reasoning was that if a

character hits another on the head with a
hammer in a dramatic show, the act is
violent. However, if the same act happens in
a comedy, it should not be regarded as
violent, because it meant to be humorous.(12)

How is it possible that such

violent
The

events

answer

produce

lies

in

laughter?
form

of

expression that has been around for

a long time: cartoons.
Cartoons like Tom and Jerry are
very violent, but according to a
study by Howitt and Cumberbacht(13)
most people do not define them as
violent at all. So here lies the
possibility to answer the question
on the aesthetic possibilities of
violence.

12

Potter and Warren, Humour as Camouflage of Televised Violence, p. 40.

13

D. Howitt and G. Cumberbatch, Mass Media Violence and Society (New York: Halstead, 1975).

Pulp Aesthetics

272

In order to understand
how violent cartoons are
it is necessary to use the
imagination and transport
that

violence

world.

to

Lets

real

imagine

normal episode of Tom and

Jerry: Tom tries to blow
Jerry

up

dynamite
where

and

so

thrown

into

teapot

Jerry

is

hiding.

Jerry escapes and so Tom

puts

his

teapot

head

to

see

into

the

what

is

happening and the dynamite

explodes in his face. Now
lets

imagine

that

it

happens to a normal human

being

in

normal

circumstances. It is not
that
what

funny

anymore.

happens

cartoon?

in

Toms

becomes a daffodil.

But
the
face

Pulp Aesthetics

By

273

placing

violence

in

real

context

its

consequences start to be such that it is impossible for

it to produce laughter. In fact, to imagine those
things happening to a real human being means to take
away from it the very thing that makes it a possible
source of laughter.
D.

E.

Morrison,

in

his

article

The

idea

of

Violence(14) argues that if violence is comic (such is

the

case

with

cartoons)

then

it

should

not

be

considered violence.
His reasoning (Morrisons) was that if a
character hits another on the head with a
hammer in a dramatic show, the act is
violent. However, if the same act happens in
a comedy, it should not be regarded as
violent, because it meant to be humorous.(15)

Violence in funny contexts is not violence anymore,

and this has grave consequences for what is argued in
this thesis. If a violent act, in order to be aesthetic,
has to stop being real, then to place it in a funny
context would mean to take away the consequence it has

14

D. E. Morrison, The idea of Violence, in A. M. Hargrave (ed.), Violence in factual television, Annual Review
(London: John Libbey, 1993)

15

W. James Potter and Ron Warren, Humour as Camouflage of Televised, p. 40. The underliningis ours.

Pulp Aesthetics

274

and so it would be possible to enjoy it without remorse

just as we do with cartoon violence.
Just

as

violence,
violence
allows

no

no
in

us

one

one

feels

should

Tarantinos
to

prevent

bad

feel
films.
from

for

enjoying

remorse
Its

from

cartoon
enjoying

humorous

considering

its

context
moral

consequences and therefore it is possible to perceive it

disinterestedly.
This does not mean that any violence placed in a
funny context is aesthetic, but at least it has been
demonstrated that to do so would mean to give the first
step towards allowing such a possibility.
But a question remains, how does Tarantino create
this laughter in moments so tense as those ones in which
violence is so extreme as in the ear cutting scene in
Reservoir Dogs?.
The answer to this question not only explains why
violence in Tarantino is funny, but it also backs the
fact that violence is displaced and therefore not real.
One of the ways of explaining where humour comes from
is what experts call the incongruency theory. This theory

Pulp Aesthetics

sustains

275

that

laughter

stems

from

witnessing

an

incongruous act. But this incongruous act has to have

some

characteristics

in

order

to

actually

produce

laughter.
...this
model
proposes
that
when
an
individual attends sudden, intense, or
incongruous stimulation , several judgements
will be related to whether he or she will
laugh: (1) Is the stimulus dangerous?; (2)
Is the stimulus evaluated as a serious
challenge to the persons knowledge or is it
seen as playful or inconsequential?; (3) Can
the incongruity be resolved? Extremely
sudden, intense, or highly incongruous
stimuli, or stimuli judged to be dangerous,
are likely to lead to expressive reactions
of distress and behavioural reactions of
avoidance and aggression. (16)

Thus the similarities with what has been said about

the criteria for a violent act to be converted into a
possible source of aesthetic pleasure are obvious. If a
violent act has the purpose of being disinterested then
it should achieve, first of all, the status of a non
threatening act.
Incongruency,
violence

of

its

by

its

own

threatening

nature,
nature.

helps
If

liberate

violence

is

incongruent immediately its consequences in real life

disappear

16

and

therefore

it

can

be

considered

Mary K. Rothbart, Incongruity, Problem Solving and Laughter, in Anthony J. Chapman and Hugh C. Foot (ed.),
Humour and Laughter: Theory, Research and Applications (London: John Wiley & Sons, 1976), p. 38.

Pulp Aesthetics

276

disinterestedly. Relations between disinterestedness and

incongruency have been shown to be very close.
In

the

case

incongruency

is

of

Pulp

Fiction,

achieved

by

for

example,

playing

with

the

genre

characters. By breaking our expectations of typical genre

characters

impossible

one

likely
and

world

therefore

immediately

becomes

they

incongruent

become

an

within our schema of that fictional world.

The idea was to take these really old
stories, you know, the boxer who's supposed
to throw the fight and does not, the
dangerous love-triangle between this guy and
his boss's wife, some gangsters trying to
get rid of a body the sort of thing you've
seen a zillion times before. I want to take
these genre characters and put them in real
life situations for comic effect. (17)

The result is a very peculiar one, what happens when

you put fictional genre characters that are supposed to
be in a very specific kind of story and you put them in
real life situations? The result is it seems less real
than it did before. The displacement causes the comic
effect so much desired in Tarantino that, as it has been
shown, allows violence to also be assessed aesthetically.

17

Shone, 'What Makes Tarantino Tick?, p. 51.

