{"id":28008,"date":"2014-06-11T21:38:10","date_gmt":"2014-06-12T02:38:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/?p=28008"},"modified":"2020-07-26T16:57:09","modified_gmt":"2020-07-26T21:57:09","slug":"the-1940s-are-over-and-tarantinos-still-playing-with-blocks","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/2014\/06\/11\/the-1940s-are-over-and-tarantinos-still-playing-with-blocks\/","title":{"rendered":"The 1940s are over, and Tarantino’s still playing with blocks"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Pulp Fiction<\/strong> (1994).<\/em><\/p>\n

Trigger warning:<\/strong>\u00a0<\/a>This blog is about Quentin Tarantino, Walt Disney, and Henry James. Those who find violent analogies disturbing should avoid what follows.<\/p>\n

DB here:<\/p>\n

Every narrative film is made out of parts. Normally they just whisk by us, but sometimes our attention is called to them as<\/em> parts. Occasionally, we sense that the whole movie is made out of large-scale chunks.<\/p>\n

Take Pulp Fiction<\/em> (1994). It consists of scenes grouped into larger blocks, some marked by fade-ins and outs and others with titles, like chapters in a book. The diner opening is set off as a unit before the credits. The ensuing visit of Jules and Vincent to the apartment of the welshing punks is ended in a fade-out. We then get a section tagged \u201cVincent Vega and Marsellus Wallace\u2019s Wife.\u201d After that portion fades out, there follows a sequence introducing the young Butch as a boy, presented with his father\u2019s gold watch. Then Butch, now grown up, heads out to the boxing match. Another fade, and we get a title, \u201cThe Gold Watch.\u201d<\/p>\n

That could be seen as simply a belated chapter head for the entire Butch section, boyhood and prizefighting career. Or it could mark the start of another, much longer block: the aftermath of the fight and Butch\u2019s flight from Marcellus Wallace. Either way, the sense of a film composed of large-scale parts is very strong. As the film goes along, we realize that each block tends to concentrate on certain characters and provide distinct, sometimes overlapping, stretches of time.<\/p>\n

For many viewers, I suspect, Pulp Fiction<\/em> was their introduction to strategies of block construction in movies. Those of us studying film history had seen it in various guises before, but seldom so cleverly and explicitly worked out as in Tarantino\u2019s film. And I\u2019m not sure even film historians realized how much Tarantino owed to earlier traditions.<\/p>\n

In The Way Hollywood Tells It<\/em>, I suggested that some of the experimental trends in 1990s-2000s cinema were indebted to Hollywood in the 1940s. This is especially evident in the neo-noir films of those years, like The Underneath<\/em> (1995), The Usual Suspects<\/em> (1995), and Memento<\/em> (2001). Now that I\u2019m writing a book on that earlier period<\/a>, I realize that studying the 1990s films, has led me to think about something that I hadn\u2019t noticed\u2014how interested 1940s filmmakers were in building movies out of blocks.<\/p>\n

Turns out that \u00a0the 1940s was a kind of golden age of block construction. And Tarantino serves especially well to illustrate how that strategy can be put to use in modern times. In fact, his work is a fairly comprehensive layout of the creative possibilities of the format.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Building blocks<\/strong><\/p>\n

Some basic options for block construction were laid out fairly early in the silent era. The most famous instance was Griffith\u2019s Intolerance<\/em> (1916), which sampled four historical periods, each harboring its own distinct story. He then crosscut the four epochs, building to four \u201csimultaneous\u201d climaxes at the end of the film. Griffith managed to secure an unprecedented level of suspense by alternating portions of his blocks.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Griffith also wanted to prove a conceptual point, that intolerance reappeared at different times in different guises. He understood \u00a0one of the major attractions of block construction: It asks us to compare and contrast.<\/p>\n

Directors who wanted to achieve the same comparison among different historical periods took the more obvious option and laid each separate story out, one after the other. We see the result in Dreyer\u2019s Leaves from Satan\u2019s Book<\/em> (1920), Lang\u2019s Der m\u00fcde Tod<\/em> (Destiny<\/em>, 1921), and The Three Ages <\/em>(1923), Buster Keaton\u2019s parody of Intolerance<\/em>. So this construction by integral blocks of time, laid end to end, was useful for comparing several self-contained stories.<\/p>\n

