Gotta love Vince´s patience as he just stands in the background while his partner fucks with these men for no reason but his own personal amusement. We love the support
It doesn't appear covered in this dialogue dive, but the body language in this scene is also fantastic. Vincent isn't just fucking off in the corner, he enters the room - walks past everyone and immediately goes behind them all, then he's pacing back and forth the whole time. If a hitman did that in your apartment, that's about as intimidating as Jules' subtext. You know he's behind you, you can read the tension in the room, and you can hear him moving - but you can't take your eyes off Jules. In Brett's mind, Vincent may well be pointing a gun at the back of his head this whole conversation - or worse - not knowing what Vincent is doing is the threat. Vincent is violating their space in every way possible, just as Jules is towering over them as they lie down/sit.
@@Yvaelle It also adds to the visual narrative. The angle of the camera tells us who is in power also and as you can see repeatedly in the scene ( 11:50 for reference) Vincent being behind is not only a threat as an idea but we see Bret in between them. There's nowhere to go. There's nothing he can do.
It adds a lot to the scene that Vince doesn’t care, I’m surprised the video doesn’t touch on it. Like yes the dialogue and the direction of the scene says we should feel tension, but the character we’ve been told to fallow doesn’t care and is board by what is happening. For me the ‘just another day in the office’ was what really made the scene sing
One thing that probably didn’t contribute to the point of the scene but I find to be absolutely perfect is Jule saying, “Hamburgers! The cornerstone of any nutritious breakfast.”
I think Jule said that to better show his dominance and superiority over the kids. Almost as if he's saying "I'm an adult and you are still children eating silly things at silly times." At least that's the way that line came across to me.
@@leviswranglers2813 Good point. That’s probably how it contributes to the larger conversation. The reason I find it so perfect is that it’s sounds so absurd & hilarious. Like, it sounds like it came straight out of a burger ad, and I would probably make memes about it. 😂
@@master0fthearts894 I think the ability for people to take different things from Tarantino's writing so incredible. Someone like Sorkin would have spelled the adult/child dynamic out, but Tarantino lets the subtext do the talking.
I especially like how he doesn't wait a microsecond before responding to Brett. It's just helps reinforce that Jules knows the answer, because he's already (at least) one step ahead.
Another detail I always loved: Jules doesn't just take one or two sips from the drink, he sucks it aallll down. Another subtle way of saying: you will not finish your meal, your will not drink again, you are a dead man.
Maybe this was just an oversight but I think it works with the scene how Jules calls Brett "Brad" when complimenting his intelligence. Like, to Jules, the guys name is just as disposable as he is.
Nah, it's gotta be deliberate- on the acting side that is. There's no way you work with a scene that much and confuse the character's name like that- it's on every page. The closest you might get is a flub of the tongue.
I always have, and still do, hear it as an overly emphasized "Brad", coming out more like "Brat". Even when I listen to it with "Brad" in mind, even when looking at the word "Brad" while he says it, I do not hear a pronounced D at the end.
@callmecatalyst ok, so im going to be internet pedant. Well actually, a/ you never see the whole burger until Jules is taking a bite. So you cant' know any of what you guess. And as for your great sauce mystery . the burger is being held upside down, i cant guess what people in your part of the world do to burgers, but in most normal places the sauce is very rarely under the patty.
It is kinda acknowledged that Jules wasn’t actually religious though, he says in the end that he just thought this was a cool thing to quote before shooting someone. So in-universe, maybe he watched that movie and that’s where he got it from.
One of the best things that I found about this scene was all the silent character acting. All of the audible ones are easy to spot, but the silent ones really help service the narratives subtext. For example, when the door is opened for Jules and Vincent, they don’t greet who opened it. They don’t ask to be let inside. They just silently give the opener a stern look, (Jules in particular, the focus is on him after all) and then walk right in, with little respect to the boundaries of these mens’ home. Throughout the conversation, the other men are silent and awkward, not daring to speak up or talk about the true subtext of the conversation, which is really telling of the situation they are in. They keep having awkward glances, and they don’t dare smile due to their fear and lack of power. Whenever Jules eats a food or drink from them, he stares them down, keeping his eyes trained on his prey to assert, even without words, that he is in control. Sometimes the absence of dialogue in a conversation can truly show what the characters are thinking and feeling. And one small detail I noticed- there is no music or tone-setting audio in the scene whatsoever. I think a more inexperienced writer would’ve put music in to help convey the tone & subtext more. Quinten Tarantino, however, recognizes he doesn’t need that, as the previous scene where the characters grabbed Guns already helps convey the tone, as well as the general way that the dialogue progresses. Instead, he has long drawn-out scenes of silence, of emptiness to emphasize the tension and fear. It makes you hold your breath-or in this case, your eyes-as you wait for the inevitable conclusion of this scene. It’s a minor detail, but it really added up to a lot.
I think the burger really stands out because eating is when people normally drop their guard a bit - we're vulnerable in that moment. But not Jules, even in that moment of normal human action - he's a predator - eyes fixed on Brett. It's a really fantastic subtextual way of conveying the danger in the scene, if it seems like small talk, know that it's not. You won't catch Jules with his guard down, not when he's being nice, not when he's mid-bite, this scene only has one conclusion: that's the finality conveyed in his stare. Brett is the burger.
Love your comment, and agree wholeheartedly, one of my favorite compliments to it is when Jules ask to try Brett's burger, Brett can't even say yes, it's it's he can do to choke down his own spit and barely hand gesture to Jules.
@@thalljoben3551 Yeah, that really showed that he didn’t have control not only because they had the gun-but because Jules knew how to inspire fear. And thank you! 🙂
I feel like as a writer it’s so much easier to go into dialogue knowing what the subtext is first, what the characters want, and then creating drama out from that foundation. The use of verbal dominance was the layer above the subtext of getting the briefcase, and above that was the actions taken to reinforce that verbal dominance - killing his friend, eating his food, quoting the Bible. It all builds up from that foundation. If all of that dialogue was written without he context of potential violence or any knowledge of what the characters actually wanted, none of it could have been constructed in the first place. Subtext is the foundation under the carpet, and while people might not see that foundation on a first glance, understanding everything built on top of it teaches you everything you need to know about the subtext.
While I agree, sometimes if you think like this, it will begin to feel stilted or preachy. A lot of times just writing the dialogue will begin to form it's own subtext that you can polish in a rewrite.
Jules is very straightforward with Brett. He warns Brett not to keep talking and shoots Brett's friend when the talking continues. Then Jules warns/dares about saying "what" again, and shoots Brett for doing so.