Pulp Aesthetics

277

An analysis of Tarantino's Style

My Best Friend's Birthday is Tarantinos first film.
When he was 23 years old he decided to direct a film, and
started to work on a script that he shot with some
friends.

My

Best

Friend's

Birthday

is

commercially

unavailable and according to Tarantino not a very good

film. After shooting it, Tarantino decided he had to do
something that was worth showing to people and wrote True
Romance and after a while Natural Born Killers, two films
he couldn't direct(18).
Then he wrote Reservoir Dogs, and since he was so
tired of looking for financing he decided to use the
30,000 dollars he earned for selling the script of True
Romance in shooting it. But as stated earlier Harvey
Keitel

backed

the

script

and

it

became

much

more

ambitious film.
Reservoir Dogs (1992)

Reservoir Dogs is a movie about an event we barely

see. A group of men all dressed in black rob a jewellery
store. When they get there the police are waiting for

18

True Romance was directed by Tony Scott and Natural Born Killers was directed by Oliver Stone.

Pulp Aesthetics

278

them and Mr. Orange (played by Tim Roth) is shot and from
then everything goes wrong. Most of the film takes place
in the warehouse were they had to meet after the robbery.
Reservoir Dogs is a movie about accidental things as
opposed to a movie where essential things happen(19).The
very name of the movie is an example of the way things
happen in Tarantino's first film. When asked why the
movie had that name, Tarantino answered:
I do not answer that question. And the
reason I do not answer is that, basically,
it is more of a mood title than anything
else. It is just the right title, it sums up
the movie, do not ask me why. () People
come up to me and tell me what they think it
means and I am constantly astounded by their
creativity and ingenuity. As far as I'm
concerned, what they come up with is right,
they're 100 per cent right. (20)

Besides the name of the film, the name given to the

robbers is also accidental. When they are hired by Joe,
the paternal figure of this clan, and the only person
that holds the clan together, he names them. But besides
giving them new names, he also prohibits them to give the

19

When I talk about accidental and essential things I am referring to the opposition between things that happen in
a way because they do have to happen that way (essential) and things that happen in a way but could happen
any other way (accidental). Fred Botting and Scott Wilson develop this further, in Fred Botting and Scott
Wilson, 'By Accident: The Tarantinian Ethics', Theory, Culture and Society, 1998, vol. 15(2), p. 89-113

20

Reservoir Dogs Press Conference, Toronto International Film Festival, 16 September 1992, in Gerald Peary,
Quentin Tarantino Interviews (London: University Press of Mississippi, 1998), p. 38.

Pulp Aesthetics

279

real ones to anyone. They will only use the names given
by him to them and nothing else.
Under no circumstance are you to tell one
another your real name or anything else
about yourself. That includes where you are
from, your wife's name, where you might've
done time, about a bank in St. Petesburg you
might have robbed. You guys do not say shit
about who you are, where you been or what
you've done. (21)

This reinforces the fact that they are not a group;

in fact, once they have been named a discussion arises on
why those names had been given to them.
JOE
(pointing
at the men as he gives them a
name)
Mr Brown, Mr White, Mr Blonde, Mr Blue, Mr
Orange and Mr Pink
MR PINK
Why am I Mr Pink?
JOE
Cause youre a faggot.
Everybody laughs.
MR PINK
Why cannot we pick our own color?
JOE
I tried it once, it didnt work. You get
four guys fighting over whos gonna be Mr
Black. Since nobody knows anybody else,
nobody wants to back down. So forget it, I
pick. Be thankful you are not Mr Yellow.
MR BROWN
Yeah, but Mr Brown? Thats too close to Mr
Shit.
Everybody laughs.
MR PINK
Yeah, Mr Pink sounds like Mr Pussy. Tell you
what, let me be Mr Purple. That sounds good
to me, Im Mr Purple.
JOE
You are not Mr Purple, somebody from another
jobs Mr Purple. You are Mr Pink.
MR WHITE
21

Quentin Tarantino, Reservoir Dogs (London: Faber and Faber, 2000), p. 89.

Pulp Aesthetics

280

Who cares what your name is? Who cares if

you are Mr. Pink, Mr. Purple, Mr. Pussy, Mr.
Piss...
MR PINK
Oh thats easy for you to say, you are Mr
White. You gotta cool-sounding name. So tell
me, Mr White, if you think Mr Pink is no
big deal, you wanna trade?
JOE
Nobodys trading with anybody! Look, this
aint a goddam fuckin city council meeting!
Listen up Mr Pink. We got two ways here, my
way or the highway. And you can go down
either ofem. So whats it gonna be, Mr
Pink?
MR PINK
Jesus Christ, Joe. Fuckinforget it. This is
beneath me. Im Mr Pink, lets move on.(22)

Who cares what your name is? In this phrase we can

summarise the attitude of the robbers towards each other.
We are far away from the family world of mafia bosses of
Scorsese's
relation

films

where

between

them

everyone
is

knows

completely

everyonee.

The

accidental

and

therefore there are no bonds. They just happen to be

doing a job together, that is it, their relation could
not go further than that.
The boss is Joe (played by Lawrence Tierney) who
organised the heist and hired the men. He only wants them
to do their job well, and does not trust them. He says to
them that by not knowing each other's names it makes them
having to rely on him, which makes it easier to control
them.

22

Tarantino, Reservoir Dogs, p. 11-14. The underlining is ours.

Pulp Aesthetics

281

The fact that the group is accidental has very grave

consequences

when

comparing

it

with

Scorsese's

mafia

films. The ever-present mafia code of Scorsese's films

has no place here. If the people who belong to the group
have no bond, then there can be no code but to rob, get
the

money

and

leave.

