Review: Life of Pi
Participants: Shane, Jon
Initiator: Shane
Shane:
OK. I think I saw that you gave Life of Pi a C. I’m pretty
curious on why, though I have some suspicions as to why you’re so low on a
movie that I think was pretty well received. Though, upfront, I’d like to note
that if a movie does something exceptionally well or is a historical game
changer, I feel inclined to bump it up a bit.
With that, I’m giving Life of Pi a B+.
Starting with the easy part…Visually, this is obviously an A
or A+. I watched this on 720, and even on that level, holy balls, that was a
pleasure to watch. I probably could have happily watched much of that movie
with no dialogue.
In contrast, the part of the movie that I felt like was the
weakest was the some of the acting. The kids were largely horrible, which isn’t
really surprising since kids are awful at most things. The writer fellow, who I
think must have been an unfunny 3rd cousin of Ryan Reynolds wasn’t
too impressive either. Much of his dialogue seemed forced and his “conversion”
at the end was pretty flat and uninspiring.
On the flip side, the adult version of Pi was pretty solid.
I’m buying him. He absolutely saved those scenes.
I thought that the story was built up just fine. It seemed
evenly paced for the most part, other than annoying Canadian writer guy interrupting.
Pi’s background was entirely relevant up until the last moments of the film, so
that build up was entirely necessary and I think well enough done.
Now, the climax is pretty interesting. With this, I think
that there were two climaxes. The first was when RichardParker paused and then
walked into the jungle without looking back. The second was the alternate
telling of what happened. Both hit me emotionally in different ways. Of course,
the tiger leaving was sad. Yay animals, contact and relationships and all of
that. The second hit me in a much more intellectual manner and had me thinking
about reality and the capabilities and limitations of our minds and “souls.”
I’m guessing that the “this will make you believe in God”
part is what really turned you off. I think it’s intentionally ambiguous as to
what really happened, but I lean towards it really doesn’t matter what the
reality was. Taking his tiger story on its face is amazing and somewhat
believable. Man is smarter than a tiger. Pi used his intelligence to overcome
his physical inferiority. He credits God for all of the good fortune: Rain, the
tiger having no energy to fight and becoming docile, the water separating them,
the flying fish etc. But whether or not it was from God is irrelevant to the
watcher. These things could all be explained in reality and could have
happened. To Pi, these things all kept him alive. A positive mind that stays
busy is important in these situations. Where a person is mentally is can save
or doom them. That Pi praised God isn’t important, that he was thankful and
positive was.
And if there was no tiger, perhaps the other story is the
true one, this still makes sense. The human mind is both incredibly flawed and
resourceful. I’ve been reading a book about how easily our mind is fooled in
relation to criminal trials. Flashing a photo of someone to a victim of crime
and then later putting that person in a line-up will lead to the victim picking
that person out of a line-up and swearing that this person actually caused the
crime. We suck at keeping things organized in our heads. We get confused. We
create alternate realities.
Watching your mother eaten by sharks after being murdered is
something that could overwhelm anyone emotionally. In order to survive, a
person in that situation could possibly black out that memory or creating a new
one. Pi, as a vegetarian and peaceful person by nature and by nurture, is
incapable of believing this story is the reality. He creates the animals as it
lessens the emotional impact. It allows him to survive. He doesn’t become the
tiger, but rather the tiger is a part of him that his mind won’t allow to live
with him in the real world. The tiger slinks of meekly into the forest because
Pi doesn’t need that base instinct of survival any more. It slinks off with a slight
pause as Pi has a hard time letting go. Pi wants the tiger to look back in
order to see some sort of humanity in that relationship, but there is none. A
tiger remains an animal no matter what. The real world is no place for a tiger.
Before getting into the themes of the film, my biggest problem is the framing device. Irrfan Kahn who plays adult Pi is absolutely a great actor, but the actor playing the reporter is not. The reporter is done no favors by the dialogue that gets put into his mouth, either. He has to run down the tiger story metaphor beat by beat, saying, "Oh so the hyena was the chef, and the zebra was this guy," and so on. That is horrendous. It breaks a cardinal rule of film, that the writing and directing should show and don't tell. The rest of the film does a great job with that because we came down with different interpretations, so the fact that it completely blows it at the end is mind-boggling. That is a terrible scene, and nothing in the rest of the film is strong enough to overcome it, so that's largely where the C comes from. A B-level film can make me angry at its content (Fruitvale Station) but it can't make me angry at its production (21).
ReplyDeleteThere is a lot to Life of Pi's themes, and a lot of stuff that conforms to my worldview. I do think the film is strong enough without the ending twist, but the addition of it leads to a pretty dire statement. I felt the theme of the straight, Pi-and-tiger story was that nature is fundamentally cold and unfeeling. Humans try and put meaning into it, but the universe does not care. Humans reflect, while nature trudges off into the jungle without a second thought. The real theme (and I think it's pretty clear that what Pi tells the insurance people is what happened) is what you said about memory and recollection and stress; that humans compensate for horror by reshaping reality. Put those themes together and you get, "When humans are confronted with the indifference of the universe, we shape events to conform to what we would like the universe to be, instead of seeing it for what it is." I think that's where the belief in God statement comes from. Humans choose to believe in God, because to accept the opposite, indifference, is terrifying.
As far as what Pi thinks himself, the fact that the tiger didn't look back signifies all the doubt he had (maybe has) about religion in general. If his mind is making the tiger out of thin air, he could have had it turn back, run to him, lick his face, give him a pound, whatever. Pi's in control and the tiger still walked away. Because he walked away, I think the film implies that Pi knows there isn't really anything, and all his religious searching was for nothing. Your reading is solid and much more positive, but mine is the only way I can make sense of the 'make you believe in God' statement.
As far as other positives, you're right about the look of the film. This was the first movie I saw in 3D and I don't regret it, though there are some of those ostentatious and annoying things-jumping-into-the-camera shots that bug me. Life of Pi won for cinematography and visual effects and directing at the Oscars, and I'm fine with all that. Visuals only count for so much. My problems are entirely the framing device, both in the lines those characters are given, and the fact that it guarantees that the kid survives. It lowers the stakes of an inherently dramatic situation. Compare that with All is Lost from 2013, which is just Robert Redford stranded in a boat in the middle of the ocean. All is Lost has no framing device, so there's no sense of what's going to happen to him, and is a better movie for it. I'm not comfortable with the flat C grade though. You've talked me into a C+ by virtue of Life of Pi having so much going in it. That gets it points. But that goddamn Canadian reporter...
Watched this movie the other day and holy cow you guys are pretty good at this analysis stuff. I feel like I'm pretty solidly in between the two of you spiritually and found myself relating to both of your comments and hope that was the intent of the writer/director- to be able to have people relate differently to the same story to create maximum appeal. Based on Pi's background I would say that Pi internally sells himself on the version of confirmation of God and it is right to praise Him etc, but...I agree with Jon that I felt like it was clear the tiger story was his metaphor to cope with the reality and part of that coping is coping with the doubts in his lifelong beliefs and curiosities toward God. I wonder if the movie wasn't originally meant to be told entirely as just the story of Pi's life and experience at sea and only end with the reveal that adult Pi is telling the story to a writer- would the framing be improved in this instance to help the movie, of course in doing so you eliminate the absolutely believable performance of adult Pi? Would his loss be our gain by not experiencing the writer who was awful? If that is the case how would they have worked in the alternate truth of the events that occurred?
ReplyDeleteI give it a B.
p.s. these comment verifying boxes have gotten much harder to read over the years.