Violence in Film to Some

Violence in Film

To some members of the modern audience, the film Pulp Fiction represents the worst aspects of modern culture and that the critical acclaim it received for its unabashed embrace of violence has led to an increasing amount of violence in films, up to and including the modern horror porn. Others argue that the violence in Pulp Fiction, while disturbingly real, absolutely excessive, and not representative of daily life, serves a very important purpose. Rather than detracting from the plot, the violence in Pulp Fiction is an essential part of the plot; without which, the movie simply would not exist. In fact, in Pulp Fiction, Tarantino uses violence as a way to reveal the depth of his characters, rather than allowing any one of his characters to remain simply a stereotype. That he does so is incredibly significant, given that any of his characters could have served as a stereotyped background player in hundreds of movies. In this way, Tarantino's use of violence is very Jacobean, because it is through the violence that Tarantino reveals the moral complexity of characters that would typically be considered evil. Because the story has several different, interwoven storylines, there is not one single hero or anti-hero in the movie. Instead, Tarantino uses violence to demonstrate emotional and moral complexity in several characters: Vincent Vega, Jules Winnfield, Marcellus Wallace, and Butch Coolidge. While all of the characters have interesting storylines, the most dramatic and effective use of violence as an instrument of corruption and morality is displayed in the Butch/Marcellus storyline.

Like the other characters in the story, Butch's livelihood depends on violence. However, while Butch's life may have been violent, which is a prerequisite for a professional fighter, the film makes it clear that Butch has not previously been engaged in the type of criminal activity as the story's other leading characters. Therefore, when the audience is introduced to Butch, they see a washed-up has been who is willing to take a dive for money, but who is not entirely comfortable with having made that decision. What the audience does not know is that Butch has not actually decided to throw the fight, but is actually making his own plans to score big on the fight and escape with the money. Somehow knowing that Butch intends to cheat Marcellus, a crime boss, makes Butch seem virtuous in comparison. In addition, there is something underneath Butch's complacent and dopey exterior, and Tarantino uses violence to show the real Butch, who is actually a proud man with a lot of honor, even if his views of what is honorable do not coincide with society's views. The first time that the audience gets a view of Butch's honor is when it hears, on the cabdriver's radio, that Butch did not throw the fight, but instead killed the other fighter with a knock-out punch. The death of the other fighter is not incidental to the story. While Tarantino could have developed the Marcellus/Butch storyline simply by having Butch be victorious in the fight, to do so would have omitted an important characteristic about Butch, which is that he eliminates those he finds dishonorable. A fighter who agrees to win a staged fight is, to Butch, exceedingly dishonorable. Therefore, it is necessary for Tarantino to have Butch kill the other fighter before trying to make his escape with Fabienne.

However, Butch's sense of honor becomes even more apparent later in the movie. Having returned to his apartment to retrieve his father's watch, Butch accidentally encounters Marcellus and the two enter into an extremely violent scuffle. The end result of the scuffle is that Marcellus and Butch end up being victimized by two sadists, Zed and Maynard. Butch escapes while the sadists are raping Marcellus. Butch finds himself unable to leave Marcellus, his enemy, in the hands of the sadists. On the contrary, he selects a katana, which is the traditional weapon of the Samurai, and is synonymous with virtue; and then he heads to the basement, kills the sadists, and frees Marcellus.

The entire scene is incredibly violent and disturbing, including the graphic depiction of Marcellus' rape. It would, however, be a serious mistake to assume that any of the violence in the scene is gratuitous. On the contrary, it is a powerful commentary on rape, sexual violence, and honor. In fact, it might be the most feminist scene in modern film, despite the fact that there are no women involved in that part of the movie. Movie audiences have become numb to female rape scenes. The use of violence with sex has become so commonplace that even the most brutal film attacks on women do little to anger or upset an audience. For example, when Thelma and Louise was released, audiences reacted to the shooting in the parking lot, not the rape. Moreover, a significant portion of the gigantic porn industry uses rape as a marketing tool. It is not just that many films are misogynistic, but that society is, itself, misogynistic. Rape may be the single most dehumanizing and humiliating event that can happen to a woman, but it is simply not viewed that way by most of the entertainment industry. Therefore, for Tarantino to graphically depict a rape that makes the audience uncomfortable rather than aroused is incredibly feminist. To show that big, strong, competent crime-boss Marcellus Wallace is vulnerable to being sexually victimized, is a bold statement about the role of sexual violence in society; if Marcellus can be raped, then any member of society can be raped. Even more significant is how Marcellus responds to the rape; his immediate response is a mixture of gratitude and shame. He allows Butch to leave, despite the fact that Butch has stolen a significant amount of money from Marcellus, on the condition that Butch never speaks about Marcellus' rape. Marcellus is aware that, if people knew that he had been victimized, he would no longer be considered a threat.

The rape scene also tells a strong story about morality and revenge. Oftentimes vengeful people are seen as slightly unstable. In fact, the morally and mentally unstable person out for justice is a staple in movies as simple as Deathwish and as complex as Taxi Driver. However, when one views the brutal attack on Marcellus, and sees the Gimp, who displays the type of servitude the sadists want to elicit from Marcellus, then one cannot help but feel, not only that Marcellus is entitled to desire revenge, but that he is entitled to get revenge. There is nothing emotionally or morally unstable about Marcellus essentially saying that he is going to have some of his men come torture Zed to death. On the contrary, having witnessed what Zed did to Marcellus, one feels almost a sense of relief knowing that Zed will suffer a worse fate than Maynard, who died quickly. In addition, one is not even seriously disturbed by the fact that the Gimp is killed during Butch's rescue of Marcellus. On the contrary, there is almost a feeling that anything, even death, has to be better than the life of humiliation and violence that the audience knows the Gimp most experience on a daily basis.