So what WAS in that case then?

[VegaLA]

Movie mysteries. Which movie holds the best mystery/unexplained event for you? Do you enjoy the fact that a movie can still keep people guessing years after that first screening? Or do you want every detail explained so no stone is unturned.

I can see where revealing the truth can destroy a films reputation. So what was that thing sitting in the chair? Ah right, just some armour for some being that the bloke out of neighbours was on the hunt for, you know, the guy that keeps forgetting things. Yeah, thanks for that Ridley.

So what was that thing in the case then? Since 1994 that question has still not been answered, but the mention of stolen souls and voodoo has cropped up a fair few times, what with that plaster on the back of Ving Rhames head.

Are there any long running movie mysteries you would like to remain a mystery, or should they be settled once and for all? Tell me.

[Famous Mortimer]

Unless some important aspect of the film hinges on the mystery, I say leave them unexplained.

I realise I'm struggling to think of any - what the bloody hell was going on in "The Blair Witch Project", maybe.

[eluc55]

I doubt Tarantino even thought twice about what was in the case. After all, it's intended as a joke, not a mystery. So the answer is, quite literally, anything. Trying to work it out isn't just going to spoil the mystery, it's totally missing the point. It's a joke suggesting that something unbelieveable is contained in a case held by a couple of goons; it's meant to be ambiguous, because it wouldn't work as a joke otherwise.

[BlodwynPig]

Unless some important aspect of the film hinges on the mystery, I say leave them unexplained.

I realise I'm struggling to think of any - what the bloody hell was going on in "The Blair Witch Project", maybe.

Err...witch stuff. There is no mystery in that film.

Of course, Mulholland Drive is a classic mystery film, with Lynch even supplying 10 "clues" for audiences to try and work out what was going on.

[Viero_Berlotti]

I never knew there was this big mystery about what was in the case in Pulp Fiction until recently. I always presumed it was just bars of gold bullion or jewellery because of the light reflection when they opened the case.

[Dusty Substance]

I can see where revealing the truth can destroy a films reputation. So what was that thing sitting in the chair? Ah right, just some armour for some being that the bloke out of neighbours was on the hunt for, you know, the guy that keeps forgetting things. Yeah, thanks for that Ridley.

See also George Lucas mutilating the magic and mystique of The Force by explaining it away with some sort of measurable blood thing.

Regarding the Pulp Fiction case, I've always assumed it was just meant to be a MacGuffin joke by Tarantino, but I have also heard that theory of it being Marcellus Wallace's soul.

Another unanswered Tarantino question that got a lot of people talking back when it first came out was "Who shot Nice Guy Eddie?" (Chris Penn's character) in Reservoir Dogs. The safe momey was always on Mr. Pink, but I don't believe this was ever confirmed. Perhaps, like the case, it was always intended to provoke debate and intrigue by the writer/director.

Although I've not seen Taken, I recall Kermode and Mayo having a boring debate (can they do any other type of debate) about who was driving the speedboat during a presumably climactic river chase.

[Marty McFly]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/MacGuffin/Film

It's an homage to the 1955 movie Kiss Me Deadly, whose suitcase originally housed a superweapon — a nuclear device. A popular fan speculation is that it houses Marcellus' soul. Tarantino has made it very clear that he neither knows nor cares what was in the case.

[Famous Mortimer]

Another unanswered Tarantino question that got a lot of people talking back when it first came out was "Who shot Nice Guy Eddie?" (Chris Penn's character) in Reservoir Dogs. The safe momey was always on Mr. Pink, but I don't believe this was ever confirmed. Perhaps, like the case, it was always intended to provoke debate and intrigue by the writer/director.

I seem to recall reading that he noticed in the edit that Nice Guy Eddie was shot by no-one, but decided to keep it in anyway for debate and intrigue.

[checkoutgirl]

Of course, Mulholland Drive is a classic mystery film, with Lynch even supplying 10 "clues" for audiences to try and work out what was going on.

I'd go further and say David Lynch's career is a mystery career.

[checkoutgirl]

Another unanswered Tarantino question that got a lot of people talking back when it first came out was "Who shot Nice Guy Eddie?" (Chris Penn's character) in Reservoir Dogs. The safe momey was always on Mr. Pink, but I don't believe this was ever confirmed. Perhaps, like the case, it was always intended to provoke debate and intrigue by the writer/director.

Plus Mr Pink's faith is left ambiguous, if you like you can tell yourself that he ran off to Magaluff with the booty. Deliberate by Tarantulla again.