Can you get the same sort of effect when sections of the same story<\/em> are separated out in blocks? Yes, you can. The classic example would be parallel flashbacks. In Citizen Kane<\/em>, an ongoing present, the reporter Thompson\u2019s investigation, brackets long flashbacks that serve as parallel architectural parts\u2014trips to the past, showing Kane as seen by others. We\u2019re coaxed to compare Kane\u2019s actions at different points in his life, as well as the various sides of him seen by his associates.<\/p>\n

Here, as sometimes happens, the blocks are marked off not only by time period but by varying viewpoints. The alternation between the present and long stretches of the past, focused around one character and then another, characterizes many 1940s flashback films, such as The Killers<\/em> (1947) and A Letter to Three Wives<\/em><\/a> (1949).<\/p>\n

Tarantino made alternating block construction the basic principle behind Reservoir Dogs<\/em> (1992), which shuttles between the aftermath of a botched robbery and the planning that led up to it. One model he has acknowledged is Kubrick’s The Killing<\/em> (1955), which itself transposed into cinema the overlapping point-of-view blocks that were present in Lionel White’s source novel Clean Break<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Elsewhere on the blog<\/a> I\u2019ve talked about how flashbacks can be nested inside one another, like Russian dolls. Examples from the 1940s include Passage to Marseille<\/em> (1944) and The Locket<\/em> (1946), and these lengthy sections surely count as blocks. Here the blocks serve less to compare dramatic situations than to fill in backstory. The blocks are lumps of exposition. In addition, blocks also can usefully delay events, creating suspense and padding the plot to its proper length. (Form often follows format.<\/a>)<\/p>\n

Tarantino embedded flashbacks within flashbacks in Kill Bill Vol. 1<\/em> (2003) for just these purposes. Let\u2019s assume that the early sequence (Chapter One) showing the Bride attacking and killing Vernita, her second victim, is a benchmark for the narrative present. That ends with her reading her list of targets. \u00a0Chapter Two, which follows, initiates a flashback going back several years. In the course of that, the Bride escapes from the hospital and sets out to kill O-Ren, who\u2019s her first victim. And in the course of that long flashback, framed by the Bride lying in the Pussy Mobile, \u00a0we get a nested one, dubbed \u201cChapter Three: The Origin of O-Ren.\u201d That eight-minute anime fills in the life story of the queen of the Tokyo underworld before we return to the Bride\u2019s quest for her.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\"\"<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The anime sequence is closed off by a return to the Bride recovering in the Pussy Mobile.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The\u00a0flashback-within-a-flashback\u00a0supplies exposition, creates a parallel to what we\u2019ve seen at the film\u2019s start (Vernita\u2019s little daughter discovering the Bride\u2019s murder of her mother), and sharpens our curiosity about the Bride\u2019s trip to Japan. We stay in that Japan-related flashback for the rest of Vol. 1. The plot won’t take us back to the present, after the Bride’s killing of Vernita, until the black-and-white beginning of Vol. 2.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

A trickier Chinese-boxes structure appears in Reservoir Dogs<\/em>. The present-time situation is the gathering of the surviving hoods in the warehouse. There are flashbacks to the planning stages of the holdup, each attached to one man’s viewpoint and tagged with his alias.<\/p>\n

In the flashback attributed to Mr. Orange, the police mole, we start with him identifying himself to the tortured cop in the warehouse. We move to the past, when Mr. Orange meets a contact in a diner and explains that the gang took him in. That leads to a nested flashback showing him at his audition.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\"\"<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

To gain the gang’s trust, Mr. Orange tells a heavily rehearsed fake anecdote about evading the cops during a drug swap. And even that gets an embedding: the false anecdote is presented visually, as a scene in a men’s toilet.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Then we come out of the nested flashbacks in proper order: back to the meeting with the gang, then to the diner, and several scenes later, back to the present situation in the warehouse.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\"\"<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

A lying flashback is embedded in a flashback that’s itself embedded within a flashback. The whole shebang becomes a complex block labeled “Mr. Orange.”<\/p>\n

