"Aristotle said that a good story should have three sequential parts: a beginning, a middle, and an end" (LM 59).

The thing I like the most about both Citizen Kane and Pulp Fiction was maybe the most obvious similarity between the two movies: the reordering of the plot. I can see why the five-part dramatic structure works so well and so frequently, and I certainly wouldn't want all movies to have such a confusing order of events but once in a while it is an absolutely refreshing challenge and an effective way of creating ambiguity.

Having recently watched Pulp Fiction for the first time I can attest to the blissful confusion that ensues such unconventional storytelling. The scrambling forces me to think and make connections between events and motives, and in doing so I inadvertently pay closer attention. Naturally, such focus leads to a deeper-than-natural impression on my memory of a character, event, or story. When a person mentions the name "Charles Foster Kane", what comes to mind is a complex, enigmatic, and strikingly human character that I could discuss at great lengths; instead of giving me Charley's life all at once, which would have been (come to think of it) pretty uninteresting and ineffective, Orsen Welles wisely gives me the man in vivid and short pieces, showing me a man that makes shadow figures with his hands, a man who chooses his mistress over his family and political career, a man who charismatically rebels against authority, a man who coldly becomes a tyrant forcing his wife to near suicide: and then shows me a man himself trapped by his own possessions, impressing that they are all one and the same. Sort of like pieces in a jigsaw puzzle.