----------------------------Original message---------------------------- > I for one *did* feel some guilt reveling/laughing at the violence (especially > Marvin's surreptitious speed-bump splash) - and was initially affected > by the various slurs - though by then end of the movie both seemed normal. > What's *really* scary is that after the film I smoked and drank - and normally > I smoke only under duress and drink on rare occasions. . .and furthermore > my speech was peppered with various curse words - though not racial epithets. By now, we've all had time to contemplate the racist/homophobic/violent leanings of Mr. Tarantino, which are all so aptly demonstrated in *Pulp Fiction.* Although I had problems with all three of these aspects of the film, I'll limit my screen-l response to the question of racism-inspired guilt. One thing that lingers in my mind has to do with the scene in which the car with the body is brought to the suburban house by Samuel L. Jackson's and John Travolta's characters. Tarantino, playing the owner of the home -- and a drug dealer if I recall, insists on pushing the racism issue by using the 'N' word repeatedly (I'm censoring myself here because *I* don't believe in fostering racism in any manner). However, I think the scene would have been *more* funny, and less likely to leave a bad taste in the viewer's mouth, if that word had simply been replaced with the word, "body" ("You can't bring a dead body here! Do you see a sign out front saying 'Dead Bodies'?!"). The humor here should be strictly situational. But that wasn't good enough for the Boy Wonder, who not only had the gall to have one of his characters throw the word around repeatedly, but actually took it a step further by playing that character himself, thereby foregrounding his racism in a way that very few filmmakers would have chosen to do. Tarantino is flaunting his racist tendencies and daring us to question them. His use of that word (in that scene, at least) was absolutely gratuitous and I find it appalling and sad that the film industry has seemingly condoned this behavior by lauding the film and its director. I don't care how wonderful other aspects of the film may be -- this type of reckless filmmaking should not be encouranged. Anyone who can laugh through that scene *without* feeling guilty should question his or her own views on what constitutes humor. Another (shorter) comment I have on *Pulp Fiction* is in regards to the print ads for the film, in which the four main characters are shown -- Travolta, Jackson, Uma Thurman and Bruce Willis. All four had very distinct hair styles in the film, and they are shown in the ad with those hair styles intact, EXCEPT for Mr. Jackson, whose long, shiny curls have been replaced by a closely-cropped style. Why? Does the marketing department at Miramax want their African-Americans to look less threatening for their predominantly white target audience? This one really baffles me, and I'd like to invite anyone who's got a theory to please post it. Christopher White