This is attractive as a noir movie which's too colorful this time. It looked like a lover of the genre wanted to make another noir, but while mocking at the film noir, the pulp's writers, and the American cinema. And the goal wasn't about laughing only.
Yes, the general pulp is grounded on very weak plot, crowded with too many coincidences, and filled up with the most unusual types of people. It's mostly a crazy variety to enjoy, however not all brainless. The thing to love is that this sweet (Pulp) confesses all of that, and more.
Look at the movie's way of making fun of the genre's writers. Writer / director (Mike Hodges) put one of them as the lead of their very dark journey, to make him say something in narration and do the other on screen; (Mickey King), played by (Michael Caine), tells us how he kicks the American star's secretary out of his bed while the image tells us the opposite, or how he faints after seeing the blood on his leg yet the narration tells us nothing about that.. etc.
(Hodges) mocks also at Hollywood; which the publisher describes as a fallen empire, and it's natural since we're in 1972. Let alone how (Humphrey Bogart), played by his look-alike (Robert Sacchi), as the icon of the classic noir movies, and the 1940's cinematic image of the pulp novels heroes, becomes one of the corrupted evil guys, who he used to fight in the old days, and after being (Sam Spade) and (Philip Marlowe) once, he's now the man to impede the lead, and prevent the truth.
And after satirizing the writer, and Hollywood, there is even a satire of the human civilization itself. You can catch on it when (Mickey) visits the old temple of the lustful images, then discovers later that the secret behind all the cruel murders is a crime of collective rape of a little girl. So how hundreds of years did nothing but turning the human's point of view about sex from sanctification into degeneration!
Though, aside from any sarcasm, (Hodges) confirms here that the pulp literature, or the trivial kind of novels which was made just to entertain, could contain some profound viewpoints or important facts. It could be inspired by a real experience, and be the substitute style to say what became so difficult to declare, or too bitter to face the world by, since its writer / discoverer had been hindered to scream it openly and honestly. Look also at the bus's scene with the passengers' interior narrations, like we all live our own film noir, with endless repressed narrations, which expresses confined pulps in every one of us.
The movie made its lead as the less irregular, most righteous character around, who wanted to uncover the truth, and expose everyone. However, he ends up on a wheeled chair; which represents his incapacity of making the right thing, writing imaginary victory on his powerful enemy, the rapist prince, and how he "sheds his blue blood..", while the actual criminals were merrily free, having the best times in hunting the wild boars. So what a defeated suppressed knight the writer could be sometimes, even if his only salvation, or his truthful deductions, became ultimately another cheap pulp!
I liked that collection of strange characters: a futile detective, a communist mayor with one arm, a book publisher who has a weak bladder, and cold troubled killer who fakes his death. All of them are the enjoyable reason why to read such a novel, like (Mickey) told the killer at the bus. Although the movie accumulates them frivolously, the same way a sincere pulp would do, for the sake of absurdity, but in this movie, absurd isn't given for granted..
Remember the moment when the panels made unintentionally the (F) word. It's when absurd says something. Hence, notice how the American movie star played a gangster many times till he became one; as falsity turns into reality. Then how the lead writes his victory while he's vanquished; as reality turns into falsity. So this pulp, or this life if you will, is not absurd for absurdity, since there are ironies to contemplate, and meanings to understand.
The deepest and greatest element that this movie had was its music. Among all of that fast pace, and bright cinematography, (George Martin)'s creation was the needed sad sense to enhance the movie's seriousness; as effective elegy for the truth sequestered by mighty criminals, some militant and gallant side in the lead, even if he seemed that indifferent materialistic, and the noble dream of the writer which sorrowfully didn't fulfill except in his novel.
On the other hand, I didn't like (Mickey Rooney)'s scene as a waiter; by the way it was directed, and acted, it ended up as horrible, and too far-off to be funny. Also how this movie takes away its antagonist, the rapist prince, out of the picture for no reason; that - certainly - weakened the conflict, and made the movie less affective.
I have always seen the pulp as a clear example of life's mixed up events and bizarre characters, that look sometimes like a perfect unreasonable comedy. So I didn't wonder when a character mentioned Lewis Carroll's (Alice in Wonderland - 1865) which could be an old version of those funny nightmares, and a testimony of its author about his own society's ugly and extreme contradictions. Now this (Pulp) mocks at all of those wonderlands, and their peoples, not for merely having a nice time, but also to assure that you may find in it a voice of beaten artist, or strangulated facts.
Pulp (1972) is a noir spoof, with a message. It's disappointing for many viewers due to its poor comedy, and maybe the necessity of beforehand familiarity with the genre. So it doesn't have much to laugh at, but it does have much to think about. It's where absurd doesn't mean illogical, the hero doesn't triumph at the end, and art doesn't make up for reality; only showcases its oddities, and assures its frustrations.
6 out of 11 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
