Pulp Fiction Narrative

[SaberFan22]

So I was watching Pulp Fiction last night and - although the non-linear narrative makes for a much more engaging viewing experience - why did Tarantino choose to put the scenes in the other that he did? Of all the possibilities do you think there was a reason that he told the stories in the order that he did?

If the movie was put in order it would start with the hitmen, then the Jimmie/Winston Wolf scene, followed by the thwarting of the restaurant robbery. After this is would move onto Vincent buying heroine, taking out Mia Wallace, and then giving her the adrenaline shot at Lance's. And finally would come the story with Butch not throwing the fight and his whole debacle with Marsellus in the weird weapons store.

Is there an obvious reason you can think of why he would split the robbery between the very beginning, and then again at the end. While the Mia Wallace and Butch stories remain fully intact and in the right order? With a bit of the Jules and Vincent story sprinkled here and there?

[LivingBrain]

I know PULP FICTION's non-linear narrative was one of the many stylistic choices that made it revolutionary in the 90's, especially for indie cinema, but as far as why Tarantino would present it the way he did I'm not entirely sure.

My first thought is that splitting that story up creates a nice bookend to everything else, with the opening conversation between Pumpkin and Honey Bunny setting the tone, then the ending with Jules and Vincent in the diner closing it by having our "main heroes" return to send us, the audience, off. I think it's also important because it's the final step in Jules arc of redemption, which you could say is the most inspiring arc in the film. Or, at least, the most transcendent, so leaving off with it is a nice gesture.

Thematically, I think presenting it out of order also shows how complex organized crime is. It's not straightforward or logical; just a big, messy web. Taking us through this web, then ending with a character leaving it all behind, gives a nice sense of catharsis and creates an emotional story arc, rather than a mechanical, plot-based arc.

I think it ultimately comes down to what he wanted the audience to feel, and was more concerned about our reaction throughout the story and what each segment would do, rather than presenting it linearly.

To be cynical, it could also just be a stylistic choice to make him stand out.

[Rapine]

I personally think LivingBrain just nailed it. 

Presenting it chronologically would have made it just another screwed-up movie, and forgettable.

I like the "bookends" theory though.