2 stars (out of four)
A lot of people worked very hard on Life of Pi, most of them computer animators, and their
impressive level of craftsmanship is on full display in the gorgeous, digital
spaces visited in the film. I wish I could say my appreciation of the movie
runs deeper than that. Whether because of the film’s infatuation with
artificial wonder or some internal limitation within myself, I was always kept
at a distance from the story. That’s a shame because the story promises
something rather special: belief in God. Unfortunately, there is no money-back
guarantee on that promise but I suppose little in the world of faith offers
that.
A struggling novelist (Rafe Spall) visits an Indian man
named Piscine Patel (Irrfan Khan) in Montreal. He has been told that Piscine
has an incredible story, a story that proves God’s existence and may well
provide inspiration for the author’s next work. Piscine, a warm and thoughtful
man, confirms that this is true and agrees to tell his tale.
He begins by describing his childhood in India where his
father (Adil Hussain) owned and ran a zoo. As a boy, Piscine (played by Ayush
Tandon in the initial flashbacks and Suraj Sharma as a young adult), or Pi as
he nicknames himself after some unfortunate teasing in school, has an unusual
relationship with religion. He was raised a Hindu but his father is a man of
science who advises his two sons to seek answers to their questions in hard,
observable facts. Pi’s mother (Tabu) on the other hand is more open-minded, encouraging
Pi to explore his spirituality.
Pi discovers Christianity and is at first perplexed, then
fascinated, by the story of Christ. Next he encounters Islam, finding solace in
the religion’s prayer rituals. Seeing no reason to choose between the faiths,
Pi becomes a follower of all three. Each religion in conjunction with the
others, he feels, enriches his relationship with God in a way no single one
can.
His faith is tested several years later, when the bulk of
the film takes place. The family is selling the zoo and moving to Canada.
Setting sail aboard a Japanese cargo ship, they cross the Pacific Ocean with a
few dozen exotic animals that will be sold to another zoo upon their arrival in
Canada. Roughly halfway through their journey, however, something goes awry and
the ship sinks in the midst of a brutal storm. Separated from his family, Pi
manages to jump onto a lifeboat where several companions soon join him: an
injured zebra, a hyena, an orangutan and a Bengal tiger named (thanks to a
clerical error) Richard Parker.
The days and weeks pass on this apparent ark. Natural
selection by way of the tiger’s appetite soon whittles down the boat’s
population to two: Pi and Richard Parker.
What follows is as much a survival story as it is a study in
animal behavior. Not only must Pi contend with his own hunger and thirst but
Richard Parker’s as well. He must train the tiger to see him as its master and
not a tasty snack.
Though the majority of the film’s scenes are set on the vast
expanse of the Pacific, director Ang Lee breaks up the potential visual
monotony with all sorts of vibrant colors and fantastical sights. A reflection
on the water’s surface of a golden sunset stretches out to the horizon.
Hundreds of luminous fish brighten the dark depths of the ocean at night. And
in a dream sequence, the camera plunges into those same black waters and
through a series of pseudo-psychedelic images that, in a different context,
would make a hell of a screensaver.
But for all its digitized splendor, Life of Pi fails to connect on an emotional level. The visuals
only serve to distract from the main action of the plot. What was alive on the
page is oddly dull here. This is largely due to the script, a pedestrian
adaptation by David Magee, which saps the tension from the story’s midsection
and fails to convey the isolation and desperation of a person trapped at sea.
The script also blindly replicates from the book the frame
story with the Canadian author. This framing was a sly, self-referential wink in
French-Canadian Yann Martel’s novel but feels extraneous and forced here.
And as for affirming the existence of God, Ang Lee’s movie
comes up as empty-handed as Mr. Martel’s book. The movie puts some interesting
ideas into play – the role religion plays in knowing God, the harsh cruelties
of nature – but there is nothing that reaches the story’s unrealistically
lofty aims. Life of Pi is beautiful,
yes, but far from transcendent.
- Steve Avigliano, 11/26/12
Pi grew up trying to find the ultimate truth of life by questioning different religions and aspires to find that ultimate truth one day. Life of Pi is about seeing the world through Pi's eyes. This is precisely why it's strongly called an unfilmable book, coz it's almost impossible to visualize on screen the combined feeling of every sight of the amazing spectacles that the ocean/forests show a 17 yr old kid and how they take him closer to the answers for his questions. But, Ang-Lee succeeded!
ReplyDeleteYou're right to say Ang Lee does a nice job filming a pretty un-cinematic book. But do you feel Pi actually comes closer to learning the ultimate truth he seeks? Seems to me like he'd be more disillusioned than ever given the horrible and purposeless cruelties that happen to him.
DeleteI just saw this last weekend and I'd have to agree with your rating and impressions, Steve. I found it very hollow despite its prettiness. I kept getting the sense that what I was seeing was meant to be emotionally affecting, but its loftiness kept me from connecting.
ReplyDeleteAnd you're right about the script-almost no one sounds like an actual person, because they're too busy trying to state "important messages". It also suffers from some of the most excessive voice-over narration I can recall from a theatrical release, to the point where adult Pi is describing the exact thing we're seeing play out on the screen. I'm pretty sure this is what Robert McKee was talking about in Adaptation when he rails against voice-over in screenplays.
Did you read Ebert's review?
Yeah the voice-over definitely feels carried over from the novel. The whole movie has that feeling of a screenwriter trying hard to be respectful to the book but it ultimately botches the adaptation by not being bold enough.
DeleteDid you see it in 3D? I'm curious to know what it was like and if the 3D offered anything new or special compared to other movies.
And I did read Ebert's review. I love Ebert but he has a tendency to give certain prestige movies a free pass or shower them with praise I don't think they deserve.
DeleteI recommend A.O. Scott's review for the NY Times. He sums up how I felt about the movie better than even I did in my review.