Instead,

here,

the

code

is

supplanted by professionalism. Once and again the guys

are reminded that they have to be professional.
Professionalism as opposed to a code is based on
selfishness as

opposed to

camaraderie. If

you

are

professional you will not care about the others, you will
not pay attention to feelings, you will just do your job
and be paid. When Mr. White (played by Harvey Keitel),
perhaps the

only

figure

that

shows

any feelings

for

someone else besides him, tells Mr. Pink (played by Steve

Buscemi) that he has told his name to Mr. Orange, Mr.
Pink gets mad and tells him that he is crazy and that the
only professional person in the job is himself, to what
White answers:
We had just gotten away from the cops. He
just got shot. It was my fuckin' fault he
got shot. He's a fuckin' bloody mess - he's
screaming. I swear to God, I thought he was
gonna die right then and there. I'm tryin'
to comfort him, telling him not to worry,
he's gonna be okay, I'm gonna take care of
him. And he asked me what my name was. I
mean, the man was dyin' in my arms. What the

Pulp Aesthetics

282

fuck was I supposed to tell him, 'Sorry, I

cannot give out that information, it is
against the rules. I do not trust you
enough? Maybe I shoulda, but I couldn't.
(23)

When giving his name a person becomes a human being.

Knowing

someones

acquaintance.
suddenly

That

becomes

name

means

person

having

stops

someone.

some

If

being

kind

of

anonymous

White

had

and
been

'professional' he would not have told his name to Orange.

But he did it, he told him because he was not acting
professionally but morally. If instead of professionalism
they could act on code practice, then taking care of each
other would be an important part of the job. But not
here, if there is no bond there is no code.
This is the first grasp we have that ethics is not
the main concern here. The characters are not expected to
act morally, not even in that mafia sense of being loyal.
Not only are they not expected to be ethical, but rather
ethics should not be a concern for them.
Violence in Reservoir Dogs is ever present thanks to
the pool of blood of Mr. Orange. Orange is bleeding to
death on the floor for the whole duration of the film.

23

Tarantino, Reservoir Dogs, p. 36.

Pulp Aesthetics

283

The job they had to do was very easy, "bustin' in and

bustin' out". But things do not go as planned. Mr. Brown
(played by Quentin Tarantino) is killed and Mr. Blue
(played by Edward Bunker) disappears, Mr.

White, Mr.

Pink, Mr. Blonde and Mr. Orange make it to the rendezvous

point, a

deserted

warehouse.

While trying

to

take

woman's car to run away from the scene, Mr. Orange gets
shot

and

has

started

to

bleed

heavily.

The

actual

shooting of Mr. Orange only lasts a second and takes the

audiences

by

surprise,

but

the

consequences

of

the

shooting are many and the image of Mr. Orange lying on

the floor bleeding to death is the most important of them
all.
One of the things that Tarantino did in this film was
to use real time as opposed to film time. What happens in
this movie happens exactly in the same time as it would
happen in real life. The main story of the film lasts
exactly an hour and everything happens in that lapse of
time(24).
I think one of the reasons the film works on
a tension level is because of the use of
real time. The real time of the movie is an
hour, the time they're in the warehouse. It
takes longer to see because it goes back and
24

The movie lasts one hour and a half due to the flashbacks.

Pulp Aesthetics

284

forth in the story. But they're stuck in the

warehouse, and every minute for them is a
minute for you. (25)

The most important event in that time is that Orange

is bleeding to death. A pool of blood is building and it
is impossible to ignore it. Orange is there as a reminder
to all that the heist did not end well. It was all a
disaster

and

what

seemed

an

easy

job

became

big

problem.

"Orange
bleeding
death

is
to

Not all of the violent acts that happen in this film

are to be enjoyed, and Orange's pool of blood is one
that. Orange and his pool of blood is not a very pleasant
sight. We can almost see Orange's life dripping away from
him and this is a fact that has the purpose of making the

25

Michel Ciment and Hubert Niogret, 'Interview at Cannes', Positif, 379, September 1992, pp. 28-35, in Gerald
Peary, Quentin Tarantino Interviews, p. 15.

Pulp Aesthetics

285

characters feel uneasy about what happened. For them it

is worse to have Orange dying on the floor than if he had
been killed. In fact if we compare the time they talk
about Mr. Brown's death is almost nil when compared to
that spent talking about Mr. Orange.
As I have said in the second chapter of the first
part, in order to aestheticize violence it is necessary
that moral consequences and any relation to real violence
is ignored. This cannot be done in the case of Orange's
death. Orange's dying has to be uneasy in order for it to
realistically drive the narrative. If Orange's pool of
blood had been aestheticized, then it would have had to
be done in such a way as to convince the public not to
relate it to real violence. If this was the case then no
one would have believed that the narrative was being
driven by it. How can we believe that a violent act that
seems

not

to

have

any

moral

consequences

for

the

audience, might have an impact on the characters who are

gangsters, trained robbers who must have seen this many
times?
Further in the movie there is one of the most famous
scenes

of

the

whole

film.

Mr.

Blonde,

crazy

guy,

decides to torture the cop he kidnapped during the run

Pulp Aesthetics

286

away. They all think that someone ratted on them and so

to have a cop there is very good, that way it is possible
to

interrogate

and

get

some

information

from

him.

Tarantino plays with our expectations. Even though it

would have been perfectly normal, and even predictable,
for Blonde to torture the cop to get the information, he
does not do it to get any information but rather just to
enjoy himself. And Blonde makes this perfectly clear when
he starts the torturing:
Now I'm not gonna bullshit you. I do not
really care about what you know or do not
know. I'm gonna torture you for a while
regardless. Not to get information, but
because torturing a cop amuses me. There's
nothing you can say, I've heard it all
before. Except pray for a quick death, which
you ain't gonna get.(26)

The fact that the torture had no reason at all adds

to the possibilities of enjoyment, for as we have seen in
the first chapter of the first part of this thesis, and
according to De Quincey, a murder has to be committed
just because and not for any practical or moral reason.
Even though this pleasure is not the one that concerns us
here, since we are here talking about the pleasure felt
by the audience and not by the performer of violence, it

26

Tarantino, Reservoir Dogs, p. 61.