[Glebe]

Apparently during Tarantino's video shop job days he could never remember the title of Au Revoir Les Enfants and nicknamed it 'the Reservoir Dogs movie'. He apparently likes leaving things open and loves hearing peoples interpretation of things, considering everyone's opinion valid, kind of like a film or song or whatever having personal meaning to you. The most obvious interpretation of Reservoir dogs to me is that the gang are like dogs scrambling frantically to swim to safety, sort of thing. The contents of the PF suitcase have been suggested as being everything from the aforementined soul of Marsellus to just a plain old pair of lamps.

[AsparagusTrevor]

Re: who shot Nice Guy Eddie, Mr White shoots twice, quite quickly. I remember watching that scene frame-by-frame on VHS a few times before noticing Mr White turning slightly and two muzzle flashes from his gun.

[Tiny Poster]

From an Empire interview with Chris Penn in September 1996:

He's been freeze-framed. He's been slow-moed. He has caused ballistic experts to forget the last time they enjoyed a peaceful night's kip. In fact, not since JFK went down in a hail of conspiratorial crossfire has one man caused so much confusion as to the whys are wherefores of just exactly who filled whom with lead. Until now, that is. For, as we speak, one of the great mysteries of the universe is being solved. "I'll set the record straight", chortles Chris Penn. "Nobody shot nice guy Eddie. It was a mistake. What was supposed to happen - and I don't know if Quentin's gonna like me giving this away, but it's too late now, he never told me not to - was Harvey Keitel was supposed to shoot Lawrence Tierney, then shoot me, then get squibbed. But what happened was the squib (a small explosive charge resembling a bullet hit) on Harvey went right off after he shot Lawrence, so he went down, but my squib went off anyway, so I went down. So, basically nobody shot Nice Guy Eddie. Quentin said 'You know what? It'll be the biggest controversy of the film. We're leaving it.' He was definitely right ..." And thus a chapter in film history is brought to a close.

[SteveDave]

I remember Noel Gallagher thinking it was whatever boxing belt Bruce Willis was fighting for. That was when he was on a lot of druks though.

[Serge]

I always assumed it was Mr White, trying to shoot Eddie before he gets shot himself, and was glad when Penn confirmed it. The idea that Mr Pink would shoot him makes absolutely no sense at all - Pink has already said earlier in the film that he doesn't want to shoot anyone unless they're in his way, and Eddie most definitely isn't.

Mr Pink is captured when he leaves the warehouse, isn't he? You can hear a lot of shouting going on in the background during the final scene with White and Orange, and the police then burst into the warehouse so quickly that they were obviously outside when the stand-off was taking place. I've never tried to analyse the shouting closely - and I suspect you wouldn't make much out - but it definitely sounds like cops shouting at Pink (presumably to get him to put his gun down) and possibly Pink shouting back.

[Wet Blanket]

It's been a while but I'm sure if you listen to the shouts outside you can hear Mr Pink shouting 'I'm a cop!' - presumably in an attempt to convince them he's Tim Roth.

I like the theory that his ruse was successful and it's him lying low as a Buddy Holly-impersonating waiter in Jack Rabbit Slims.

[Noodle Lizard]

It's been a while but I'm sure if you listen to the shouts outside you can hear Mr Pink shouting 'I'm a cop!' - presumably in an attempt to convince them he's Tim Roth.

I like the theory that his ruse was successful and it's him lying low as a Buddy Holly-impersonating waiter in Jack Rabbit Slims.

Much like Walter White goes into the witness protection program and becomes Hal from 'Malcolm In The Middle'?

[chocky909]

I'm still more concerned as to why Mr White only pretended to light his cigarette.

[MojoJojo]

It's been a while but I'm sure if you listen to the shouts outside you can hear Mr Pink shouting 'I'm a cop!' - presumably in an attempt to convince them he's Tim Roth.

I like the theory that his ruse was successful and it's him lying low as a Buddy Holly-impersonating waiter in Jack Rabbit Slims.

This bloke thinks not: http://www.pulpfiction.com/news-what-happened-to-mr-pink.html

[Thomas]

I've read that the case in Pulp Fiction was originally supposed to contain diamonds (supposedly the ones stolen in Reservoir Dogs), but that was boring so it remained a mystery. As one tagger tells us, Tarantino has explained that the case actually contained

Spoiler alert

a yellow lighbulb.

[close]

The soul theory fits nicely with the fact that Marcellus Wallace has got a plaster on the back of his neck, but apparently that was just an unrelated coincidence.

