Out For The Count
Bungler that I am, in L.A. Alchemy I incorrectly stated that Vincent is shown twice on the crapper. In fact, of course, he is only shown once atop the plumbing fixture – at the restaurant he went to with Jules for breakfast. At Butch’s flat we hear the flush, we see Vincent exit the bathroom, we see him blasted back into the bathroom and then lying there, all the crap, as it were, gone from him. However, quite rightly, we don’t get a repeat of the money shot.
My abjectest apologies and a fiery resolve to do better in future. As penance I have watched Andy Warhol’s Empire three times in succession. But grave though my error, I would point out that it doesn’t effect the strength of my argument. It is still the case that two occasions of defecation accompanied by the reading of a work of pulp fiction are clearly signalled. And it remains reasonable to suppose that, since this scenario is presented twice, it is meant to mean something. And I can’t see a more persuasive inference than that the work of pulp fiction represents the film Pulp Fiction, with the further implication that the world of the film resembles an adjacent part of Vincent’s anatomy, and furthermore that, taking into account where Butch’s watch was stashed, a timepiece (such as a time machine) might be found therein.
A day’s worth of Empire proved conducive to more theorising. Maybe, I wondered, the definition of ‘pulp’ with which the film begins is to prod viewers into thinking ‘pulp fiction’ on the occasions when Vincent’s book is shown and so help them to make the book/film connection. And I remembered how, at the end of the film, Vincent is shown holding the book at the very instant ‘Surf Rider’ starts to play – that is right at the moment viewers might be thinking to themselves they have just seen Pulp Fiction.
All this hinges on Pulp Fiction having the title it does. And as the lights went out for the third time on the iconic skyscraper it occurred to me that this might be why it does have that title. Probably the film was originally called ‘City of Pilots’ – a magnificent title but not so good for establishing a connection between book and film.
Another look at the closing scene shows the importance of this linkage. The two gangsters stride out of the restaurant, Jules with the briefcase, Vincent with his book. Because they make such a performance of packing their guns down their pants the question is muted, but is surely there, as to the relation between briefcase and book. And having established the book as a stand-in for the film enables Tarantino here to discreetly, elegantly affirm that the film contains all you need to know to arrive at the answer to the briefcase mystery.
August 8, 2025
