Quentin Tarantino’s films are known for their intricate and intense Mexican standoffs, where participants point guns or knives at each other – and sometimes, cans of dogfood. These often feature high stakes, multiple participants, and hidden motives.
In economics, ‘Game Theory’ is the study of decision-making where individuals or groups (known as ‘players’) make choices that affect each other’s outcomes. It analyses how participants anticipate others’ actions and adjust their decisions to maximise their payoffs.
The practical uses of Game Theory in economics include: Market competition, where firms predict pricing and decide their production strategies; Auctions, by designing bidding strategies; Negotiations, to guide trade deals or wage discussions; Public policy, by allocating resources or designing incentives (e.g., carbon credits); and Behavioural economics, to understand how people make decisions under risk or uncertainty.
Game Theory has been made famous by some prominent economists:
- Richard Thaler, who advised on the film ‘The Big Short’, and plays a cameo part in it, as himself. He won the Nobel prize in 2017;
- John Nash, who is also a Nobel Prize winner. He was played by Russell Crowe in ‘A Beautiful Mind’. Nash developed the principle of compromise which became known as the ‘Nash Equilibrium’; and
- Yanis Varoufakis, who specialised in Game Theory in his academic work, and then applied it in his short-lived political career helping Greece out of its financial crisis in 2015.
Game Theory themes in Tarantino’s standoffs
Common features that are economic in nature, appear in the Mexican standoff scenes in Tarantino’s films:
- ‘Asymmetric information’: Participants often lack knowledge; and more specifically, they don’t have complete knowledge of others’ motives, leading to sub-optimal decisions. This is a common constraint in economics.
- ‘Trust and cooperation’: Most standoffs show a failure to establish trust, resulting in mutual losses.
- ‘Dominant strategies’: Pre-emptive violence often dominates, creating the so-called ‘prisoner’s dilemma’ scenario. If two ‘prisoners’ both confess, they get medium sentences (5 years); if one betrays the other he walks free (0 years) and the other prisoner get a heavier sentence (20 years); if they both remain silent, they get a moderate sentence (1 year).
- ‘Outcomes’: The standoffs generally end in a ‘Nash equilibrium’, where no participant can unilaterally improve their outcome without making things worse for everyone.
Scenarios
Here is a breakdown of some of Tarantino’s most notorious Mexican standoff scenes, through the lens of Game Theory.
1. Reservoir Dogs (1992): The final warehouse scene
Participants: Joe, Eddie (Joe’s son), Mr. White, and Mr. Orange.
Setup:
- Joe accuses Mr. Orange of being a cop.
- Mr. White defends Mr. Orange and threatens Joe.
- Eddie sides with his father.
Trade-offs:
- Joe: Wants to eliminate the cop to protect himself and his organisation.
- Mr. White: Believes in loyalty and protecting Mr. Orange, despite growing evidence.
- Eddie: Unstinting loyalty to his father, and strong suspicion that Mr. Orange is a cop.
- Mr. Orange: Critically wounded, trying to survive but unable to defend himself directly.
Payoffs:
Each participant risks their life based on their choices (loyalty, trust, or survival).
Dominant strategies:
- Joe: Kill Mr. Orange to remove the threat.
- Mr. White: Protect Mr. Orange, believing his loyalty will pay off.
- Eddie: Support Joe, no matter what.
Outcome:
Everyone shoots. Joe, Eddie, and Mr. White die. Mr. Orange survives temporarily but is ultimately killed (by Mr White, or by the police, I’m not sure which), after confessing to Mr. White.
The lack of trust and mutual suspicions escalate the situation into mutual destruction — a ‘classic prisoner’s dilemma’ where cooperation, and a confession (verifying Mr. Orange’s status), could have avoided the bloodbath.
2. Pulp Fiction (1994): The diner standoff
Participants: Pumpkin (Tim Roth), Honey Bunny (Amanda Plummer), Jules (Samuel L. Jackson), Vincent (John Travolta).
Setup:
- Pumpkin and Honey Bunny are robbing a diner.
- Jules calmly takes control of the situation after Pumpkin tries to rob him.
Trade-offs:
- Pumpkin and Honey Bunny: Want to escape with money while avoiding harm.
- Jules: Wants to de-escalate and avoid violence, guided by his Damascene conversion to his newfound philosophy.
- Vincent: Ready to escalate violence if needed but trusts Jules to handle the situation.
Payoffs:
- Pumpkin and Honey Bunny: Maximum payoff is escaping with money. Minimum payoff is getting killed.
- Jules: Maximum payoff is peace and survival. Minimum payoff is escalating violence.
Dominant strategies:
- Jules shifts the equilibrium by taking a non-violent approach, offering a ‘Pareto improvement’ – colloquially known as at the 80:20 rule. He proposes they take his wallet and leave.
- Pumpkin and Honey Bunny’s best response is to accept the deal, which avoids mutual destruction.
Outcome:
Jules’s strategy of de-escalation works, and everyone walks away alive. This showcases the power of breaking away from traditional retaliatory strategies in favour of negotiation.
3. Inglourious Basterds (2009): Basement tavern standoff
Participants: Lieutenant Archie Hicox, Stiglitz, Wilhelm (German soldier), Bridget von Hammersmark, and other German soldiers.
Setup:
The Basterds are undercover in a tavern. Hicox inadvertently gives away their cover due to a hand gesture.
Trade-offs:
- Hicox and Basterds: Want to maintain their cover to proceed with their mission.
- German soldiers: Their goal is to identify and eliminate spies.
- Von Hammersmark: Wants to avoid suspicion and ensure the mission’s success.
Payoffs:
- The Germans’ best payoff is identifying the spies and surviving.
- The Basterds’ best payoff is completing their mission without casualties.
Dominant strategies:
- The Basterds and Germans are in a ‘tit-for-tat’ standoff where each move escalates tensions.
- Cooperation is unstable due to asymmetric information and mistrust (disengagement).
Outcome:
Everyone dies except Wilhelm and von Hammersmark. This illustrates a ‘zero-sum game’ where both sides’ insistence on eliminating threats leads to mutual destruction.
Tarantino’s standoffs consistently emphasise how human emotions, mistrust, and self-interest can often disrupt cooperative solutions, and can lead to catastrophic outcomes. They show how behavioural economics – bias, habits, information gaps, or computational errors – leads individuals to make choices that are not rational, and often do not maximise welfare or utility.