Most flashback films use the trips to the past to revisit characters known to us in the present. But some films use the flashback option to tell independent stories. Forever and a Day<\/em> (1943) is a biography of a house, supplying a history of the house from its origins to its sufferings during the Nazi bombing of London. An even clearer example is Tales of Manhattan<\/em> (1943). It traces how a coat of tails is passed down the social pecking order, from an elegant actor to a sharecropping community. No characters tie the episodes together, only the coat and some thematic motifs. Again, the blocks encourage us to contrast how different social classes use the tailcoat.<\/p>\n

I don\u2019t find Tarantino picking up this circulating-object idea, but it has been reused in Twenty Bucks<\/em> (1993), American Gun<\/em> (2006), and other films. Somewhat in the same spirit, though, is Tarantino’s\u00a0Death Proof<\/em>, the second feature in Grindhouse<\/em> (2007). The first half of the original theatrical release concerns four young women who are targeted by Stuntman Mike, a free-range master of vehicular homicide. All the women are killed, but in the second half Mike meets his match in a quartet of car-crazy film staffers, one of whom is a stuntwoman while another is an expert driver. Mike is like the coat of tails in Tales of Manhattan:\u00a0<\/em>the only link between the film’s episodes.<\/p>\n

Flashbacks can, of course, be much briefer, and when they are they don\u2019t usually have the heft of blocks. But when a scene is replayed<\/em> as a flashback, both the replay and the original scene can stand out. The flashback replay of the murder of Monty in Mildred Pierce<\/em> (1945) gains a certain solidity, since it reveals things that were suppressed (and fudged) in the first go-round. (Go here for the entry and the analytical video<\/a>\u00a0discussing these scenes.) Another example is the conflicting testimony that includes a lying flashback in Crossfire<\/em> (1947).<\/p>\n

Pushing beyond his predecessors, Tarantino tries a more elaborate replay in Jackie Brown<\/em> (1997). He presents the shopping-mall money exchange three times, from different characters’ attached viewpoints. The side-by-side replays make the whole money drop stand out as a block, as does the chapter title (“Money Exchange: For Real This Time”) and the length (over twenty minutes). A practice session for the exchange forms a parallel block, with its own introductory title (“Money Exchange: Trial Run”).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Episodic memories<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Meet Me in St. Louis<\/strong> (1944).<\/em><\/p>\n

If flashbacks, played once or many times, provide the most common sorts of blocks, big or small, there are other possibilities. You can, for instance, build your plot out of chronological but independent blocks within the same locale and time frame. Three Strangers<\/em> (1946) is a straightforward example.<\/p>\n

A woman invites two men into her apartment and suggests they share the price of a sweepstakes ticket. They will then reunite on the day the ticket falls due to see if they\u2019ve won. After the men agree, the plot follows all three separately, with long blocks devoted to each. Their stories don\u2019t intersect. There is a little bit of crosscutting among them, but the characters don\u2019t reunite until the climax.<\/p>\n

The advantage of this diverging-reconverging construction is that you can tell several stories, each with its own dramatic arc, within a larger frame that brings them all to a decisive conclusion. If you pull it off, it can deepen characterization (we spend more time with the protagonists) and perhaps mark you as a virtuoso. A flashy example is\u00a0Mystery Train<\/em>\u00a0(1989), which provides the moment of the story lines’ convergence as a sound rather than a face-to-face encounter.<\/p>\n

The risk of this format is that some separate stories may seem less interesting than the others. An ordinary film moves along quickly enough that we can wait out tiresome characters or situations, but in this construction we’re stuck for a while.\u00a0This cost-benefit analysis may be one reason that most Hollywood plots try to integrate their story lines fairly tightly. That way you can keep the audience aware that each scene has consequences for everything that follows.<\/p>\n

Tarantino uses the parallel block device in Inglourious Basterds<\/em> (2009). Here two main story strands\u2014Shosanna\u2019s efforts to elude Colonel Landa and the mission of Aldo Raine\u2019s combat team\u2014develop independently in lengthy scenes. There\u2019s some alternation, but the plot lines don\u2019t converge until the movie theatre conflagration. Interestingly, both Three Strangers<\/em> and Inglourious Basterds<\/em> fill out their dimensions by including minor subplots (the adventure of Archie Hicox developing its own interest in Basterds<\/em>).<\/p>\n