Pulp Aesthetics

287

is interesting to see how from the beginning this scene

points towards aesthetics.
The torture scene is the first violent scene that
tries

to

be

aesthetically

pleasing

in

Tarantino's

filmography.

Mr Blonde cuts
the cops ear

There are mainly four elements in this scene that

serve the purpose of aestheticising violence. The first
is music, the second is dancing, the third is forewarning

Pulp Aesthetics

288

and the fourth and most obvious of them all is off-screen

violence.
Forewarning as a means of aestheticising violence
has already been explained. No one can say that what
happened

in

that

scene

took them

by total

surprise.

Tarantino makes it obvious enough that what is going to

happen is a torture. From the moment we see the close-up
of Mr. Blondes boot where his razor was hidden, up to
the moment when he actually cuts the cops ear we have
had a lot of time to prepare for the actual cutting.
First we know that Blonde is a disgusting character
who

is

just

going

to

torture

the

cop

out

of

total

pleasure, then we know that he is going to use a razor to

do whatever he is thinking of doing to him. And as if
this was not enough, Blonde does not cut the cop's ear
right away. He takes his time to turn the radio on so we
can hear some nice music in the background and he even
dances a bit so we can relax and enjoy.
Music not only helps us in enjoying the violence, but
it also drowns the guttering sounds that the cop emits
while his ear is being cut.

Pulp Aesthetics

289

If we compare this scene with the one in Casino where

the

man

has

his

hand

smashed

with

hammer

the

differences are again obvious between the way in which

Scorsese and Tarantino work. For a long time we know what
is going to happen and we do not receive a surprise as we
in fact did in Casino. We do not suffer trying to guess
what is going to happen to the cop, but instead we
concentrate in all the signals given to us so as to
understand that this is not real violence.
Music plays a very important role in this scene.
Thanks

to

the

music

it

is

possible

to

enhance

the

possibilities of enjoying what is happening. If there was

not any kind of music, the scene would have become almost
unbearable. Music not only helps us in remembering that
this is a movie (how else is it possible that in such a
horrible circumstance a song so rightly called "Stuck in
the Middle With You" starts to play right when Blonde
starts torturing?) but also says that it is alright to
enjoy the violence.
We also have Mr. Blonde's dancing to the music, which
is

an

element

that

again

adds

to

the

comedy

that

Tarantino includes in his films. A man who's about to

torture a cop and takes his time to start dancing is

Pulp Aesthetics

290

again reminding us that it is alright to enjoy this

because it is happening in a movie, not in real life.

"Mr
Blonde
dances to the
music

But what helps the most in this case is the use of

off-screen violence. We never actually see Blonde cutting
the cop's ear. After all this preparation, after all the
time we spent waiting for what Blonde was going to do the
camera tracks left and we only see a door while the cop
screams. Tarantino considers the use of off-screen shots
as a very important element in film-making.
What you do
important as
like to show
the audience
anything; it
that.(27)

27

not see in the frame is as

what you do see. Some people
everything. They do not want
to have a second guess about
is all there. I'm not like

Graham Fuller, Answers First, Questions Later, in John Boorman et Walter Donohue (ed.), Projections 3: Filmmakers on Film-making (London: Faber and Faber, 1994), p. 55.

Pulp Aesthetics

291

"we only see a

door while the
cop screams

By not showing us the actual ear cutting, Tarantino

accomplishes a lot from an aesthetic point of view. By
not seeing what happens we can choose as much or as
little as we want to imagine. Unlike Scorsese who makes
us sit in the front row to experience violence first
hand, Tarantino takes us away from it.
'Was that as good for you as it was for me?' asks
Blonde. Even though he is saying it to the cop it could
have perfectly have been said to us. This question posed
at the end of the scene almost seems as if Tarantino is
asking us if we achieved his goal, if we enjoyed the
scene so much as he did directing it.

Pulp Aesthetics

292

Pulp Fiction (1994)

In Pulp Fiction the title is also of significance. At

the beginning of the film a caption reads:
PULP (pulp) n. 1. A soft, moist, shapeless
matter.
2. A magazine or book containing lurid
subject matter and being characteristically
printed on rough, unfinished paper.
American Heritage
Edition(28)

Dictionary:

New

College

But this does not reflect what the enfant terrible of

contemporary American cinema really understands by pulp
fiction:
If you are going to get historical, then the
whole idea of pulp, what it really means, is
a paperback you do not really care about.
You read it, put it in your back pocket, sit
on it in the bus, and the pages start coming
out, and who gives a fuck? When you are
finished it you hand it to someone else to
read, or you throw it away. You do not put
it in your library. (29)

In Tarantinos world the distinctions between what is

considered worthy of praise or not differ from those of a
normal world. Hamburgers are as worthy of praise as filet
mignon or Dostoyevsky is as worthy of praise as Elmore
Leonard. In the same sense, pulp fiction could be as good

28

Quoted in Quentin Tarantino, Pulp Fiction (London: Faber and Faber, 1994), p. 3.

29

Manohla Dargis, 'Quentin Tarantino on Pulp Fiction' , in Peary, Quentin Tarantino Interviews, p. 67.

Pulp Aesthetics

293

as any other expression of culture and the fact that it

only

lasts

while

it

is

being

read,

if

we

follow

Tarantinos definition of what pulp fiction is, it does

not affect its aesthetic status.
But the title is, as Tarantino said of Reservoir
Dogs, more a mood title than anything else. None of the
definitions given of pulp fiction apply to what the movie
is in terms of historical importance and relevance. To
describe the contents of Pulp Fiction as lurid, or as
something that is read (in this case seen) and thrown
away does not apply to the film. On the contrary this is
a movie that stays with you long after you have seen it.
A mood title means that what it refers to is the
world we are entering. It means the audience are going
into a world where unless they like Big Macs, read Elmore
Leonard's novels and like exploitation it is most likely
likely

they

will

not

be

able

to

understand

what

is

happening.
Pulp Fiction is a movie that tells many stories. One
of

these

stories

involves

Vincent

(played

by

John

Travolta) and Jules (played by Samuel L. Jackson), two

"employees" of Marcellus Wallace (played by Ving Rhames).