I think this scene is also an example of kishotenketsu, which I think Tarantino absorbed from his love of Japanese films. It's a popular East Asian narrative structure that derives tension from change, rather than conflict. Ki (introduced elements) - Jules and Vincent enter the room. They tell everyone to relax, but there is tension in the room. Sho (elements are developed) - Jules uses a mask of friendliness to intimidate the three men in the room. They play along, uncomfortably. Ten (a twist or abrupt change) - Jules shoots the man on the couch. Ketsu (the contradiction between the change and the established elements is resolved, for better or worse) - Jules makes it clear that there was never a hope of resolution. They are there to recover the briefcase and kill the people who took it as a warning. Kishotenketsu is why films like Parasite and Princess Mononoke feel so satisfying, despite seeming like they shift plots or genre halfway through.
Just curious, I always thought kishotenketsu is the worldwide standard for narrative. And we Asians learned this from elementary school when we read children's book no matter your are Korean or Chinese or Japanese. But from your talk, it seems like western culture do not have this kind of concept? That's very interesting because many people from Asian analyzing story from kishotenketsu. Even when we are making business report. And we watch every Western stories, and analyzing them the same ways
@@dionysus326 That’s interesting! And it’s pretty funny... I can’t speak for the entirely of Western culture, or even all of America, but in my school, there was a different basic template which they said every narrative follows, though I don’t know if it had any special name: the beginning/inciting incident -> rising action -> climax -> falling action -> resolution/ending. The idea of Kishotenketsu story structure was completely new to me when I first read about it online, it was never mentioned in school.
@@dionysus326 Yeah, it was so fascinating to me that not everyone learned three act structure, but there was this whole other system that you could use to study stories. I've only seen kishotenketsu explained recently (like, the last couple of months) and I've been studying literary structure basically since infancy. What's really interesting is how many stories work both ways, despite their writers (presumably) being raised with one or another. I also think learning about one can explain why a story can "break" the rules of another and still be satisfying. Like, Fiddler on the Roof has a random twist in the end when the Christians decide to expel all the Jews in Anatevka, and it feels out of place if you only look through the lens of three act structures, but it fits kishotenketsu beautifully.
@@elfin2865 What you described is a plot diagram. Though a "plot diagram" is a summarization of something called Freytag's pyramid, a structural model of a narrative's plot. It was created by its namesake, Gustav Freytag. Visually, the plot would be shown as a straight line (inciting incident) that suddenly angles upward (rising action) to a peak (climax), afterwards angling back down (falling action) before resolving back into a straight line (resolution). It makes a pyramid. Which is just what you described. It's a very popular diagram or model in the US to teach narrative structure.
Another subtle and silent detail of Jules telling "Flock of seagulls" to relax is he is placing the man back in to position with his movements. He doesn't wait for him to lay back or put his legs back onto the couch, he SHOWS the man how to lay down and what to move. It adds to the condescension, while also showing that Jules already has such control that the man is only positioning as instructed.
I always found that line so funny if you get the inside joke. Flock of Seagulls is a band from the 80's era. Their best known song is called 'I Ran', which Mr. Flock of Seagulls never gets the chance to do.
@@davidb7180 I never considered the song angle to it. Interesting perspective. I always thought the reference was dude had a haircut similar to a prototypical 80s new wave punk listener. I bet the last thing those boys expected was for Jules to know that genre of music enough to crack on couch boys haircut.
I can tell there’s a bit of inspiration from The Good the Bad the Ugly where Angel Eyes goes to capture a bounty and sits down and eats lunch with him while the bounty is sweating bullets. Similar to here where Jules eats the burger. What’s spoken in this scene isn’t every important. The burger is just meaningless small talk but the subtext underneath, that Brett and Jules both know what’s about to happen is what makes it effective.
I thought Jules' initial "calming" demeanor and telling the boys to relax was more to imply the futility of trying to escape or defend themselves rather than it being necessarily strategic, as if to say "no sense in trying to prevent the inevitable" and on some level "we want you to be comfortable in your last minutes" like someone putting an animal down but taking measures so they don't have to see it struggle.
I like how the first establishment of dominance was Vincent & Jules walking in silently without actually being invited in. If one breaks a societal norm of courtesy right off of the bat there's no telling where the rest of the interaction might go. One other aspect of tension & dominance is when Jules brings up Marsellus' name the second time Vincent walks towards the kitchen & Brett watches him walk by. Now not only do you have Jules as the sensory threat in front of you, but you also have a mostly silent Vincent behind you, not knowing what he's up to. The times Jules then talks to Vincent is not only a reminder that there are 2 men in the room, the conversation is going over & around Brett in his own place - yet another power move
So, his name is really Bret then after all? Man, you just cleared up an almost thirty year confusion for me. This makes so much sense now. Thank you, sir.
At the end of the verse, Jules turns to face Marvin (Phil Lamarr) when he says "the finder of lost children" who was their snitch that Jules was going to return home safely until Vincent accidentally shot him in the face during the ride.
I think you should have followed up on the end of the scene. Jules' established authority gets completely undermined and he is saved only by a "miracle." As if God Himself were letting Jules know what He thinks of his meticulously cultivated control of the situation. Even such a comedic break in tension still ties into the themes of the situation. I will sorely miss Tarantino's work now that he is retired.
14:14 Another detail for intimidation was when Jules pulled back his coat to reveal his gun. I believe this was intentional. Not only is his stance intimidating, but also knowing the man standing in front of you has a weapon and you're the upside-down turtle.
What's interesting is your analysis throughout the video is pretty much on the beat with the background music. I'd never noticed rhythm in non-musical human speech before and this is blowing my mind rn.
I chose to analyse this scene for Film Studies, it was only rewatching and overanalysing in great detail that I truly appreciated the master storytelling- really took my love for film to a new level. I always loved this scene but it's great when you find out exactly why it works. Love your videos :)
I also want to point out that we see vince bring his gun out as the bible verse continues, just reinforcing to the audience about what comes next (the climax of the scene), and that vincent is aware without needing to be told or clued in.
@@Richard_Nickerson Exactly. In the moment, Jules asks Brett if he read the bible, he puts out his cigarette to have his hands free, implying they don't do this the first time.
A couple other things worth mentioning: 13:15 Jules clearly calls Brett “Brad” - maybe a production mistake, but I’m convinced that Jules is deliberately saying Brett’s name wrong because Brett’s real name is not worth getting right 21:16 The moment Jules asks Bret if he reads the Bible, Vincent extinguishes his cigarette and has his gun out by the end of the first verse - he knows Vincent’s routine enough to know when to be ready 21:45 Jules directly singles out Martin to receive the line “brother’s keeper and finder of lost children” - he recognizes that Martin is a lost child and therefore does not execute him (I know, I know…) 22:13 “To ‘cap’ the scene off…” saw what you did there. I’m stealing that, just to prove your point in 23:32. : )
I don’t understand what people are hearing here but he definitely says Brett. He says Brett quite a few times in this scene and this is one of the most clear times. He says Brett.