The simplest version of block construction lets one distinct story episode follow another. The most common case is the Hollywood musical, which contains numbers, either as stage performances or as sung-and-danced scenes. Each number tends to have \u00a0an internal coherence and sharp boundaries that make it a detachable unit. (So detachable that it can stand on its own in documentaries like\u00a0That\u2019s Entertainment!<\/em> of 1974 and its sequels.)<\/p>\n

One musical that includes larger-scale segments\u2014quite big blocks,, actually–is Meet Me in St. Louis<\/em> (1944). The plot consumes about a year in the life of a family, and it opens with a candy-box title card specifying \u201cSummer 1903.\u201d It\u2019s followed by two more seasonal chapters, \u00a0identifying autumn and winter of the year, before we get \u201cSpring\u201d\u2014a title with no date, suggesting a kind of eternal renewal that will solve the characters\u2019 problems. Within each of these blocks, events typical of each season, including Halloween and Christmas, reinforce the sense of these as varied sections.<\/p>\n

This sort of explicit chaptering in the 1930s-1940s is usually reserved for films framed by opening pages of a book, as in Salome, Where She Danced<\/em> (1945).<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Often, as in Salome<\/em>, the book frame is dropped from the rest of the movie, although it might reappear\u00a0to provide closure.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

New forms of self-conscious chaptering became prominent in later years, as with the quotations announcing sections in Hannah and Her Sisters<\/em> (1985). Most of Tarantino’s films use chapter titles to some extent, with the Kill Bill<\/em> movies providing the most elaborate examples. Those films are presented as two \u201cvolumes\u201d containing ten distinct \u201cchapters.\u201d Some are bulked out by flashbacks, some aren’t, but all these chapters become prominent through sheer length. Chapter Nine, which settles the fates of both Budd and Elle Driver, runs almost half an hour, and the final chapter lasts over forty minutes.<\/p>\n

Moreover, the chapters, as in Pulp Fiction<\/em>, aren\u2019t arranged in 1-2-3 order, so we\u2019re invited not only to compare parts but figure\u00a0out their chronology. The very first chapter teases us with this problem.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The circled 2 is explained when we understand that Vernita is the second target on the Bride’s list.<\/p>\n

Still other forms of big-chunk construction came into prominence in the 1940s. Think for instance of what were called \u201cepisodic\u201d films, movies that inserted separate stories, often thematically connected, into a general framing structure. For example, the team that gave us Tales of Manhattan<\/em> also produced Flesh and Fantasy<\/em> (1943). The situation is of two men discussing superstition in a library. One takes down a book of stories and we see, enacted, three tales of the fantastic. At the end we return to the library.<\/p>\n

This cinematic anthology was sometimes called an omnibus film, and it proved very popular around the world; examples are Dead of Night<\/em> (UK, 1945) and the many Italian and French collections (e.g., The Seven Deadly Sins<\/em>, 1952; Spirits of the Dead<\/em>, 1968). It persisted for decades in the US (New York Stories<\/em>, 1989; Night on Earth<\/em>, 1992) and internationally (Paris, je t\u2019aime<\/em>, 2006). Tarantino\u2019s contribution to the genre was Four Rooms<\/em> (1995). The framing situation is that of a hotel, and three other directors contributed episodes showing what happens to various guests.<\/p>\n

Walt Disney exploited block construction in all these ways during the 1940s. He filled out a live-action film with embedded stories (Song of the South<\/em>, 1946) and interspersed cartoons with travelogue footage (Saludos Amigos<\/em>, 1942). The all-animated Three Caballeros<\/em> (1944; above) assembled several South American tales by means of a frame story showing Donald Duck getting gifts from below the border and dancing with his amigos. (This is a brilliant movie, as I suggest in this ancient but ageless post<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

By contrast, Make Mine Music<\/em> (1946) and Melody Time<\/em> (1948) give their animated musical numbers only minimal framing.<\/p>\n

