Life of Pi (Lee, 2012)

[affy18]

Hm. Interesting reaction from you, Affy. I think this could have had depth, but the bookends, by spelling it, literalize everything so much that what should have been a meditation becomes a message in a greeting card or in a fortune cookie.

LOL.

I'm inclined to agree with you. I guess I'm giving too much of a free pass to the film for simply putting these themes on the table and in a way that, while not profound (this is no Ordet, Winter Light or anything of the sort) is solid, moving, inclusive and invites discourse; even if the ultimate message is pro-faith, which I really don't have a problem with. But also, there's the filmmaking. While the bookends are very flawed, most of this movie's chunk was really beautiful and managed to take a fantastical story and boil things to human essentials in a way that was very seamless and superbly told. I think it's a case in which the sheer...cinematic grandeur of it outweighs the flaws of script and narrative.

[McTeague]

I guess I didn't find it that seamless or that superbly told. I think the main "chunk" of the movie was somewhat reiterative (how many times do we need to see Pi fighting with Parker to gain some sort of knowledge about himself or about survival? Do we really need two storms + a fish storm?). And I also understand Aaron Lego's concerns: the sheer grandeur you admire to me is so beautiful that in the end who wouldn't have wanted to live Pi's adventure? I'd trade some days without food for watching a luminescent whale jumping over me or an emmerald-colored suricata island! So, the "suffering" angle of religion didn't come through very clearly to me.

[affy18]

I guess I didn't find it that seamless or that superbly told. I think the main "chunk" of the movie was somewhat reiterative (how many times do we need to see Pi fighting with Parker to gain some sort of knowledge about himself or about survival? Do we really need two storms + a fish storm?). And I also understand Aaron Lego's concerns: the sheer grandeur you admire to me is so beautiful that in the end who wouldn't have wanted to live Pi's adventure? I'd trade some days without food for watching a luminescent whale jumping over me or an emmerald-colored suricata island! So, the "suffering" angle of religion didn't come through very clearly to me.

I actually think the reiterative nature of Pi's plight gave it a realistic dimension and made it even more compelling for me.

Faith is not a clean-cut thing; it can be deeply frustrating and it is by its very nature, repetitive: faith and doubt, hope and despair, intertwined endlessly in the life of many believers. I think that aspect made the film ring very true.

As for the film being too beautiful for it to account for the suffering from faith; his family did DIE in the wreck and the fact the movie implies Pi's "challenge to God" was the cause makes his pain even greater due to guilt and regret.

[McTeague]

As for the film being too beautiful for it to account for the suffering from faith; his family did DIE in the wreck and the fact the movie implies Pi's "challenge to God" was the cause makes his pain even greater due to guilt and regret.

Yes, that is in the film, but it's there in such a glossy, beautiful manner that it didn't hit me. It somewhat hit me in retrospect when you learn the real story behind the fable, but since it's expresed that way, as a final, Shyalamnesque twist, it didn't hit me DURING Pi's ordeal, and it felt too little, too late and, worst of all, too literal.

As for the repetition, I buy your point and think that point may improve for me upon rewatch.

[affy18]

As for the repetition, I buy your point and think that point may improve for me upon rewatch.

I like it when you buy things.

Now watch yourself buying my points on Amour, thus changing your 0 to 10.

[McTeague]

I like it when you buy things.

Now watch yourself buying my points on Amour, thus changing your 0 to 10.

You are going to hate Amour. And you are going to be very dissapointed by Realness' performance in ZD30, too. Sad, but true. I'm particularly sure about the later. It really is average and clichéd, minus the last shot.

[Aurelius]

See, McTeague, you were really winning me over for once with those excellent posts on Pi, and then you had to make that last one.

[McTeague]

See, McTeague, you were really winning me over for once with those excellent posts on Pi, and then you had to make that last one.

That probably was my subconscious feeling that I was aligning too much with you! I had to do something.

[lazarus]

I guess I didn't find it that seamless or that superbly told. I think the main "chunk" of the movie was somewhat reiterative (how many times do we need to see Pi fighting with Parker to gain some sort of knowledge about himself or about survival? Do we really need two storms + a fish storm?).

How many times do we need to see Scarlet O'Hara flirt with/rebuff Rhett? Many films deal with this type of repetition.

Part of Pi's story is about endurance and perseverance. Once you stop thinking of the tiger as a metaphor and regard it for what it represents, which is Pi himself, this continued struggle takes on more weight.

[crazyfists3600]

I think McTeague's points are very valid and a big reason why I didn't respond to this. The book does a far better job of conveying those themes because it isn't overly concerned with being beautiful.

[affy18]

I think McTeague's points are very valid and a big reason why I didn't respond to this. The book does a far better job of conveying those themes because it isn't overly concerned with being beautiful.

I think the beautiful fantasy element of the story is there to provide a counterbalance to the horrifying events of the second story. It makes sense that the story with Richard Parker is that fanciful as it fuels the ambiguity of what REALLY happened.

Despite the narrative-plummeting bookends, thematically I think it does make sense.

[hurricanesmith]

Saw this again with Libby, who hadn't. (I also hadn't seen it in 3D and wanted to check out the use of that; I'm glad I did. It's pretty stunning.)

I pretty much only needed this movie to be a visual wonder, and it more than delivers on that level. I felt the right emotions in all of the right places, more or less bought into the conceit of the story, and mostly had a good time. But as someone who mostly just believes in God because that's the version of the universe he prefers to believe in, I've always found the message of this movie... suspect. I don't know a single atheist who doesn't already suspect most religious people just believe in religion because it's a nice way to make the horrors of life feel like they have some grander purpose.

That said, I hated the book and really liked this, so Ang Lee obviously trimmed that back enough to make it palatable for me.

HS