It is an axiom that in a well made feature film, the director will agonize over what scenes to leave in and which to cut. In essence, any scene which does not advance the story will be cut. Many movies include cut scenes in the "Director's Cut" or at least as extended scenes included in the DVD. Quentin Tarantino, no matter whether you like him or hate him, is widely hailed as one of the most talented director's in today's generation. I cannot believe he makes many 'mistakes' in editing. His seminal film, Pulp Fiction, however, has a scene in the standard version (non director's- or extended-cut version) which puzzles me. I don't understand how it advances either the story as a whole, or Vencent Vegas' part in it.
Shortly after we meet Lance and Jody (Vincent's drug dealer and his wife, played by Eric Stoltz and Rosanna Arquette), after enjoying a hit shared with them, we see Vincent driving to Marcellus Wallace's house, to pick up his wife for her night out. The scene is just Vincent in his caddy (?) driving along. The POV switches to Vincent's, and we see the surreality of the heroin's affect on the street lights, but that's it.
We already learned that Vincent is a heroin user, probably addict, and the average non-drug using viewer wouldn't know the difference between the effect caused by cocaine, which is what Wallace's wife mistakes the baggy of heroin for when she O.D.'s later, so it can't be to show us that it was indeed heroin. Was it to show us that he is a high-functioning addict, still able to drive? I just don't understand that scene, and can't believe Tarantino would have left in a two minute scene for no good reason.