Most famous of the Disney anthologies, of course, is Fantasia <\/em>(1941). Here a program of classical pieces is illustrated in cartoon sequences. The frame is provided by Leopold Stokowski at the podium and Deems Taylor, a famous music popularizer, supplying radio-style commentary in the breaks. Strange though it sounds, Tarantino (along with Robert Rodriguez) does something similar when he gives us two exploitation features, Planet Terror<\/em> and Death Proof<\/em>, surrounded by trailers and ads. Just as Disney posits a mock trip to the concert hall, Tarantino reimagines a night at a drive-in or an inner-city movie house.<\/p>\n

What about Django Unchained<\/em> (2012)? I think Tarantino has done something clever here. At what seems to be the climax, Dr. Schultz is killed and Django, after a fierce gunfight, is recaptured and sold to slave traders. The drama seems to be finished. But then the movie starts over, and a twenty-five-minute stretch of new action shows Django escaping the traders and returning to Candyland to wreak his revenge. Tarantino has tacked on a second, lengthy ending; block structure yields a calculated anticlimax.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Modern, middlebrow, mysterious<\/strong><\/p>\n

I guess what I\u2019m always trying to do is use the structures that I see in novels and apply them to cinema.<\/p>\n

Quentin Tarantino, 1993\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Where did the 1940s impulse toward block construction come from? In classical Hollywood cinema, I see two primary literary sources: modernism and its offshoots in \u201cmild modernism\u201d (what Dwight Macdonald called “midcult”<\/a>); and mystery fiction.<\/p>\n

Fictional tales had long been broken into segments, and chapter divisions are of course very old. Assembling tales out of blocks likewise has antecedents as far back as ancient Egypt, Homer, and the Bible. Epistolary and found-manuscript fiction gravitated naturally to block arrangement. Dickens gave \u00a0Little Dorrit<\/em> (1855-1857) a balanced two-part layout, and he built Bleak House<\/em> (1852-1853) on alternating segments in two narrative voices.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>By the end of the nineteenth century, writers reflected on such problems of carpentry.\u00a0Here is Henry James on carefully dividing The Wings of the Dove <\/em>into discrete sections. (The italics are his.)<\/p>\n

There was the \u2018fun\u2019 . . . [of treating the actions as] sufficiently solid blocks<\/em> of wrought material, squared to the sharp edge, as to have weight and mass and carrying power; to make for construction, that is, to conduce to effect and to provide for beauty.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Likewise, The Awkward Age<\/em> (1899) was conceived as a situation to be illuminated by different characters, or \u201clamps,\u201d each participating in a single social occasion. Consequently the contents as a series of chapters (or \u201cbooks\u201d) with character titles (not unlike what Tarantino did in Reservoir Dogs<\/em>): “Lady Julia,” “Little Aggie,” “Mr. Longdon,” and so on.<\/p>\n

This sort of explicit geometry was sometimes taken up by modernist writers.\u00a0 Faulkner breaks\u00a0The Sound and the Fury<\/em> (1929) into large parts determined by place, time, and character narrators. John Dos Passos intercuts chunks of different sorts of texts (news stories, \u201ccamera-eye\u201d views) to create the trilogy USA<\/em> (1930-1036). Other modernists avoided tagging sections but made sure to give each one a blocklike singularity, as Joyce famously does with the chapters of Ulysses. Each one is keyed to a section of Homer\u2019s Odyssey, a time of day, a symbol, and so on, and treated in a different literary technique.<\/p>\n

Middlebrow writers, who tried to make modernism more user-friendly, seized on block construction. A prime example is Thornton Wilder\u2019s Bridge of San Luis Rey<\/em> (1927), which traces three parallel stories of people who died on the bridge when it collapsed. Less famous is Rex Stout\u2019s fascinating How Like a God<\/em> (1929), which alternates two sorts of blocks: one in italics, past tense, third-person narration, and labeled with letters of the alphabet; a second in roman type, present tense, second person (\u201cYou\u2026\u201d), and given a numerical order. The labels and fonts help us figure out the chronology of the story (and grasp the thoughts of the main character). Kenneth Fearing\u2019s \u00a0mildly modernist novel The Hospital<\/em> (1938) borrowed from Dos Passos in shifting viewpoints among many characters, even objects, and his Clark Gifford\u2019s Body<\/em> (1942) anticipates Pulp Fiction<\/em> in drastically shuffling discrete blocks out of story order.<\/p>\n