Pulp Aesthetics

294

At one moment we see them driving somewhere and in the

meanwhile

Vincent

is

talking

to

Jules

about

his

experiences in Europe. They are the typical example of

the characters that inhabit the movies of Tarantino.
According to Vincent the funniest thing about Europe is
that 'they got the same shit over there that we got here,
but

it

is

just,

just,

there

it

is

little

different.'(30) The difference between France and USA is

that in France they call the Quarter-Pounder a Royale
with Cheese.
It is necessary to dig into the significance of this
explanation in a Tarantino film. The importance of mass
culture for Tarantino has already been pointed out, and
so this explanation is an example of how that is in fact
a relevant difference between France and America in a
Tarantinian world.
Just as for a gourmet a relevant difference between
America and France would be that in France they serve
sorbette after the main course, for a junk food eater the
difference between hamburger names is relevant. Other
examples of conversations of this same sort take place in

30

Tarantino, Pulp Fiction, p. 14.

Pulp Aesthetics

295

the film between Mia and Vincent who discuss things like
Are you a Bewitched or a Jeannie man? or If you
were

Archie,

who

would

you

fuck

first,

Betty

or

Veronica?
The conversation in the car takes place on the way to
look for the famous Marcellus Wallaces briefcase. They
finally get the briefcase and after killing two guys they
give a ride to Marvin who was also in the room. But
before that a guy who was hiding in the bathroom exits
the bathroom and shoots at them five times but they end
up unharmed.
While

taking

Marvin

home,

something

happens

that

shows perfectly well the point which has been raised

here: Tarantino has an aesthetic concern with violence.
What

happens

if

this

scene

can

be

read

in

two

different ways that at the same time back up and explain

the idea of an aesthetics of violence: 1.- The concern
with violence here is aesthetic rather than moral and 2.the event is funny.

Pulp Aesthetics

296

"...he
turns
around
to
face Marvin
holding
a
gun in his
hand

While in the car returning from the visit to pick

up the briefcase Vincent is talking to Marvin about the
revelation that Jules supposedly had (Do you think God
came down from Heaven and stopped the bullets?). Vince
is facing Marvin with the gun in his hand pointed right
at Marvin and suddenly the car hits a bump and Vince
shoots Marvin accidentally(31). Here starts a scene that
even though should have been about ethical implications
since a murder just occurred it ends up being one about
cleanliness and aesthetics.

Pulp Aesthetics

297

The blood has dirtied the immaculate white Cadillac.

The white leather seats are now all red with blood and
the tidy Jules and Vincent are now covered in someone
elses blood.

When
they
shoot
Marvin
the
only
concerns they seem
to
have
are
aesthetic. Look at
this mess!

The only problem that there seems to be is the

aesthetic problem of dirt. Look at this mess! says
Jules to Vincent after he shoots the guy. Not once the
ethical concern of having killed a man arises. From the

31

It is interesting to note again the importance of accidents in Taratinos films. What has happened in a car is also
an accident.

Pulp Aesthetics

298

beginning the only problem that has to be solved is

that of the blood in the car. Cleanliness is the only
issue that arises and that is eventually tackled by
Wolf, a man that Marcellus Wallace sends to help them.
And what does the Wolf do? He orders them to clean the
car, and to clean themselves.
Wolf is a very important character since he will be
the one who will decide how and when the dirt will be
disposed of and also because his presence gives a clue
as to why the act of cleaning the blood is much more
important than what at first sight it seems.

Im Winston Wolf. I
solve problems.

It might be thought, at a first glance, that the

only reason why blood has to be cleaned is because it

Pulp Aesthetics

299

would incriminate them. Indeed, Jules says to Vince

that they cannot just drive around with a car full of
blood. But if we analyze further the implications of
what happens in this scene it becomes clear that the
significance

is

much

deeper

and

that

the

fact

an

aesthetic cleansing takes place here backs the point

raised in this work: Tarantinos concerns are aesthetic
and not ethical.
This new vision of what happens in this scene
starts to fall into place if we compare the Scorseses
use of blood with that of Tarantino. The use of blood
in Scorsese films is ritual. Blood cleans the sins.
This is why the term aesthetic cleansing is used here
as opposed to that of ethical cleansing.
Cleanliness has been used as a metaphor of moral
purity since man has talked about ethics. Indeed, to say
that it is just a metaphor would would be unjust since it
meant much more than that for some cultures. In Lourdes
people wash the sick parts of their body not to get rid
of dirt, but to clean the sins.

But the use of blood is here much more relevant than

that

of

water

for

ritual

cleansing.

The

killing

of

Pulp Aesthetics

300

animals and humans and the consequent use of their blood

either to drink it or to be cleaned was a common thing
for the Aztecs and other cultures.

In Scorseses films, as it has already been shown,

blood has a different meaning. It is used as a moral
cleanser. Blood, be it our own or of others, clean us
of our sins. You kill with blood and you are cleansed
also with it.

Do not be afraid
of the soap, spread
it around

Blood in this scene is not an element that could

cleanse, but on the contrary is the very element that

Pulp Aesthetics

301

pollutes and that has to be taken away. On one hand we

have blood taking away the pollution and on the other
hand blood being the very pollution itself.
The cleaning of the blood has many faces here and
it is shown to us in every detail, which makes it clear
to the audience the importance that this fact has for
the understanding of the story. We see the cleaning of
the car, the covering of the blood with towels, the
washing of hands and finally the washing of the whole
bodies of Jules and Vince.
The feeling we expect from them is guilt from
having killed someone innocent. But we do not get that
feeling because this would mean that there is a moral
concern.

