REVIEW: LIFE OF PI
The age-old question concerning movies and books arose as I was about to enter the cinema to see "Life of Pi 3D..." should I have read the book after the movie (books are 99% of the time better)? By pure chance I had picked up "Life of Pi," a thick, small novel in my school's library based on the cover alone, of a small foreign child with a tiger in a tiny boat, both looking down at the sea. Of course with "Pi" you're expecting some math genius, "A Beautiful Mind" type-deal, but then I read the first few chapters that night. The novel was written in the form of a series of flashbacks, presented as one big story Piscine (Pi) Patel tells a couple of Chinese investigators. While it was a mammoth of a thing to get through, it was enchantingly rewarding, and was one of the most interesting books I've read in a long time.
"Life of Pi" opens up quietly in a zoo, where Pi and his family make a living. Pi is so thoroughly in love with these creatures that it pains him to know that they might actually hurt you, a strict lesson taught to him by his father in a grisly manner. The audience automatically builds sympathy for the sensitive Pi, who's real name is Piscine. He changes it in a single day that defines him, and you'll have to see the film or read the book to see why he changed it. Pi was named for a swimming pool his uncle swam in once, calling it the greatest pool he'd ever entered. Naturally he'd be named after water, as a shipwreck dooms him to be stranded on a lifeboat like Tom Hanks in "Castaway." Instead of Wilson the Volleyball, however, he has a big orange friend you've probably seen on the poster: Richard Parker.
If this sounds at all to you like a big mainstream hit, maybe you've been trapped on an island for a couple months like Pi. I'm amazed it's cracked the top 10 at the box office, but it's been staying steady at number five for a couple weeks now. Sure the book was a mega hit but that phenomena certainly doesn't always translate to the screen (look at "City of Ember," "Inkheart," etc.). The film's biggest star is one of the main character's torturers from "Slumdog Millionaire." That's not exactly a great tagline. But deep down I think everyone is a little curious to see how "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" and "Brokeback Mountain" director Ang Lee (I'm gonna forgive you for "Hulk") translates the supposedly "unfilmable" novel to the screen. The book's pages can be tedious at times, and those problems paralleled the movie's. While Pi's interactions with the tiger in the boat can be at best electrifying, at worst they're lengthy and dull.
The tiger and Indian boy in a boat are semi-ploys to get your attention, the novel and the film are both very moral and religiously conscious pieces of art. The film is all about deciding to go with whatever you believe in. Pi is interested in Christianity, Hinduism and Muslim beliefs...all at the same time! One thing his father says to him at the dinner table really stuck with me: "Believing in all religions is the same as believing in none of them." Is this true? Is not believing in three religions showing a stronger belief than an atheist or an agnostic? What Pi does is time consuming, sure, but is he not closer to...the idea of God? There are 32,000,000 different gods in the Muslim religion! Did you know that? People like Pi, trying to do something unorthodox involving religion get rained on with hatred. People are up in arms about their religion. A man who hasn't gone to church on Sunday criticizes a man for being gay claiming it's God's law. Is that the right way of expressing God's beliefs?
"Pi" brings up these ideas in you, and the belief idea is stretched out to what you believe in terms of mythology and history. This point is brought to you by the film's ending, which delivers a nasty little twist that's a little less ambiguous than the novel, but it really makes you go back and reconsider everything you've heard. In this way, Lee is questioning the viewer's religion, and what can you really believe? "Life of Pi" is a thoroughly interesting movie, (expect to see it in many technical categories for the Oscars, but not performances, like last year's "Hugo.") that forces the viewer to think deeper than you would an average Hollywood blockbuster. Also, on a serious note, kids might want to see it because of the giant tiger they see on the poster. While Richard Parker is a beautiful, completely realistic CGI creation, don't let the PG rating fool you, this movie's strictly for teens and up, or perhaps religiously philosophical third graders.
Rating: 3/4 stars
P.S. I'll be taking a break until late December, where I'll be seeing all the huge sure to be Oscar winners ("Les Mis," "Silver Linings Playbook" and "The Hobbit") nearly back-to-back!
"Life of Pi" opens up quietly in a zoo, where Pi and his family make a living. Pi is so thoroughly in love with these creatures that it pains him to know that they might actually hurt you, a strict lesson taught to him by his father in a grisly manner. The audience automatically builds sympathy for the sensitive Pi, who's real name is Piscine. He changes it in a single day that defines him, and you'll have to see the film or read the book to see why he changed it. Pi was named for a swimming pool his uncle swam in once, calling it the greatest pool he'd ever entered. Naturally he'd be named after water, as a shipwreck dooms him to be stranded on a lifeboat like Tom Hanks in "Castaway." Instead of Wilson the Volleyball, however, he has a big orange friend you've probably seen on the poster: Richard Parker.
If this sounds at all to you like a big mainstream hit, maybe you've been trapped on an island for a couple months like Pi. I'm amazed it's cracked the top 10 at the box office, but it's been staying steady at number five for a couple weeks now. Sure the book was a mega hit but that phenomena certainly doesn't always translate to the screen (look at "City of Ember," "Inkheart," etc.). The film's biggest star is one of the main character's torturers from "Slumdog Millionaire." That's not exactly a great tagline. But deep down I think everyone is a little curious to see how "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" and "Brokeback Mountain" director Ang Lee (I'm gonna forgive you for "Hulk") translates the supposedly "unfilmable" novel to the screen. The book's pages can be tedious at times, and those problems paralleled the movie's. While Pi's interactions with the tiger in the boat can be at best electrifying, at worst they're lengthy and dull.
"Pi" brings up these ideas in you, and the belief idea is stretched out to what you believe in terms of mythology and history. This point is brought to you by the film's ending, which delivers a nasty little twist that's a little less ambiguous than the novel, but it really makes you go back and reconsider everything you've heard. In this way, Lee is questioning the viewer's religion, and what can you really believe? "Life of Pi" is a thoroughly interesting movie, (expect to see it in many technical categories for the Oscars, but not performances, like last year's "Hugo.") that forces the viewer to think deeper than you would an average Hollywood blockbuster. Also, on a serious note, kids might want to see it because of the giant tiger they see on the poster. While Richard Parker is a beautiful, completely realistic CGI creation, don't let the PG rating fool you, this movie's strictly for teens and up, or perhaps religiously philosophical third graders.
Rating: 3/4 stars
P.S. I'll be taking a break until late December, where I'll be seeing all the huge sure to be Oscar winners ("Les Mis," "Silver Linings Playbook" and "The Hobbit") nearly back-to-back!
Comments
Post a Comment