Wednesday, 5 May 2010
Sunday, 28 March 2010
analysis of pulp fiction
The 1994 film Pulp Fiction may seem confusing and slow to some viewers. It is not until you fully understand the director's manipulations with time frames that you fully appreciate this film. This film written and directed by Quentin Tarantino is packed with action scenes as well as extensive dialogues between characters that illustrate the life of a small mob in
Like most of Quentin Tarantino's movies, Pulp Fiction has a circular path. The movie starts when an English couple decides to rob a coffee shop after going through an extensive discussion on why they should rob coffee shops and not liquor stores or gas stations. As the action is about to happen, the credits are shown on the screen. The movie then continues beginning with another chapter in the story. Julian, played by Samuel L. Jackson, and Vincent, played by John Travolta, are in a dialogue about Vincent's trip to
Pulp Fiction I believe is a movie that has to be seen more than one time to understand it completely. Most people may get lost in all the time frames and dialogues, but when you see it the next time it is easy to comprehend the path of the movie. There are two main things that make this movie interesting. The dialogue is an important part of this movie. It makes it more real and also gives details that prepare us for future incidents and also gives the movie a unique humor. The other characteristic that I appreciated was the different time frames that all tie up in the end of the movie. The movie might not have an interesting plot, but even for someone who dislikes gangster movies, this film should be appreciated by the directors work in composing it in an unusual fashion. Together with its great cast of characters and great soundtrack, Pulp Fiction is a uniquely put together film that made it and its creator worthy of many awards.
The opening of the film creates suspense and kicks off the storyline giving the audience no comfort of where it’s going next, This causes excitement and is a major part of the films allure. In the restaurante scene there is a framed, mid, two shot of the couple giving showing their relationship and how they respond to each other’s idea’s in the dialogue the word ‘fuck’ is used continuously, this adds to the rebellious element to the film. Also the male character lights a cigarette while they are having the heated conversation about bank robberies and there is a folli affect for the zippo lighter, Following this is the spontaneous decision to hold a robbery in the restaurante there and then occurs. This makes the film thrilling and transfixing.
Tuesday, 16 March 2010
crime genre research for my media film
Crime fiction is the genre of fiction that deals with crimes, their detection, criminals, and their motives. Most - though not all - crime novels crime novels share a common structure. First there is the crime, usually a murder; then there is the investigation; and finally the outcome or judgment, often in the shape of the criminal's arrest or death. Crime is usually distinguished from mainstream fiction and other genres such as science fiction or historical fiction, but boundaries can be, and indeed are, blurred. The genre's flexibility is perhaps one reason for its wide and enduring appeal and means different things to different people at different times. Unlike some literary fiction, the crime novel retains many of the time-honored techniques of fiction character, theme, narrative, tension, etc
There is now such a huge variety within the genre, it also has several sub-genres, including detective fiction (including the classic whodunnit), legal thriller, courtroom drama, hard-boiled fiction, Police Procedurals, Private Eye, Suspense, Thrillers and any other sub-genre in which a committed crime is the leading motivator of the plot. Indeed there are novels where the hero is the criminal not the detective.
All one can with any certainty is that the label "crime fiction" is a resilient convenience for those who use it, not an exact term.
The evolution of the print mass media in
essay for genre of crime/drama focussing on an analysis of resevoir dogs
Reservoir Dogs starts off by a monologue from Tarantino himself as Mr. Brown commenting on the deeper meaning of the Madonna song "Like a Virgin". He talks extremely quickly and the camera pans around the table, showing different people listening to what he is saying. The monologue that Brown gives is almost a culmination of Tarantino's film-making style and of the film. Its ranting disorganized and obnoxious.
After a stylish opening credits sequence, with "little green bag" playing the film cuts to Mr. White (Harvey Keitel) and Mr. Orange (Tim Roth) in a car, with Mr. White driving rapidly. Mr. Orange has been shot in the stomach and he is screaming in pain as White repeatedly tries to calm him, eventually yelling at him to say "I'm OK!". The scene is extremely gruesome and is used by Tarantino to get the viewer into this sudden change in pace, and be interested in what is going on. White and
With these characters, Tarantino delves into the action headfirst. The heist is never shown, but flashbacks are used to develop the situation before what happened and dialogue is used to convey what exactly DID happen that went wrong. Its the dialogue of Tarantino's films that are distinct, but unfortunately in the case of Reservoir Dogs - the dialogue isn't very good. While the characters definitely have a lot of style and appeal, the dialogue seems to be an excuse for clever pop culture talks and another excuse for Tarantino to use "fuck" in every other sentence. There's nothing wrong with using vulgar language in a film, but at least it needs to be done to add to the plot rather then detract from it. The whole setup of the plot seems intelligent but its rather murky. These characters are as simple as they seem and nothing more. The performances work, but not on any exceptional level. They basically scream a lot at each other. And swear. While this may seem like a very simple deconstruction of the dialogue in the film, its true. This kind of slang, American language can sometimes be turned into something more effective or intelligent (see Barton Fink) but in the film its void of that notion. As a director, Tarantino doesn't exactly give a lot. The camera angles aren't anything unusual or stimulating and while he is able to obtain solid performances from his cast, its not enough to hold up the film.