I myself think that the case contained a hundred beautiful glow-worms, all sellotaped down.

[Noodle Lizard]

Err...witch stuff. There is no mystery in that film.

Of course, Mulholland Drive is a classic mystery film, with Lynch even supplying 10 "clues" for audiences to try and work out what was going on.

Those 10 clues have been solved and the answers make sense.

'Inland Empire' on the other hand ...

[Lord Mandrake]

The soul thing does tally with other themes from the film, particularly Sam Jackson's religious  speeches and righteous enlightenment. Maybe Tarantino couldn't be arsed connecting it all up and it works fine.. Can anyone confirm if Tarantino played the Gimp?   

[grassbath]

Those 10 clues have been solved and the answers make sense.

'Inland Empire' on the other hand ...

Can anyone actually explain Inland Empire? Have there been any theories posited which make at least a semblance of plot and logic out of all the aspects of the film? My guess on first viewing was that it's about the ego-destruction aspect of acting and fame (much as Mulholland Drive was), but that still doesn't come anywhere near explaining the Rabbits or the Polish stuff or even the majority of the film to be honest. Maybe it really is a Finnegans Wake scenario - just enjoy getting lost in it and admire the execution.

[Thomas]

My first Inland Empire viewing didn't particularly lend itself to working out the story. I stuck the DVD on, settled down, and discovered that the film was more than three hours long. I had to stop it halfway through and return the next day.[nb]David Lynch's opposition to DVD chapters made this quest more difficult than it should have been.[/nb]

By this point I was just watching images and hearing sounds, really.

[Noodle Lizard]

Can anyone actually explain Inland Empire? Have there been any theories posited which make at least a semblance of plot and logic out of all the aspects of the film? My guess on first viewing was that it's about the ego-destruction aspect of acting and fame (much as Mulholland Drive was), but that still doesn't come anywhere near explaining the Rabbits or the Polish stuff or even the majority of the film to be honest. Maybe it really is a Finnegans Wake scenario - just enjoy getting lost in it and admire the execution.

That's about as far as anyone's got whilst still making some sense.

I'm tempted to believe it's just a bunch of images and scenes (especially considering the way it was made, with Lynch basically just writing a scene every now and then and then filming it with his fancy new camera), but Lynch says there's a cohesive story in there which nobody has gotten.

Full of shit, I reckon.  Besides, whilst a few bits are alright, most of the imagery and ideas aren't impressive enough to warrant an entire film, let alone a three hour one.  Doesn't help that I hate that camera, though.

[grassbath]

Here's an interesting analysis which claims it's all about achieving enlightenment and the Transcendental Meditation malarkey: http://xixax.com/halfborn/

I hated IE on my first viewing, my opinion improved with the second. I agree with that reviewer that said it "disappears down so many rabbit holes that eventually it just disappears altogether"; there are just far too many disparate elements for me to feel like it actually works as a cohesive "puzzle film" in the way that Mulholland Drive does.

[Thomas]

Doesn't help that I hate that camera, though.

I didn't like that, either. It felt very cheap. Once the characters and the action moved onto the film set, though, it gave the film a sort of 'behind the scenes' feel.

Perhaps that was intended. Maybe it was supposed to seem like a 'behind the scenes' feature - behind the scenes of the soul, that is.

[mjwilson]

Err...witch stuff. There is no mystery in that film.

Of course, Mulholland Drive is a classic mystery film, with Lynch even supplying 10 "clues" for audiences to try and work out what was going on.

I tend to assume that Lynch had nothing to do with writing those clues. It's the most un-Lynch-like thing I can imagine.

[Noodle Lizard]

I didn't like that, either. It felt very cheap. Once the characters and the action moved onto the film set, though, it gave the film a sort of 'behind the scenes' feel.

Perhaps that was intended. Maybe it was supposed to seem like a 'behind the scenes' feature - behind the scenes of the soul, that is.

I involuntarily made a loud derisive farting sound when I read that last sentence.  Eurgh.

I would agree, but again, I heard that David Lynch basically got the camera (which, at the time, was pretty hot stuff for its size), realised he could make his own films on a whim and just fucking went for it.  It doesn't feel like a lot of thought had been put into it as a whole piece, it was more like a sketchshow.

And now he's fucking whining that he won't make any more films because nobody cares enough about them.  Personally I think he's out of shit.

[neveragain]

I'm still more concerned as to why Mr White only pretended to light his cigarette.

Which episode is this? Need some context to enjoy the mystery as I can't recall a thing about it.