The

concern

Jules

and

Vince

have

is

different and much more primitive one: the feeling of

needing to be safe and more importantly the feeling of
wanting to be clean.
It is possible to see that wanting to get rid of
pollution and guilt are two sides of the same coin.
According to Walter Burkert:

the
concept
of
pollution
and
guilt
represent two stages in the evolution of the

Pulp Aesthetics

302

human mind; of these, the fear of pollution

is supposedly more primitive (), whereas
the concept of guilt is more modern and
reflects
the
awakening
of
selfconsciousness.
Guilt
is
related
to
personalised
ethics,
whereas
pollution
somehow harks back to the Stone Age. (32)

The

scene

in

the

car

in

Pulp

Fiction

is,

undoubtedly, funny. People laugh in this scene. But

what makes it so incredible is the fact that this is a
real scene and that its consequences should be there
unlike the case of cartoon violence. What Tarantino
does here is to achieve the same goal as those who make
cartoons but in a different way. Instead of the lack of
consequences being the cause of laughter, the fact that
it produces laughter is what takes its consequences
away.
If we laugh at something is because we assume it
did not have grave consequences. Tarantino, using an
accident as the trigger of comedy, achieves his goal of
taking away the awareness of the consequences of a
fact. In Tarantinos films instead of pies they throw
bullets but with the same comic effect.

32

Walter Burkert, Creation of the Sacred: Tracks of Biology in Earlier Religions (London: Harvard University
Press, 1996), p. 125.

Pulp Aesthetics

303

The Man from Hollywood (1995)

"The Man from Hollywood" is the fourth story in a

four-part movie that takes place in a hotel with a bell
boy

(played

by

Tim

Roth).

Four

different

directors

directed each segment and Tarantino wrote and directed

the last segment of the film, the scene at the penthouse
of the hotel.
This is, unlike his other three films, a comedy. It
has already been seen that the Reservoir Dogs and Pulp
Fiction

use

comedy,

but

this

one

is

comedy

from

beginning to end.
From the beginning an enigma appears. They have asked
Ted, the bellboy, for some things: a block of wood, three
nails, a roll of twine, a bucket of ice and a hatchet as
sharp as the devil himself. But we do not know what they
are for.
They talk and talk about something they want to do
that has a relation with The Man from the South, a TV
episode of Alfred Hitchcock Presents(33).

33

This episode was aired on January 3, 1960 and it was directed by Norman Lloyd. In many interviews Tarantino
calls this episode The Man from Rio.

Pulp Aesthetics

304

We also find out that a violent act will take place

since Leo says Ive got the doctor waiting in the
fucking emergency room. The build up to whatever is
going to happen is so obvious that even the characters
talk about it: Theodore's been here fifteen minutes
and you've talked about everything but.
Ted the bell boy finally finds out that what is going
to happen is a reconstruction of something that happened
in The Man from the South:
Peter Lorre makes a bet that Steve McQueen
cannot light his cigarette lighter ten times
in a row. Now if Steve McQueen can light his
cigarette lighter ten times in a row, he
wins Peter Lorre's new car. If he cannot he
loses his little finger.
(pause)
Norman and Chester just made the same bet.

The idea is basically that if Norman does not light

the zippo ten times in a row, Ted the bellboy will cut
his little finger with the hatchet as sharp as the devil
himself, if he does Chester will give him his 1964 red
convertible Chevy Corvelle.
If Ted accepts taking part in this he will get one
thousand dollars. A 20-minute build up ends in a flash
when Norman misses at the first try and Ted cuts his
finger, takes the money and leaves in a hurry.

Pulp Aesthetics

305

If anything is a good example of forewarning is The

Man from Hollywood. This is a film segment that consists
of a build up. As in other parts of other Tarantino films
we have all the time in the world to prepare for what is
going to happen. This, together with the comedy element,
makes The Man from Hollywood and ideal example of what
violence without consequences is.
Kill Bill vol. 1 and 2 (2003)

If we see Kill Bill (vol. 1 and 2) in the light of

what has been said up until now it will be easy to see
why this is such a different work than the previous
ones Tarantino has done. The portrayal of violence as
well

as

the

kind

of

story

that

is

being

told

is

completely new as well as the use and mixture of cinema

genres.
At the beginning of the first volume a quotation
can be seen which explains for itself what the movie is
about. Revenge is a dish best served cold and revenge
is indeed the theme of this movie. After leaving Bill
(played

by

David

Carradine)

and

The

Deadly

Viper

Assassination Squad (or DiVAS) because she has found

out that she is pregnant, Beatrix (also knows as The

Pulp Aesthetics

306

Bride and played by Uma Thurman) decides to get married

to a nobody trying to run away from a life of crime.
The day of her wedding Bill and the DiVAS appear and
kill everyone, including guests, priest and the organ
player. Bill personally shoots Beatrix in the head, but
before he can stop his finger from pulling the trigger
she tells it is his baby. The shot leaves Beatrix in a
comma, of which she wakes up four years later deciding
to kill each and everyone of the DiVAS and of course
Bill. And so the roaring rampage of revenge, as
Beatrix herself describes it at the beginning of Kill
Bill (vol. 2) starts.
Even though revenge could seem as a big idea and
therefore

it

could

be

thought

that

Tarantino

is

shifting towards a more serious cinema(34), we can

actually see that revenge in Kill Bill is nothing but a
device to spin the wheel of the story. As the film
critic Roger Ebert has said, the motivations have no
psychological depth or resonance, but are simply plot
markers.(35)

34

Revenge is also a common theme of Yakuza films, Spaghetti Westerns and Kung-Fu films which are the main
source of inspiration of Kill Bill.

35

Roger Ebert, Kill Bill, Volume 1 (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com), quoted, in Edwin Page, Quintessential
Tarantino (New York: Marion Boyars, 2005), p. 205.

Pulp Aesthetics

307

The way Tarantino chose to do this movie is by

mixing many styles of filmmaking and all genres into
one.