Asking innocuous questions with direct, obvious answers, is commonly used by detectives during interrogations to get a baseline feel for when the person being questioned is being honest, and can then pivot into the meat of the interrogation in order to see if their mannerisms change and if they're lying or not: Jules also does this
It’s a small detail but I always dug the fact that you can see Vincent get his gun ready as soon as Jules starts his bible speech, it shows that he knows it’s his signature move when they go to kill
Two things that I haven't seen being pointed out, one of which is major and one of which is minor: for the minor, Vince pulling out a cigarette and lighting it without asking, even at the time the movie is set in is a big power play. For the major, while Jules is telling the man on the couch to lay back down, he unbuttons his jacket, revealing the gun and silently but effectively solidifying the dominance that he is in the process of establishing as he enters the room.
Damn dude your synopsis on this entire scen is GRAND… I just discovered your channel and you won me over I hit that bell quick!!! You got my subscription
It could be me, but after Jules kills flock of seagulls guy, it's not that Brett doesn't know the answers to the questions, it's that he's too terrified to think or speak, he's panicking, he's just repeating himself and is practically babbling after seeing his friend dying and knowiing he's going to die as well.
I remember watching this for the first time a few years ago and couldn’t believe how much tension and suspense I felt throughout this scene and really the whole movie. I hadn’t had a movie entertain me and really grip me like that ever in my life. Instantly became one of my favorites, and definitely my favorite movie on first watch.
By his words and actions, Jules literally takes everything away from Bret/Brad: his food, his drink (Jules finishes the drink, thus denying Bret/Brad even that small thing), his self respect, his pride, his manhood and, finally, his life. Bret/Brad disappears; everything he was has been taken by the hit men. Even Vincent, who says almost nothing during the scene, doesn't bother to acknowledge Bret/Brad's existence until he shoots him: Bret/Brad is nothing to him. That is absolute contempt. Great writing!
I love how when Jules brings up the bible, you see Vincent ready his gun in the background, because he, unlike the Brett and the audience, knows that whenever Jules says this verse, somebody's going to die.
8:10 the way I view this type of slight hinting in both subtext and environment is that it’s one thing for the curtains to be blue, it’s another when almost every single object in the room is blue. In other words, It’s when you add up all the little hints that they really achieve their meaning.
One small detail you didn't mention is on 12:02 when Jules bites the burger where bret was eating from. Usually when people take a bite of your food they bite from the opposite end or rip from there. Also, how he slurped the soda generally the sound is considered rude and he did it for like 5 whole seconds
The tension of this scene is created primarily through the reaction of Brett and his buddy on the couch. I see it less as what is said, but rather what is conveyed. The dialog reinforces the intimidating body language. Standing over them both. Positioning the camera at Brett’s level during all wide shots. Draining the Sprite
You did an awesome job breaking this scene down. I love all the subtle hints throughout, telling the audience that Vincent and Jules are not there to negotiate, not to reprimand, but to kill everyone in that room. The fates of the victims were set the moment that apartment door closed behind Jules, like the sealing of the lid on a coffin. One of the final subtle hints is when Jules goes into his monologue. If killing Brett's friend didn't make things clear enough, Vincent cocking his gun in the background shouts it: you are all dead men and there is nothing you can do to stop it.
Pulp Fiction is my favorite movie ever made!! The apartment scene is obviously one of my favorite scenes in the film! Even though PF doesn’t have a single bad scene if you ask me! LOVE THIS FILM
Also as a touch, Jules immediately intensifies his actions the moment Brett asks "What?" Asking what is an attempt by Brett to ask questions and this infuriates Jules as he sees this as an attempt by Brett to exert control which is absolutely something he cannot do. Thus it results in violence.
Love the video and im loving the channel, great work. I wnted to add something that i found interesting with this scene an that is Marvin. Later in the movie its reveal to us that Marvin snitch to jules on the other guys. Jules and him know each other, thats why he inmediatly tells the location on the briefcase and jules yell at him, 'cause Marvin know what are going to happend so jules doesn't have to waste time intimidating him. Also theres my favorite moment when jules say "faunder of lost children" and look at Marvin. Implying hes redempting himself by snitching
I think part of the reason Jules asking Brett why the Royale with cheese’s name is the way it is is because he’s inquiring about his intelligence. I’m an earlier scene, Jules didn’t know this little tidbit of info until Vincent tells him. Asking Brett about it and him answering so quickly and accurately tells Jules that Brett isn’t thick.
The scene at the compound in "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" is so thick with tension, it's amazing. I kept waiting for everything to pop off; it was almost unbearable.
Don't forget the background with Vincent as Jules asks Brett about if he reads the bible. Vincent immediately puts his cigarette out as foreshadowing the impending execution.
what was amazing about this, and why Tarantino is so good at his craft, is it is only one of many, many satisfying dialog showers - come on in, the water is fine.
Tarantino loves to juxtaposition inconsequential conversation and very high drama. Vincent and Jules stroll languidly through their busy day as cold-blooded killers, philosophically discussing hamburgers, foot-massages, eating pork, etc.
The only thing missing which is huge, is the talk between Jules and Vincent as they drive. The one piece of back story to show vincents backstory in France, and the talk of cheeseburgers which make it relatable to the scene as a whole. Otherwise why would've Jules asked vince what they do in France?
I stumbled upon your page while working. Listened to a couple GOT then stumbled upon this awesome video. You are the man! Very well written and spoken. I need to find your books!
I feel like few films have moments like this and can bring this kind of acting to a scene. The only other movie I can see with a similar moment is from The Gentleman.
It’s so weird to watch this video, cuz these are things I subcontiously felt but couldn’t put my finger on why I felt this way. For example, all the questions samuels character asks. I felt he was scary but couldn’t quite pinpoint why until you pointed out the questions he asks. I find that so interesting
My favourite detail (which is not visible in the other 16:9 cropped release) is how Vince is chilling with his cigarette partially out of frame when Jules is asking questions, but as soon as he asks Brett “do you read the Bible?” Vince puts out his cigarette, gets out his gun, squares-up his posture and becomes more prominent in the frame. He’s heard this before and he knows that’s the signal. Another brilliant thing about the way this scene is written is you have to wonder if they would’ve got out of it alive if they’d stayed quiet. But of course it’s super understandable why Brett would say “listen we’re really sorry”.
