The colors look quite nice and the Cordura material appears top notch and very strong. The strap is especially strong and wide. I’ll probably get a pad, but its been totally adequate as is even with a full load. The bag is pretty stiff at first, so it will probably take a few weeks to break it a bit. There is a zipper pocket in the center portion where the neon yellow logo patch is, as well as a carrying handle on the top, towards the back.

As you can see, there are not a whole lot of organizational pockets or pen holders. However, I tend to needlessly put various tiny objects in a bunch of different pockets just because they are there and forget that I ever did so. The two long zipper pockets are fine for basic organization and pens with clips can easily slide into the front pocket on the left. The hook and loop strips work well and the bag clips have a nice springy feel to them, sort of ejecting the fastener when you press on the sides.

As for the interior pocket, you can see the nice yellow waterproof lining. You could probably throw some ice and a 12 pack in here and it would be good to go. There is one zipper pouched that is attached along the top. The bag does a good job of keeping that zipper facing up even when the bag deforms under heavy loads. There is plenty of room for several large books, a laptop, water bottles and a change of clothes in here, and the bag nicely deflates when more empty so that it doesn’t feel too bulky.

Overall, this is a nice, urban bag that is neither overly professional or casual. I would feel equally comfortable taking this into the office or around campus.

PROS: Very sturdy, well made materials. Pockets are well laid out and everything on the bag is seamlessly stitched and well designed. Plenty of room, nice looks and comfortable as well.

CONS: Slight lack of organizational pockets, front flap feels a little short when the bag deforms under heavy load (but not a major problem), kind of expensive

Just prior to the Jackrabbit Slim’s scene, Vincent Vega had been given the task of taking Marcellus Wallace’s wife out while he was out of town. When they arrive at the restaurant, the camera smoothly tilts up and the two are framed facing the camera in the classic 1950’s over-the-hood shot of a couple at a drive thru movie. This sets up the nature of the night from the very beginning as full of pop culture references and kitsch–a world that Mia seems to fit right into. As they walk up to the diner, it appears to glow from the inside through the use of high contrast lighting to give the sense that the two are entering a zone of wild entertainment. The inside of the diner is chock full of every imaginable 1950’s American icon, from Marilyn Monroe and the Rat Pack to 50’s movie posters and milkshakes. However, the use of low-key lighting at the entrance creates a high contrast, chiaroscuro feel making it hard to tell if Jackrabbit Slim’s is a wholesome family establishment or something sleazier. This mirrors Mia’s nature up until this point. The contrast between her white shirt and dark hair and eye makeup creates a film noir aesthetic, adding to Vincent and the audience’s uncertainty about her character.

Additionally, Jackrabbit Slim’s itself is exemplary of Tarantino’s postmodern style and aesthetic. Much like the plot of Pulp Fiction, which is disjointed and draws from many sources, the different waiters dressed as past celebrities and random memorabilia throughout creates a sense of disorientation of time and space. This is certainly true as Vincent Vega first walks through the restaurant, glancing from side to side and making a large circular loop trying to get to his table. This effect is achieved by dollying the camera behind Vincent and panning side to side fluidly as he walks through at the beginning of the scene, mimicking his woozy view.

By the time they sit down, the scene moves to a more neutral restaurant lighting but the paradoxical feel of sleazy-wholesomeness remains. There are multiple layers of depth within this scene, as activity continues out of focus behind the two as they talk. The entire restaurant remains alive in the background through the entire scene—surely no simple feat. Most of the scene consists of Tarantino style dialogue that develops the relationship between Mia and Vincent in the context of the restaurant. Early in the conversation, the two a shown in a shot/reverse shot manner using medium shots. At this point they hardly know each other and it is not until they begin to feel more comfortable together that the medium shots become medium close ups. By framing Mia and Vincent to take up more screen space, it creates a sense of closeness that the two are beginning to share. However, each time one of them says something that strikes a bad chord, the camera moves back out to medium shots. This constant back and forth from medium shots to medium close ups, such as when Vincent reveals that he believes that Marcellus threw Tony Rocky Horror out of a window because he massaged Mia’s feet, displays the uncertain nature of the two’s relationship.

This feeling is capitalized when Mia goes to the restroom to “powder her nose” with cocaine. The bathroom is a bland area with old washed out pink and green walls and several somewhat unsavory looking women applying makeup that reflect this shadier side of both Mia and the restaurant. In the mean time, Vincent observes men cat calling the Marilyn Monroe waitress as her skirt is blown up in classic style, an inept waiter and other darker sides of American culture in the 20th century (pinup girls, smoking and drinking). The detailed characters, costumes and bustling activity in Jackrabbit Slim’s all correspond to the yearning for excess (cocaine, eating, drinking, dancing) within Mia that nearly gets her killed later in the film and leave Vincent wondering.

Nonetheless, by the end of the scene, Vincent and Mia have clearly become friends as Mia demands they enter a dancing contest, which they do. On the stage, an Ed Sullivan impersonator stands with the Marilyn Monroe waitress to introduce the contest. They are aglow with toplighting that gives them a surreal straight-out-of-TV-history look that goes along with all of Jackrabbit Slim’s aesthetic. As Mia and Vincent dance the camera begins at a distant long shot of the entire stage, but as the dancing intensifies and the two become ever more involved in the moment and each other, the shot soon moves in to a medium and eventually medium close up with a handheld camera. The camera smoothly follows them around the stage, while the background is alive and dancing with them as the scene and music fades to black at the whirling culmination of their night out.