Violence

is

incredibly

interesting

since

he

decides to portray it not only aesthetically as he has

done up to this moment, but he also portrays violence
in what could be called a Scorsesian style. Tarantino
is now far away from the world of the confined space of
the all-male warehouse of Reservoir Dogs and also
removed from the cozy Los Angeles of Pulp Fiction and
has

gone

into

more

complicated

(plotwise

and

geographically36 as well as morally) world that requires

a much more elaborate way of looking at violence. This
means he needed to broaden his aesthetic spectrum and
include in his cinematic palette an array of visual
ways

of

expressing

violence

that

he

had

not

used

before.
So for a quick run down of all the
different things involved in this movie;
one is the yakuza films, and the samurai
movies, the spaghetti western. But also
thrown in there is my little Italian
Giallo scene, I also have my little Brian
De Palma sequence in there to give that
some fun.(37)

36

For more on the geographical differences between these films see: Edward Gallafent, Quentin Tarantino (New
York: Pearson Longman, 2006), p. 99.

37

The Making of Kill Bill, in Quentin Tarantino, Kill Bill (DVD)

Pulp Aesthetics

308

So an analysis of the violence in Kill Bill needs

to reflect this new acquired complexity. Some scenes
of the film will be analyzed to show the different ways
in which it has been portrayed putting an emphasis on
the interesting use that Tarantino makes of blood in
this movie.
The

beginning

of

the

First

Volume

is

very

interesting. We see a Close-Up of Beatrixs face, who

has been beaten and is all bloody while we hear a man
who is talking to her. We never see Bill, but only his
hand which at a moment tenderly cleans a little of the
blood on Beatrixs face with a handkerchief (we know it
is

Bill

because

the

name

is

embroidered

in

the

handkerchief) but then suddenly he shoots her. There is

no warning or anything that indicates that he was going
to shoot her.
This scene is not only the appetizer to a new kind
of violence for Tarantino, but also if we compare it
visually to the torture scene of Reservoir Dogs we can
see that this is the exact opposite. Most of the time
in the torture scene we see Mr. Blonde preparing the
setting for the cutting of the ear, while in Kill Bill
vol. 1 we never see Bill; in fact, the whole scene is

Pulp Aesthetics

309

composed of one shot of Beatrixs face. In the torture

scene the actual violence is performed off-camera and
only after we have spent some time realising what is
going to happen next, while in this scene the shot
happens

right

before

our

eyes

and

as

complete

surprise since there is nothing in the scene that warns

us of what could happen.
Even
indicate

though
that

what

has

Tarantino

been
has

said

would

changed

his

seem

to

way

of

portraying violence, that is incorrect. As we have

already said more than changing his style, he has
broadened

the

spectrum

of

possibilities

for

his

portrayals of violence. In a later scene in the bar

owned by O-Ren (played by Lucy Liu) there is a fight.
Here

we

can

see

the

Tarantino

we

know,

the

only

difference is that he spills more blood than usual.

Beatrix has to face dozens of men dressed in black
(as the guys in Reservoir Dogs) with masks (like the
one worn by Bruce Lee in The Green Hornet). The fight
seems useless since it is impossible that one woman can
defeat so many men armed with swords and other weapons,
but this world is not the real world we live in. As we
have seen Tarantino builds his own world where acts

Pulp Aesthetics

have

different

310

effects,

where

morality

is

of

no

concern: a Tarantinian world. As he has said of Kill

Bill, this movie does not take place in the universe
that we live in.(38)

After the fight all there is left is the bodies of

most of the fighters, their limbs and some live bodies.
In a comic turn of events the owner is screaming seeing
what has happened and tumbles down the dance floor
where everything happened slipping on the blood. Again
it is impossible to see this as real violence. We are

38

Edwin Page, Quintessential Taratino, p. 197.

Pulp Aesthetics

311

back to the violence we are used to in Taratinos

films.
It is interesting to compare the fighting scene at
the House of Blue Leaves and the final scene where
Beatrix actually kills Bill. Unlike the exaggerated
bloodbath of the former (You want blood? You can
shower in it in Kill Bill39), the latter is an example
of the contrary. Beatrix has learned from Tai-Pei the
Five-Point-Palm-Exploding-Heart Technique which is a
way to kill someone without having to spill any blood.

It is interesting to see that all the bloodletting

that has happened up to this moment was done in order
for Beatrix to kill Bill. But when the time comes, she
kills him almost spilling no blood. Even if in terms of
plot we have been building-up to this moment, visually
we have been building down to it.

39

Edwin Page, Quintessential Taratino (New York: Marion Boyars, 2005), p. 201.

Pulp Aesthetics

312

Death Proof (2007)

One of Tarantinos main sources for inspiration is

the Grindhouse films. This is a kind of exploitation
film(40) that was usually shown in double bills and that
most of the time was filled with violence and soft
porn.
All the big cities had their ghetto movie
theaters. Either they were old theaters in
areas that had become dilapidated just
playing for the people in those big city
neighborhoods. Or they were all-night
theaters that would play two, three, four
movies Grindhouse theaters were in urban
areas in the bigger cities. Dallas would
have grindhouses, but in the outer regions
of Texas, itd be more about the driveins, they had the same shows but they were
a whole different setting.(41)

Grindhouse is a double-bill of two slasher film

that would be shown together: Planet Terror (directed
by

his

friend

Robert

Rodriguez)

and

Death Proof.

Tarantino had the idea of not obeying the usually

strict rules of slasher films but rather he played with
the genre until it was almost unrecognizable.
If I try to do it as a real slasher movie,
its going to be too 80s reflective, and
thats not what I do even though people
40

It is interesting to note that Martin Scorsese did one of these kind of films called Boxcar Bertha(1972) in which
David Carradine played a character named Bill.

41

Quentin Tarantino, Exploitable Element. Rodrguez and Tarantino Define the Grindhouse Experience, in Kurt
Volk (editor), Grindhouse (New York: Weinstein Books, 2007), p. 10.