It seems to me Jules is torturing Brett with the illusion of agency. Flock of Seagulls was going to die anyway, but not before Jules makes Brett think he died due to his own actions.
I have been waiting for a new video! I love the breakdown of scenes! Really allows your expertise on scene structure and writing to shine through. Really love your content and I hope to see more soon!
A little something g I noticed was when he asks the guy on the couch if they know why they’re here (about 2/3 of the way through your video) he opens his jacket to show his gun to him, whereas before when he first told the couch guy to relax he kept the gun hidden to put him at ease.
Another power move is when Jules yells at Marvin, he has his full attention on Marvin. He doesn't see Brett and his friend as threats, so he could take his eyes off them.
I think the compliment during 13:26 was more than "good measure". To me, it sounded like Jules implied that Bret, being a smart kid, new better than to mess with his boss.
Didnt he do an interview once, back after Django was released, where he discussed the tension in a scene. He takes the suspense of a scene and stretches it to the limits before giving it a release, but at a moment that has the audience indulged to a scene. Sometimes it will catch the audience off guard. Your breakdowns make the view of the scenes so much more worthwhile. Could you do one on Marcellus Wallace?
This video filled me with dread. It brought me back to all those times that my mom and dad sat me down at the dinner table and talked at me for hours. Two hours, usually. They told me to sit down whenever I wanted to leave the conversation. They told me to look into their eyes whenever I didn't want to look at them. Going to the bathroom was the only way I could catch a break. Those were the saddest pisses of my life, knowing I was going to skulk back to the dinner table, sit down for another hour, try to maintain eye contact and try not to act sad. Because my sadness was manipulative. They called it my sad puppy dog act. Breaking down and crying, as I often did, was in no way me being sad after hours of humiliation and amplified self-loathing. It just another step in the process of me trying to manipulate them into.... what did I want to manipulate them into doing? No one ever said. I was being incredibly manipulative though: when I cried, when I looked sad, when I didn't want to look at them, or to talk, or to sit at the table. It was all manipulation. And they reminded me that I was being manipulative every time they say me at that table. It was useless manipulation, clearly, because my depression never ended the discussion, or changed it, or shortened it by an hour or two, or prevented the next discussion. I wasn't entirely powerless though, because I always did have choices. Did I eat slowly, so I retained a plausible excuse to avoid eye contact? Or did I eat quickly, silently praying for a quick escape, even as they knew a quick escape was exactly what I wanted? That was the most important decision, usually. Another big one was whether to go back for seconds. Again, more food on my plate meant something in my immediate surroundings that I can interact with, but an empty plate -- while sad -- did at least match the way I felt inside, and it did subconsciously signal that the discussion should be over, given that the meal was over. I mean it never actually worked but I always had the choice to try. So, that was a pretty big choice. My question for you is this: is trying to end a conversation with an empty plate manipulative? It's probably going to suck whether you say yes or no. But hey, that's how those conversations felt. Except you get to answer one question and go back to living your life, while I had to sit at a table for hours, listening to people generous enough to talk at me for two hours about everything I did wrong, then go upstairs, cry and feel dead inside. And wonder when it would happen again, and how quickly I could regain some semblance of happiness.
Another brilliant breakdown and lesson. I admire your trained perspective and dedication to this, and I'm looking forward to making my purchase of your book! Thanks for the time you put into sharing, and for sharing at all.
you mentioned it before I could .. the constant eye contact established dominance. as did making them sit if not sitting, continue sitting, or say laying down (the ultimate lack of power position)
this was my favorite scene of his, because of how quietly menacing it started out before it just went batshit. samuel l jackson was just absolute perfection with his delivery 🥰 that is… until inglorious basterds came out. that opening scene is an absolute *masterpiece* and imo the best scene QT has ever written. i’d love to see you break that one down 💜 or even just colonel landa’s character in general.
Shout out to Brett’s actor who perfectly played a terrified grown man for this scene
you know I never considered how well of a job he does lmao
He's a real credit to the people of What.
@@dariendude17 lmfao
To be fair if i had Samuel L Jackson shouting in my face id be pretty terrified too
@@kaiengrail lol that was the secret, he wasn’t acting
Gotta love Vince´s patience as he just stands in the background while his partner fucks with these men for no reason but his own personal amusement. We love the support
He knows the Bible quote means it's time to cock his gun
It doesn't appear covered in this dialogue dive, but the body language in this scene is also fantastic. Vincent isn't just fucking off in the corner, he enters the room - walks past everyone and immediately goes behind them all, then he's pacing back and forth the whole time. If a hitman did that in your apartment, that's about as intimidating as Jules' subtext. You know he's behind you, you can read the tension in the room, and you can hear him moving - but you can't take your eyes off Jules. In Brett's mind, Vincent may well be pointing a gun at the back of his head this whole conversation - or worse - not knowing what Vincent is doing is the threat. Vincent is violating their space in every way possible, just as Jules is towering over them as they lie down/sit.
@@Yvaelle It also adds to the visual narrative. The angle of the camera tells us who is in power also and as you can see repeatedly in the scene ( 11:50 for reference) Vincent being behind is not only a threat as an idea but we see Bret in between them. There's nowhere to go. There's nothing he can do.
It adds a lot to the scene that Vince doesn’t care, I’m surprised the video doesn’t touch on it. Like yes the dialogue and the direction of the scene says we should feel tension, but the character we’ve been told to fallow doesn’t care and is board by what is happening. For me the ‘just another day in the office’ was what really made the scene sing
@@josuebartley7272
follow*
bored*
One thing that probably didn’t contribute to the point of the scene but I find to be absolutely perfect is Jule saying, “Hamburgers! The cornerstone of any nutritious breakfast.”
It really pulls together the absurdity of the moment
I think Jule said that to better show his dominance and superiority over the kids. Almost as if he's saying "I'm an adult and you are still children eating silly things at silly times." At least that's the way that line came across to me.
@@leviswranglers2813 Good point. That’s probably how it contributes to the larger conversation.
The reason I find it so perfect is that it’s sounds so absurd & hilarious. Like, it sounds like it came straight out of a burger ad, and I would probably make memes about it. 😂
@@master0fthearts894 I think the ability for people to take different things from Tarantino's writing so incredible. Someone like Sorkin would have spelled the adult/child dynamic out, but Tarantino lets the subtext do the talking.
I especially like how he doesn't wait a microsecond before responding to Brett. It's just helps reinforce that Jules knows the answer, because he's already (at least) one step ahead.
Another detail I always loved: Jules doesn't just take one or two sips from the drink, he sucks it aallll down. Another subtle way of saying: you will not finish your meal, your will not drink again, you are a dead man.
As his last meal, I hope the Big Kahuna burger was as tasty as they say.