Certainly, the Jackrabbit Slim’s scene is crucial to understanding both Vincent Vega and Mia Wallace. While Vincent is placed into a treacherous situation in taking out a married woman, Mia wants to have fun and is shown to have many sides. The elements of mise-en-scene are selected to show the dual nature of Mia, the uneasiness spiked with intrigue of Vincent and the culture junkie view of America that permeates each Tarantino movie.

It may be useful to think of Marxism as theory and Leninism as an example of the theory put into action in one country. A fundamental idea of Marxism as laid out in The Communist Manifesto is the concept of the working class revolution to overthrow the upper class bourgeoisie. While there are several important tenets of Marxism that were implemented to varying degrees by the USSR, such as the abolition of private property, centralization of the economy and central control of the means of production, it is important to note that the very conception of Lenin’s revolution was a break from what Marx prescribed. As Kellner notes, the Bolsheviks performed their revolution in the name of Marxism, but instead of having a people’s democracy and liberation of the working class by only the working class themselves, the revolution was carried out by a party of professional revolutionaries and privileged violent insurrection (Kellner 3). This was a major departure, as well as was the idea of attempting communism in a single country. The Communist Manifesto explained that the “communists do not form a separate party opposed to other working-class parties” and that they “do not set up any sectarian principles of their own by which to shape and mold the proletarian movement” (Engels). Clearly, the institution of a vanguard Communist party to command revolution and limit dissenting opinion is in sharp contrast with the principle of the proletariat acting as an international whole abiding by its own shared interest.

While the vanguard party of Lenin sought to force a revolution from the top down rather than allow for a natural bottom up revolution at the climax of capitalism, Lenin further conflicts with Marxism with his idea that imperialism is the final stage preceding socialism and eventual communism. This is nowhere to be found in the writings of Marx or Engels and in the end, the communist party as it came to exist in the Soviet Union under Lenin did not represent the interests of the proletariat as a whole, but rather began to use coercion to command control and advance its own sectarian ideas while disallowing any type of opposition. The implementation of “War Communism” in 1918 required the use of force and coercion to spur radical transformation and to aid in the effort to win the concurrent civil war. As such, a streak of rebellion and revolt across the country eventually brought this to an end in 1921 and gave way to the New Economic Policy. This can be seen as a backtracking by Lenin towards capitalism just to keep the state economy afloat, which was required due to the aberrant and false implementation of Marxism. In the end, while Lenin attempted to instill the basic ideas of Marxism in Russia, the de facto dictatorship under the guise of communism known as the USSR was left in its place.

The creation of the Bolshevik Party as a base, the establishment of the KGB and the early use of coercion instilled by Lenin gave way to the reign of Joseph Stalin after his death in 1924. There is in fact a fair amount of similarity between the ideas of Lenin and Stalinism, but it is not a necessary or inevitable progression. Stalin in many cases took what Lenin had done too an extreme, for example during the Great Purges. Lenin had performed a party purge of 200,000 members, but for the most part this was not arbitrary, nor was other arbitrary violence or coercion widely employed. Stalin’s Great Purge is associated with as many as 2 million death under the euphemism of “political repression” to consolidate authority and eradicate dissenting opinion. Again, this is a major break from Marxism, which emphasizes the non-separation of political parties under the umbrella of the proletarian movement. In fact, Stalin’s regime goes against the goal of classless society and establishes bureaucratic communism with select members at the top consolidating power (Kellner 5). This, in combination with the radical, forced move toward collective farming during 1928-1933 in turn alienated workers. The theme of alienation is a major aspect of traditional Marxism and the establishment of the kolkhoz serves only to further this problem.

There is also a clear problem here regarding the idea of class and the “Socialist state.” Marxism argues that the State as it is commonly known is the product of class disparity and that doing away with such disparity would lead to the end of the State. The totalitarian State created and solidified by Stalin is thus a fundamentally incorrect interpretation of Marxism. Finally, the massive industrialization efforts, especially during the first of the Five-Year Plans that began in 1928, went much further than the state control of the NEP under Lenin. While the economy did expand during these years, many peasants suffered and prisoners were forced into the gulags as workers.

The experience of the Soviet Union certainly does not invalidate Marxism, but it does serve as a shining example of the ability for it to fail when incorrectly implemented. Other communist countries have gone on to survive and thrive at some level today, such as China and Cuba, though these c1ountries have made their own tweaks of the original Marxist ideas. The major flaw with the implementations of Marxist ideas in the 20th century and today is the lack of natural, international worker’s revolution. This was key to Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto. In the Soviet Union, a perhaps valiant attempt was made at this new form of society, but its differences with Marx led to its eventual downfall. This inevitable failure of Communism as we have known it can be seen today as China rapidly conforms to many of the principles of capitalism and Cuba (as a dictatorship) most likely turns away from its Communist aspects after the recent resignation of Fidel Castro. Additionally, as other Latin American countries such as Venezuela have come to hold a socialist interest, they too suffer from many of the same flaws (dictatorship and lack of real political discourse).

Perhaps the world-wide communism Marx envisioned cannot be implemented in the world as it currently exists without a total reconfiguration of the idea of what the state is or through allowing the grotesque class disparities created by market capitalism to become too great. Lenin and Stalin’s attempts at Marxist theory in the end failed due to the vanguardism which led to an authoritarian state from 1917 to 1924 and the arbitrary violence and totalitarianism of Stalin’s USSR.

Engels, Karl Marx and Friedrich. The Communist Manifesto. 1 Oct. 2008

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html

Kellner, Douglas, “The Obsolescence of Marxism?” in Bernd Magnus and Stephen
Cullenberg, eds., Whither Marxism? Global Crises in International Perspective (New York: Routledge, 1995), pp. 3-30.
Malia, Martin E. The Soviet Tragedy : A History of Socialism in Russia 1917-1991. New
York: Free P, 1995.