At a more popular level, mystery fiction developed its own strategies for block construction. As a genre, mystery and detective stories are dedicated to formal play with narrative options. (Hence their interest for us narratologists.) Mysteries are frankly artificial, even gamelike, and so seek out ways to trick us.<\/p>\n

The love of artifice often yields embedded stories, as in A Study in Scarlet<\/em> (1887), and plays with point of view (famously, Christie\u2019s Murder of Roger Ackroyd<\/em>, 1926). While Dickens and James were testing block construction in the \u201cserious\u201d novel, Wilkie Collins was developing the \u201ccasebook\u201d format: a collection of documents\u2014letters, testimony, discovered manuscripts\u2014that served as a series of blocks. Dracula<\/em> (1897) also helped popularize the format. It was revived in Dorothy L. Sayers and Robert Eustace\u2019s The Documents in the Case<\/em> (1930) and Perceval Wilde\u2019s Design for Murder<\/em> (1941). And just as Stout had made typography and chapter headings formal devices, so did mystery writers use them to build suspense and their readers (e.g., Anita Boutell, Death Has a Past<\/em>, 1939).<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>We tend to take such trickery as typical of the sleuth-and-puzzle detective tradition, but not of the hard-boiled detective tales and suspense thrillers we associate with the 1930s and 1940s. Yet writers in those traditions sometimes shift a story forward and backward in big blocks, as with Don Tracy\u2019s Criss Cross<\/em> (1934, source of the 1949 film). Vera Caspary\u2019s Laura<\/em> (1943) exploited the casebook format, which was partly transposed into the film version. Kenneth Fearing, trying his hand at mystery fiction, shifted first-person narration among several characters (including a dead one) in Dagger of the Mind <\/em>(1941) and The Big Clock<\/em> (1946). Bill S. Ballinger\u2019s Portrait in Smoke<\/em> (1950) paralleled a first-person account of an investigation with third-person chapters that trace what happened in the past.<\/p>\n

Trends in high, middlebrow, and \u201clow\u201d literature like crime stories had a large impact on 1940s cinema. Just as important, this formal play with narrative conventions, including block construction, continued for decades, right up to the present. Most pertinent to Tarantino is the trend toward rigorous construction we find in crime fiction from the 1960s onward.<\/p>\n

My own favorite example is Richard Stark (aka Donald Westlake<\/a>), who conceives nearly all his novels in a rigid four-part format. Tarantino seems to prefer Elmore Leonard and Charles Willeford. He isn\u2019t given as much credit for his bibliophilia as his cinephilia, but it\u2019s evident that he has thought a fair amount about how to bring literary techniques into cinema.<\/p>\n

Novels go back and forth all the time. You read a story about a guy who\u2019s doing something or in some situation and, all of a sudden, chapter five comes and it takes Henry, one of the guys, and it shows you seven years ago, where he was seven years ago and how he came to be and then like, boom, the next chapter, boom, you\u2019re back in the flow of the action.<\/strong><\/p>\n

For example, in Rum Punch<\/em>, the source novel for Jackie Brown<\/em>, Leonard\u2019s chapter-breaks usually shift our attachment from one character to another, and the new chapter may insert backstory at the start. Leaving Jackie Brown\u2019s deal with the Feds hanging, Chapter 14 starts with Melanie sunbathing and thinking about her past. A chunk of exposition, like a film flashback, explains how she became \u201cthe tan blond California girl.\u201d Tarantino was unusually sensitive to fiction writers\u2019 switches in time and viewpoint, and he clearly admired the opportunities opened up by solid chapter-length blocks.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m not suggesting that Tarantino spends his weekends perusing Henry James or Thornton Wilder. It\u2019s just that techniques similar to theirs have pervaded popular literature. Indeed, they were already at play in one popular genre that has always used literary artifice to shape our experience. To this day, as in King’s 11\/22\/63<\/a>, mysteries and thrillers use block construction to promote suspense, play with alternative possibilities, make us reevaluate story situations, and engage us in a game of self-conscious form.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Sometimes current developments put the past in a new perspective. The emergence of \u201cminimal music\u201d (Glass, Reich, La Monte Young) suddenly showed Satie’s ideas about repetition to be more fertile than most of us had thought. Similarly, Tarantino\u2019s work forced me to think about contemporary storytelling strategies, but it also asked me to consider more distant sources of those trends.<\/p>\n