Nah it was just a flex…
I just thought he was being a dick.
"You won't be needing this where _you're_ going." Type beat
Then why not finish the burger? It's much more visual chawing down guy's entire meal instead of the invisible drink in the cup.
Maybe this was just an oversight but I think it works with the scene how Jules calls Brett "Brad" when complimenting his intelligence. Like, to Jules, the guys name is just as disposable as he is.
Nah, it's gotta be deliberate- on the acting side that is. There's no way you work with a scene that much and confuse the character's name like that- it's on every page. The closest you might get is a flub of the tongue.
Holy cow, i never caught that Brett/Brad bit before!
(Alliteration not intended)
I always have, and still do, hear it as an overly emphasized "Brad", coming out more like "Brat".
Even when I listen to it with "Brad" in mind, even when looking at the word "Brad" while he says it, I do not hear a pronounced D at the end.
@callmecatalyst
I seriously hear "Brat". He's not saying Brad, he's saying Brett weirdly.
@callmecatalyst ok, so im going to be internet pedant. Well actually, a/ you never see the whole burger until Jules is taking a bite. So you cant' know any of what you guess. And as for your great sauce mystery . the burger is being held upside down, i cant guess what people in your part of the world do to burgers, but in most normal places the sauce is very rarely under the patty.
“Dramatizing the simple”
*Takes chip and eats it
🤣
It is kinda acknowledged that Jules wasn’t actually religious though, he says in the end that he just thought this was a cool thing to quote before shooting someone. So in-universe, maybe he watched that movie and that’s where he got it from.
One of the best things that I found about this scene was all the silent character acting. All of the audible ones are easy to spot, but the silent ones really help service the narratives subtext.
For example, when the door is opened for Jules and Vincent, they don’t greet who opened it. They don’t ask to be let inside. They just silently give the opener a stern look, (Jules in particular, the focus is on him after all) and then walk right in, with little respect to the boundaries of these mens’ home.
Throughout the conversation, the other men are silent and awkward, not daring to speak up or talk about the true subtext of the conversation, which is really telling of the situation they are in. They keep having awkward glances, and they don’t dare smile due to their fear and lack of power.
Whenever Jules eats a food or drink from them, he stares them down, keeping his eyes trained on his prey to assert, even without words, that he is in control. Sometimes the absence of dialogue in a conversation can truly show what the characters are thinking and feeling.
And one small detail I noticed- there is no music or tone-setting audio in the scene whatsoever. I think a more inexperienced writer would’ve put music in to help convey the tone & subtext more. Quinten Tarantino, however, recognizes he doesn’t need that, as the previous scene where the characters grabbed Guns already helps convey the tone, as well as the general way that the dialogue progresses. Instead, he has long drawn-out scenes of silence, of emptiness to emphasize the tension and fear. It makes you hold your breath-or in this case, your eyes-as you wait for the inevitable conclusion of this scene. It’s a minor detail, but it really added up to a lot.
I think the burger really stands out because eating is when people normally drop their guard a bit - we're vulnerable in that moment. But not Jules, even in that moment of normal human action - he's a predator - eyes fixed on Brett. It's a really fantastic subtextual way of conveying the danger in the scene, if it seems like small talk, know that it's not. You won't catch Jules with his guard down, not when he's being nice, not when he's mid-bite, this scene only has one conclusion: that's the finality conveyed in his stare. Brett is the burger.
@@Yvaelle Very well-said.
They know the guy that opened the door. He also gets shot in the face soon after.
Love your comment, and agree wholeheartedly, one of my favorite compliments to it is when Jules ask to try Brett's burger, Brett can't even say yes, it's it's he can do to choke down his own spit and barely hand gesture to Jules.
@@thalljoben3551 Yeah, that really showed that he didn’t have control not only because they had the gun-but because Jules knew how to inspire fear.
And thank you! 🙂
I feel like as a writer it’s so much easier to go into dialogue knowing what the subtext is first, what the characters want, and then creating drama out from that foundation. The use of verbal dominance was the layer above the subtext of getting the briefcase, and above that was the actions taken to reinforce that verbal dominance - killing his friend, eating his food, quoting the Bible. It all builds up from that foundation. If all of that dialogue was written without he context of potential violence or any knowledge of what the characters actually wanted, none of it could have been constructed in the first place. Subtext is the foundation under the carpet, and while people might not see that foundation on a first glance, understanding everything built on top of it teaches you everything you need to know about the subtext.
Indeed!
While I agree, sometimes if you think like this, it will begin to feel stilted or preachy. A lot of times just writing the dialogue will begin to form it's own subtext that you can polish in a rewrite.
@@upg5147 I see your point. But I think OP's method works best with character subtext than author subtext
@@Lunacorva I agree, I was just throwing in my two cents
Subtext! The cornerstone of any good scene!
Jules is very straightforward with Brett. He warns Brett not to keep talking and shoots Brett's friend when the talking continues. Then Jules warns/dares about saying "what" again, and shoots Brett for doing so.
Jules was going to kill all of them except Marvin. He's just toying with Brette.
I think this scene is also an example of kishotenketsu, which I think Tarantino absorbed from his love of Japanese films. It's a popular East Asian narrative structure that derives tension from change, rather than conflict.
Ki (introduced elements) - Jules and Vincent enter the room. They tell everyone to relax, but there is tension in the room.
Sho (elements are developed) - Jules uses a mask of friendliness to intimidate the three men in the room. They play along, uncomfortably.
Ten (a twist or abrupt change) - Jules shoots the man on the couch.
Ketsu (the contradiction between the change and the established elements is resolved, for better or worse) - Jules makes it clear that there was never a hope of resolution. They are there to recover the briefcase and kill the people who took it as a warning.
Kishotenketsu is why films like Parasite and Princess Mononoke feel so satisfying, despite seeming like they shift plots or genre halfway through.
Just curious,
I always thought kishotenketsu is the worldwide standard for narrative.
And we Asians learned this from elementary school when we read children's book no matter your are Korean or Chinese or Japanese.
But from your talk, it seems like western culture do not have this kind of concept?
That's very interesting because many people from Asian analyzing story from kishotenketsu.
Even when we are making business report.
And we watch every Western stories, and analyzing them the same ways
@@dionysus326 That’s interesting! And it’s pretty funny... I can’t speak for the entirely of Western culture, or even all of America, but in my school, there was a different basic template which they said every narrative follows, though I don’t know if it had any special name: the beginning/inciting incident -> rising action -> climax -> falling action -> resolution/ending. The idea of Kishotenketsu story structure was completely new to me when I first read about it online, it was never mentioned in school.