Pulp Aesthetics

313

accuse me of doing that. That is not what

I do; I reinvent. So Ive gotta reinvent
it, and Ive gotta make it just as good a
movie as any Quentin movie. Its gotta be
my on thing.(42)

Death Proof has two clearly defined parts. The

first part takes place in Texas and tells the story of
a bunch of girls who are going to Gueros for a night
out and then they will go to the house of one of them
in the lake. In Gueros they meet Stuntman Mike (Kurt
Russell) who offers a ride to another girl who is at
the bar.
When they all leave (Stuntman Mike with the girl he
is supposedly giving a ride to her house and the four
girls in their car to the lake house), he says to the
girl he is giving a ride that even though she is going
right, they are going to go left. At this point the
movie becomes a slasher film, which is indicated to the
audience with a musical cue. There is no better way to
show what kind of movie the audience is watching than
to use the music associated with that genre. Up to that
moment the audience has received only small hints that
they are watching a horror movie, but this is the
starting moment of the slasher part of the movie.
42

Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodrguez, Directing Death Proof. Robert Rodrguez and Quentin Tarantino
discuss the Making of the Movie, in Kurt Volk (editor), Grindhouse, p. 155.

Pulp Aesthetics

314

I want people to forget its a thriller

until I remind them again. At one point in
the movie, I put some Ennio Morricone
music from Dario Argentos The Cat Onive
Tails. Thats the first time you hear
thriller music in the whole fucking movie!
Thats the reminder that its that kind of
movie.(43)

Stuntman Mike explains to her that the car they are

driving in is death proof because it is a car for
stuntmen that it is a car specially designed so the
people inside would not get hurt even if they get into
an accident. Later, when the girl starts to get scared
he adds some information that adds to the horror of the
film:
Member when I said this car was death
proof? Well, that was not a lie. This car
is 100% death proof. Only, to get the
benefit of it you really hafta be sitting
in my seat.(44)

The safeness we have been talking about to this

moment,

achieves

here

its

maximum

peak.

Quentin

Tarantino creates a setting where it is possible for

the character to perform any stunt with his car because
he has built it in a way that nothing can happen to
him. He is in a safe position, which is the position
that spectators have in a Tarantino film.
43

44

Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodrguez, Directing Death Proof, p. 156.

Quentin Tarantino, Death Proof (Los Angeles: Weinstein Books, 2007), p. 73

Pulp Aesthetics

315

After explaining this to her and killing her by

suddenly stopping the car which makes her head hit the
dashboard, he goes and follows the four girls on their
way to the lake house. He finds them, turns his light
off and crashes into them front on, this causes a
horrible

accident

that

kills

all

the

girls

in

gruesome mode. As Tarantino himself said: Death Proof

in the vein of the slasher film, but instead of the
slasher using his knife, he uses a car.(45)
It is necessary that the audience feels threatened.
The essence of the slasher film is that whoever watches
it is in a vulnerable position which is achieved here
by identifying with the girls rather than with Stuntman
Mike. But this first film is just the preparation for
the second, which is actually more of a Tarantino film.
The plot of this first part serves the purpose of being
the forewarning of the second.
Unlike the Texas segment, for the second part we
know what Stuntman Mike does with his car and so we are
not caught by surprise. Rather, we get ready for what
is going to happen.

45

Quentin tarantino, Introduction, in Kurt Volk (editor), Grindhouse, p. 9.

Pulp Aesthetics

316

I had the idea that you wouldnt know

Stuntman Mikes methods for the whole
first half. And that would be part of the
thing of the first half, figuring out what
his deal is, what hes trying to do. And
then you realize it in a big way.
Everyones wiped out. Then we start the
movie all over again, in another state
with a different posse of girls. Now you
know what his plan is.(46)

The second part of the film takes place fourteen

months later in the State of Tennessee. We have four
different

girls

who

work

in

movies:

two

who

are

stuntwomen, one who is a makeup artist and an actress.

But in this story the only car is not the death proof
car, but a car that Ze (Ze Bell) wants to use to do a
stunt she calls the Ships Mast and which consists of
tying two belts, one in each door, and holding them while
she is on the hood of the car and her friend is driving
46

Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodrguez, Directing Death Proof, p. 157.

Pulp Aesthetics

317

very fast. This special car is a 1970 Dodge Challenger

with a 440 engine(47), the car that was used in the
movie

Vanishing

Point

(1971)

which

was

one

of

the

inspirations for Death Proof. From this moment on the

movie

mixes

genres

and

it

becomes

an

action/slasher

movie.
By the time youre in the third act, youre
not watching a horror movie anymore, youre
watching a balls-out action movie Now
youre in a whole different movie from a
slasher movie, but you didnt notice how you
got there. All of a sudden, youre in
another genre. It crossed over.(48)
Ze doing the Ships
Mast.

While the girls are doing the Ships Mast, Stuntman

Mike sees them and starts chasing them while Ze is still
on the hood of the car only held by the two belts. He
crashes them many times on the rear of the car and we can

47

48

Quentin Tarantino, Death Proof, p. 105.

Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodrguez, Directing Death Proof, p. 157.

Pulp Aesthetics

318

Ze tumbling around the hood of the car almost falling

down of it to what would have meant her certain death.
But this doesnt happen and after he stops chasing them
the girls decide top turn things around and chase him.
The chaser is now the chased and it is here where this
film

starts

to

follow

the

pattern

we

have

already

explained of aestheticizing violence.

While the girls are chasing Stuntman Mike we can see
in their faces the exhilaration and emotion of what they
are

doing

complemented

with

their

laughs.

They

are

certainly enjoying this and so are the spectators who can

now start enjoying the violence. All the suffering that
comes from identifying with the girls now becomes fun and
enjoyment as the girls chase him until his car is so
badly crashed that he cannot drive it anymore. They take
Stuntman Mike out of the car and while they laugh and
scream hysterically they bit him badly. At the end the
girls raise their arms as a signal of victory. Suddenly
the victims do not seem so helpless and the rest of the
second part of the movie is seen in a new light.

Pulp Aesthetics

319

At the end the

girls raise
their arms as a
signal of
victory.