Studying film history is valuable for its own sake; it’s just damn interesting. Needing further justification, sometimes historians go on to say, especially to students: We study history to better understand the present.<\/em> That\u2019s surely true, but so is this: We study the present to better understand history.<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

Henry James\u2019 discussion of block construction is in \u201cPreface to The Wings of the Dove\u201d <\/em>in The Art of the Novel: Critical Prefaces<\/em> <\/a>(New York: Scribners, 1934), 296. Tarantino\u2019s comments about novels and films come from Graham Fuller, \u201cAnswers First, Questions Later,\u201d in Quentin Tarantino Interviews<\/em><\/a>, ed. Gerald Peary (University Press of Mississippi, 1998), 53; Jeff Dawson, Quentin Tarantino: The Cinema of Cool<\/em><\/a> (Applause, 1995), 69.<\/p>\n

A useful discussion of how chapter divisions relate to plot is Philip Stevick, “The Theory of Fictional Chapters,” in The Theory of the Novel<\/em><\/a>, ed. Stevick (The Free Press, 1967), 171-184. You can sample it here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Neo-noir encouraged many filmmakers to explore block construction. Three quick examples: Soderbergh in Out of Sight<\/em> (1998; from a Leonard book), Christopher Nolan in Following<\/em> (1998), and Shane Black in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang<\/em> (2005, which split up into chapters corresponding to one popular screenplay formula). Nolan proved keenly interested in this compositional approach; see our ebook, Christopher Nolan: A Labyrinth of Linkages<\/em><\/a>. More recently, Wes Anderson’s films deploy some tricky versions of block construction.<\/p>\n

Block construction is also apparent in comic books, and Tarantino is clearly an aficionado of those traditions too. That influence should be taken into account for a fuller analysis of his narrative techniques. Also, too: The influence of Godard, especially in the “tardy” title insertions coming after the segment has started (e.g., one way to take “The Gold Watch”).<\/p>\n

The expanded, stand-alone feature version of Death Proof<\/em> displays block construction in filling out the “missing reel” portion of the first story and creating a new block, a ten-minute scene of the second “girl posse” at a convenience store. The scene starts with Stuntman Mike before shifting to the young women. It makes Mike even more a connecting link between the film’s two episodes, while Mike’s stalking and spying fulfills\u00a0Tarantino’s claim<\/a> that Death Proof<\/em> is a\u00a0slasher movie.<\/p>\n

Embedded stories or flashbacks exemplify what researchers call “ring construction.” Bill Benzon has explored this in many critical analyses, as here with the 1954 Godzilla\/Gojira<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n

For more on Inglourious Basterds<\/em>, see our entry here<\/a> and as revised in Minding Movies<\/em>. We analyze the money-drop sequence in Jackie Brown<\/em> in Chapter 7 of Film Art: An Introduction. <\/em>Kristin discusses the titles and segmentation of Hannah and Her Sisters <\/em>in Chapter 11 of\u00a0 Storytelling in the New Hollywood.<\/em><\/p>\n

Thanks to participants in the 2014 conference<\/a> of the Society for Cognitive Studies of the Moving Image<\/a> for their comments on some of the ideas presented here. Thanks also to Matthew Bernstein, biographer of Walter Wanger<\/a>, for in-depth discussion of Salome, Where She Danced<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Grindhouse<\/strong> (2007).<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Pulp Fiction (1994). Trigger warning:\u00a0This blog is about Quentin Tarantino, Walt Disney, and Henry James. Those who find violent analogies disturbing should avoid what follows. DB here: Every narrative film is made out of parts. Normally they just whisk by us, but sometimes our attention is called to them as parts. Occasionally, we sense that […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[224,123,57,41,54,290],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-28008","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-1940s-hollywood","category-directors-tarantino","category-hollywood-aesthetic-traditions","category-independent-american-film","category-narrative-strategies","category-society-for-cognitive-studies-of-the-moving-image"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28008","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=28008"}],"version-history":[{"count":54,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28008\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":42051,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28008\/revisions\/42051"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28008"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28008"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28008"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}