@@dionysus326 Yeah, it was so fascinating to me that not everyone learned three act structure, but there was this whole other system that you could use to study stories. I've only seen kishotenketsu explained recently (like, the last couple of months) and I've been studying literary structure basically since infancy.
What's really interesting is how many stories work both ways, despite their writers (presumably) being raised with one or another. I also think learning about one can explain why a story can "break" the rules of another and still be satisfying. Like, Fiddler on the Roof has a random twist in the end when the Christians decide to expel all the Jews in Anatevka, and it feels out of place if you only look through the lens of three act structures, but it fits kishotenketsu beautifully.
@@elfin2865 What you described is a plot diagram. Though a "plot diagram" is a summarization of something called Freytag's pyramid, a structural model of a narrative's plot. It was created by its namesake, Gustav Freytag.
Visually, the plot would be shown as a straight line (inciting incident) that suddenly angles upward (rising action) to a peak (climax), afterwards angling back down (falling action) before resolving back into a straight line (resolution).
It makes a pyramid. Which is just what you described. It's a very popular diagram or model in the US to teach narrative structure.
This seems like a good overall description of films with bipartite, rather than three-act structures, like Eyes Wide Shut or Mulholland Drive.
Another subtle and silent detail of Jules telling "Flock of seagulls" to relax is he is placing the man back in to position with his movements. He doesn't wait for him to lay back or put his legs back onto the couch, he SHOWS the man how to lay down and what to move. It adds to the condescension, while also showing that Jules already has such control that the man is only positioning as instructed.
I always found that line so funny if you get the inside joke. Flock of Seagulls is a band from the 80's era. Their best known song is called 'I Ran', which Mr. Flock of Seagulls never gets the chance to do.
@@davidb7180 I never considered the song angle to it. Interesting perspective.
I always thought the reference was dude had a haircut similar to a prototypical 80s new wave punk listener. I bet the last thing those boys expected was for Jules to know that genre of music enough to crack on couch boys haircut.
I can tell there’s a bit of inspiration from The Good the Bad the Ugly where Angel Eyes goes to capture a bounty and sits down and eats lunch with him while the bounty is sweating bullets. Similar to here where Jules eats the burger. What’s spoken in this scene isn’t every important. The burger is just meaningless small talk but the subtext underneath, that Brett and Jules both know what’s about to happen is what makes it effective.
I thought Jules' initial "calming" demeanor and telling the boys to relax was more to imply the futility of trying to escape or defend themselves rather than it being necessarily strategic, as if to say "no sense in trying to prevent the inevitable" and on some level "we want you to be comfortable in your last minutes" like someone putting an animal down but taking measures so they don't have to see it struggle.
It's also a way to flex and exact dominance, commanding that they do something that they instinctively want to do the exact opposite of
And then he eats Brett's last meal.
I like how the first establishment of dominance was Vincent & Jules walking in silently without actually being invited in. If one breaks a societal norm of courtesy right off of the bat there's no telling where the rest of the interaction might go.
One other aspect of tension & dominance is when Jules brings up Marsellus' name the second time Vincent walks towards the kitchen & Brett watches him walk by. Now not only do you have Jules as the sensory threat in front of you, but you also have a mostly silent Vincent behind you, not knowing what he's up to. The times Jules then talks to Vincent is not only a reminder that there are 2 men in the room, the conversation is going over & around Brett in his own place - yet another power move
The one who let them in was ratting out Brett and his friend. Of course he let them in.
I love when he says “check out the big brain on Brad,” deliberately calling him the wrong name just to be even more condescending
That line is so famous, that i legit thought his name was Brad until seeing your comment.
So, his name is really Bret then after all? Man, you just cleared up an almost thirty year confusion for me. This makes so much sense now. Thank you, sir.
He says Brett.
At the end of the verse, Jules turns to face Marvin (Phil Lamarr) when he says "the finder of lost children" who was their snitch that Jules was going to return home safely until Vincent accidentally shot him in the face during the ride.
HE’S BACK!!!!!! My day just got a ton better!!
I think you should have followed up on the end of the scene.
Jules' established authority gets completely undermined and he is saved only by a "miracle." As if God Himself were letting Jules know what He thinks of his meticulously cultivated control of the situation. Even such a comedic break in tension still ties into the themes of the situation. I will sorely miss Tarantino's work now that he is retired.
Now that he is retired? He still has atleast one more movie right?
@@jeppejuul7620 Right. He still has his tenth movie to make
14:14 Another detail for intimidation was when Jules pulled back his coat to reveal his gun. I believe this was intentional. Not only is his stance intimidating, but also knowing the man standing in front of you has a weapon and you're the upside-down turtle.
I was kinda bummed when he didn't mention this. Asking "where's the briefcase" at the same time as casually revealing the weapon is so perfect
Samuel L. Jackson absolutely OWNS this scene!!!
He really chews up the dialogue!
Beautiful!
Just like he did Brett’s burger
What's interesting is your analysis throughout the video is pretty much on the beat with the background music. I'd never noticed rhythm in non-musical human speech before and this is blowing my mind rn.
I enjoy your dialogue dives and your voice is pleasant to listen to.
“Well let me retort” is just hilarious to me lmfao. The whole scene is an epic classic
Tarantino loves scenes like this. Makes me think of the first scene in Inglorious Basterds.
I thought the same
I chose to analyse this scene for Film Studies, it was only rewatching and overanalysing in great detail that I truly appreciated the master storytelling- really took my love for film to a new level. I always loved this scene but it's great when you find out exactly why it works. Love your videos :)
I also want to point out that we see vince bring his gun out as the bible verse continues, just reinforcing to the audience about what comes next (the climax of the scene), and that vincent is aware without needing to be told or clued in.
He IS being clued in. The Bible verse IS the clue.
They both knew they were killing them, at least Brett, before they walked in.
@@Richard_Nickerson Exactly. In the moment, Jules asks Brett if he read the bible, he puts out his cigarette to have his hands free, implying they don't do this the first time.
@@benterra4029
And he moves back out of the kitchen and gets his gun ready way before Jules is done with his quote.
This scene never gets old
A couple other things worth mentioning:
13:15 Jules clearly calls Brett “Brad” - maybe a production mistake, but I’m convinced that Jules is deliberately saying Brett’s name wrong because Brett’s real name is not worth getting right
21:16 The moment Jules asks Bret if he reads the Bible, Vincent extinguishes his cigarette and has his gun out by the end of the first verse - he knows Vincent’s routine enough to know when to be ready
21:45 Jules directly singles out Martin to receive the line “brother’s keeper and finder of lost children” - he recognizes that Martin is a lost child and therefore does not execute him (I know, I know…)
22:13 “To ‘cap’ the scene off…” saw what you did there. I’m stealing that, just to prove your point in 23:32. : )
I don’t understand what people are hearing here but he definitely says Brett. He says Brett quite a few times in this scene and this is one of the most clear times. He says Brett.
Apart from the writing, finding the perfect actor to deliver those lines I feel is even more important
Asking innocuous questions with direct, obvious answers, is commonly used by detectives during interrogations to get a baseline feel for when the person being questioned is being honest, and can then pivot into the meat of the interrogation in order to see if their mannerisms change and if they're lying or not: Jules also does this
It’s a small detail but I always dug the fact that you can see Vincent get his gun ready as soon as Jules starts his bible speech, it shows that he knows it’s his signature move when they go to kill
Two things that I haven't seen being pointed out, one of which is major and one of which is minor: for the minor, Vince pulling out a cigarette and lighting it without asking, even at the time the movie is set in is a big power play. For the major, while Jules is telling the man on the couch to lay back down, he unbuttons his jacket, revealing the gun and silently but effectively solidifying the dominance that he is in the process of establishing as he enters the room.
Hey Savage, didn't know if you picked this up, but Jules also deprived Brett and Flock of Seafulls of their last meals. Shows how hardcore Jules is...
This movie is a masterclass in using subtext
Damn dude your synopsis on this entire scen is GRAND… I just discovered your channel and you won me over I hit that bell quick!!! You got my subscription
i like how Vincent takes out his gun when he starts the quote because he knows what's coming
It could be me, but after Jules kills flock of seagulls guy, it's not that Brett doesn't know the answers to the questions, it's that he's too terrified to think or speak, he's panicking, he's just repeating himself and is practically babbling after seeing his friend dying and knowiing he's going to die as well.
I remember watching this for the first time a few years ago and couldn’t believe how much tension and suspense I felt throughout this scene and really the whole movie. I hadn’t had a movie entertain me and really grip me like that ever in my life. Instantly became one of my favorites, and definitely my favorite movie on first watch.
By his words and actions, Jules literally takes everything away from Bret/Brad: his food, his drink (Jules finishes the drink, thus denying Bret/Brad even that small thing), his self respect, his pride, his manhood and, finally, his life. Bret/Brad disappears; everything he was has been taken by the hit men.
Even Vincent, who says almost nothing during the scene, doesn't bother to acknowledge Bret/Brad's existence until he shoots him: Bret/Brad is nothing to him. That is absolute contempt.
Great writing!
Great video, one of the greatest scenes ever
I always laughed at: "Sprite? Good."
The way Jules looks at their inside man as he says "finder of lost children" was also powerful considering what fate befalls him later that morning.
I just remembered this scene yesterday and rewatched it and showed it to my brother and then this pops up in my subscription feed
I love how when Jules brings up the bible, you see Vincent ready his gun in the background, because he, unlike the Brett and the audience, knows that whenever Jules says this verse, somebody's going to die.
8:10 the way I view this type of slight hinting in both subtext and environment is that it’s one thing for the curtains to be blue, it’s another when almost every single object in the room is blue. In other words, It’s when you add up all the little hints that they really achieve their meaning.
One small detail you didn't mention is on 12:02 when Jules bites the burger where bret was eating from. Usually when people take a bite of your food they bite from the opposite end or rip from there. Also, how he slurped the soda generally the sound is considered rude and he did it for like 5 whole seconds
I'm not a religious man but every time I get to the end of jules speech I just have to go "Amen" (so be it)
The tension of this scene is created primarily through the reaction of Brett and his buddy on the couch. I see it less as what is said, but rather what is conveyed. The dialog reinforces the intimidating body language. Standing over them both. Positioning the camera at Brett’s level during all wide shots. Draining the Sprite
What makes this scene effective is what makes the movie effective; a story told out of order
You did a great job of explaining the things I liked about this scene but couldn't explain, and pointing out things I've never noticed.
You did an awesome job breaking this scene down. I love all the subtle hints throughout, telling the audience that Vincent and Jules are not there to negotiate, not to reprimand, but to kill everyone in that room. The fates of the victims were set the moment that apartment door closed behind Jules, like the sealing of the lid on a coffin. One of the final subtle hints is when Jules goes into his monologue. If killing Brett's friend didn't make things clear enough, Vincent cocking his gun in the background shouts it: you are all dead men and there is nothing you can do to stop it.
The finality of the scene is set up at the very beginning, when the closing door gets its own dedicated shot.
Fantastic deconstruction of Tarantino's masterful work. Thanks so much for your time and expertise!
Great dialogue is a gift. If you aren’t a smartass by nature, all the writing books in the world aren’t going to make you one.
I like how Vincent just joins in the shooting, no hesitation on the character’s part-great scene.
Pulp Fiction is my favorite movie ever made!! The apartment scene is obviously one of my favorite scenes in the film! Even though PF doesn’t have a single bad scene if you ask me! LOVE THIS FILM
Him casually showing his gun when asking bretts friend where the case is, is such a subtle threat.
The moment he raises his voice is ALWAYS what gets me
Also as a touch, Jules immediately intensifies his actions the moment Brett asks "What?"
Asking what is an attempt by Brett to ask questions and this infuriates Jules as he sees this as an attempt by Brett to exert control which is absolutely something he cannot do. Thus it results in violence.
Love the video and im loving the channel, great work. I wnted to add something that i found interesting with this scene an that is Marvin. Later in the movie its reveal to us that Marvin snitch to jules on the other guys. Jules and him know each other, thats why he inmediatly tells the location on the briefcase and jules yell at him, 'cause Marvin know what are going to happend so jules doesn't have to waste time intimidating him. Also theres my favorite moment when jules say "faunder of lost children" and look at Marvin. Implying hes redempting himself by snitching
Love that there is practically no blood in this scene.
I'm so glad to see another duologue dive!! Thank you so much!!! I really appreciate your videos and what you teach!!
I think part of the reason Jules asking Brett why the Royale with cheese’s name is the way it is is because he’s inquiring about his intelligence. I’m an earlier scene, Jules didn’t know this little tidbit of info until Vincent tells him. Asking Brett about it and him answering so quickly and accurately tells Jules that Brett isn’t thick.
13:08
I feel this forshadows Jules throwing harder questions later on in the scene. He says this as if Brett is "leveling up".
OMG please more Tarantino dialogue dives! This was awesome.
The scene at the compound in "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" is so thick with tension, it's amazing. I kept waiting for everything to pop off; it was almost unbearable.
Don't forget the background with Vincent as Jules asks Brett about if he reads the bible. Vincent immediately puts his cigarette out as foreshadowing the impending execution.
what was amazing about this, and why Tarantino is so good at his craft, is it is only one of many, many satisfying dialog showers - come on in, the water is fine.
This was an incredible breakdown! Thank you new subscriber now
Tarantino loves to juxtaposition inconsequential conversation and very high drama. Vincent and Jules stroll languidly through their busy day as cold-blooded killers, philosophically discussing hamburgers, foot-massages, eating pork, etc.
The only thing missing which is huge, is the talk between Jules and Vincent as they drive. The one piece of back story to show vincents backstory in France, and the talk of cheeseburgers which make it relatable to the scene as a whole. Otherwise why would've Jules asked vince what they do in France?
I stumbled upon your page while working. Listened to a couple GOT then stumbled upon this awesome video. You are the man! Very well written and spoken. I need to find your books!
I feel like few films have moments like this and can bring this kind of acting to a scene. The only other movie I can see with a similar moment is from The Gentleman.
Every conversation in his films is one we all would like to sit down and be part of. Or at least eavesdrop on.
Pro tip, your video can’t get demonetized if there’s too much swearing in it
Loved this video
Russet was fantastic. I can't wait to see you do more Tarantino.
Welcome back Savage! Nice to hear from you again. Hope you’re doing good!
It’s so weird to watch this video, cuz these are things I subcontiously felt but couldn’t put my finger on why I felt this way. For example, all the questions samuels character asks. I felt he was scary but couldn’t quite pinpoint why until you pointed out the questions he asks. I find that so interesting
Loved it. Pointed out a lot I knew and ALOT I hadn’t thought of before
My favourite detail (which is not visible in the other 16:9 cropped release) is how Vince is chilling with his cigarette partially out of frame when Jules is asking questions, but as soon as he asks Brett “do you read the Bible?” Vince puts out his cigarette, gets out his gun, squares-up his posture and becomes more prominent in the frame. He’s heard this before and he knows that’s the signal.
Another brilliant thing about the way this scene is written is you have to wonder if they would’ve got out of it alive if they’d stayed quiet. But of course it’s super understandable why Brett would say “listen we’re really sorry”.
It seems to me Jules is torturing Brett with the illusion of agency. Flock of Seagulls was going to die anyway, but not before Jules makes Brett think he died due to his own actions.
I just realized the "I drink your milkshake" scene and the "I eat your burger" scene are the same scene.
I have been waiting for a new video! I love the breakdown of scenes! Really allows your expertise on scene structure and writing to shine through. Really love your content and I hope to see more soon!
A little something g I noticed was when he asks the guy on the couch if they know why they’re here (about 2/3 of the way through your video) he opens his jacket to show his gun to him, whereas before when he first told the couch guy to relax he kept the gun hidden to put him at ease.
Marvin's part (during and after the car ride) was also great
Another power move is when Jules yells at Marvin, he has his full attention on Marvin. He doesn't see Brett and his friend as threats, so he could take his eyes off them.
I think the compliment during 13:26 was more than "good measure". To me, it sounded like Jules implied that Bret, being a smart kid, new better than to mess with his boss.
In the theater, most of us were still cracking up from the foot massage dialogue.
Masterpiece of drama ❣
Coolest thing ever!
Didnt he do an interview once, back after Django was released, where he discussed the tension in a scene. He takes the suspense of a scene and stretches it to the limits before giving it a release, but at a moment that has the audience indulged to a scene. Sometimes it will catch the audience off guard. Your breakdowns make the view of the scenes so much more worthwhile. Could you do one on Marcellus Wallace?
This video filled me with dread. It brought me back to all those times that my mom and dad sat me down at the dinner table and talked at me for hours. Two hours, usually. They told me to sit down whenever I wanted to leave the conversation. They told me to look into their eyes whenever I didn't want to look at them. Going to the bathroom was the only way I could catch a break. Those were the saddest pisses of my life, knowing I was going to skulk back to the dinner table, sit down for another hour, try to maintain eye contact and try not to act sad. Because my sadness was manipulative. They called it my sad puppy dog act. Breaking down and crying, as I often did, was in no way me being sad after hours of humiliation and amplified self-loathing. It just another step in the process of me trying to manipulate them into.... what did I want to manipulate them into doing? No one ever said. I was being incredibly manipulative though: when I cried, when I looked sad, when I didn't want to look at them, or to talk, or to sit at the table. It was all manipulation. And they reminded me that I was being manipulative every time they say me at that table. It was useless manipulation, clearly, because my depression never ended the discussion, or changed it, or shortened it by an hour or two, or prevented the next discussion. I wasn't entirely powerless though, because I always did have choices. Did I eat slowly, so I retained a plausible excuse to avoid eye contact? Or did I eat quickly, silently praying for a quick escape, even as they knew a quick escape was exactly what I wanted? That was the most important decision, usually. Another big one was whether to go back for seconds. Again, more food on my plate meant something in my immediate surroundings that I can interact with, but an empty plate -- while sad -- did at least match the way I felt inside, and it did subconsciously signal that the discussion should be over, given that the meal was over. I mean it never actually worked but I always had the choice to try. So, that was a pretty big choice. My question for you is this: is trying to end a conversation with an empty plate manipulative? It's probably going to suck whether you say yes or no. But hey, that's how those conversations felt. Except you get to answer one question and go back to living your life, while I had to sit at a table for hours, listening to people generous enough to talk at me for two hours about everything I did wrong, then go upstairs, cry and feel dead inside. And wonder when it would happen again, and how quickly I could regain some semblance of happiness.
Shit...
This being the first video I have seen from this channel, wow! Didn't disappoint!
Well discussed and informative!
THANK YOU!
Earned my subscribed!!!
Another brilliant breakdown and lesson. I admire your trained perspective and dedication to this, and I'm looking forward to making my purchase of your book!
Thanks for the time you put into sharing, and for sharing at all.
My man hits hard, both in comedy and fear.
you mentioned it before I could .. the constant eye contact established dominance. as did making them sit if not sitting, continue sitting, or say laying down (the ultimate lack of power position)
this was my favorite scene of his, because of how quietly menacing it started out before it just went batshit. samuel l jackson was just absolute perfection with his delivery 🥰
that is… until inglorious basterds came out. that opening scene is an absolute *masterpiece* and imo the best scene QT has ever written. i’d love to see you break that one down 💜 or even just colonel landa’s character in general.
I have always been told about this scene but never fully understood what gave it that spark until listening to you.
17:10 - it is mildly annoying that the gun is only fired around the chest/stomach of the guy, but then acts like he’s immediately dead.
The *really* impressive part is how many details you can miss and still get the overall message mostly right... As evidenced above.
I love these videos. I'm sad there aren't more views. Please continue to make them!
Love these dialogue dives!