I was glad to see there’s a thread about the movie. Just saw it myself and I pretty much agree with all that.
It certainly didn’t make me believe in the formal, ritualized God of organized religion, but I don’t think that was its intent. In Charlie Rose’s interview, I was relieved to hear Ang Lee say the movie couldn’t make you believe in God, that no movie or book could.
Without understanding the story fully yet, I think the term “God” is just a convenient label for the wonder and beauty we see in the universe. Despite our relationship with animals, our ability to recognize and appreciate beauty separates us from the rest of the critters. It makes life liveable and worthwhile, and worth surviving for, even under the most hopeless conditions (“Never give up” as Pi says). At the same time, we can’t deny that what we find beautiful is completely subjective, a result of our evolution, but nevertheless, without the capability to experience awesome beauty in our existence, we’re just brute animals. Whether we call it God or Allah or FSM is really immaterial. It just is, so let’s just roll with it and enjoy it.
I guess, anyway. That’s the beta version of my understanding of the movie. I’m still processing it in my mind.
If a grilled cheese sandwich can affirm some people’s religious beliefs, no doubt this movie would, too. But they can think whatever they want; it’s quite obvious to me that Life of Pi isn’t about anything so small and petty as that.
I saw the movie again last night and reread the last chapter of the book. I enjoyed the film much more the second time probably because I wasn’t fighting to stay awake lol. It really is a lovely film. I did nod off a little during the end so I need to see that part again to compare it to the book.
But retreading the last part in the book, it seems much less ambiguous now that Pi’s more fantastic story is true.
And the moral seems to be almost the opposite of the film. Instead of “well we can’t know which version of reality is true so we might as well believe in God”, it seems to be “God clearly exists for anyone who bothers to pay attention, but it is possible to interpret things in a much narrower way if that makes it more comfortable or easier to digest for you.”
But you’re assuming that the mundane story about the cook and Pi’s mother is the true one, and the story about the tiger is made up. The point of the movie is, you don’t (and can’t) know which story is true, so which one will you chose to believe?
If you believe that the story in which Pi’s mother is killed by the cook is made up, can you explain why he would make up such a horrific story about his beloved mother? It just doesn’t fit with my understanding of people. Someone who needed to make up a story that would be believed would not include making a loved one’s death MORE horrible than it already was. He would have left her out if he were making it up. It makes much more psychological sense that he made up the tiger story to cover the real, more horrific story.
Saw it today, in 3D. Haven’t read the book. I agree that the 2nd story is the reality, while my 15 year old niece believed the first. I really liked this movie, very well done.
I’m kinda surprised there’s supposed to be ambiguity about which story is true. It seems pretty cut and dried to me that the second story is true, and it seems as though it’s part of the meaning of the movie that the narrator and the storyteller both know the second story is the true one but choose to act as though (or believe) the first one.
The movie goes so far as to hit us over the head with it “so the zebra with the broken leg, that was the sailor…” which I don’t see making much sense if the first story were true. The story had obvious fantastical/dreamlike elements to it. And if the first story were true but unbelievable, and he needed to create a story that was more believable for the Japanese investigators, you could come up with something much less extreme.
I don’t see the narrative point to the story being “which one is true?” but rather “you know on some level which one is true, but which one are you going to choose to believe?” which fits into my previous post about the message on religion.
I went to see “Life of Pi” in 3D this Saturday. I did not read the book and would like to limit this thread to only what was in the movie.
First of all, it was such a beautiful film. The visuals and music were just breathtaking throughout the movie.
Through my work (which is completely unrelated to film), I’ll be meeting the director and screenwriter next week, so let me know if you have any questions for them.
I have some questions and discussion points, but have to run off to a meeting and so will get this thread started and come back later with them.
So I think I get what the movie is trying to communicate. We all see god (or no god) in different ways. Your version of the “truth” could be vastly different from another’s and both of you are correct. Thus, the story with the animals (and shown to us) was Pi’s version while the story he told at the end to the Japanese investigators was another. Since Pi essentially believed in all religions, he was able to experience and believe both stories, but preferred the animal story.
In reality, of course the shorter non-animal story was what actually happened. At the end, when the tiger left him, it was actually his violent, carnivorous alter-ego that left him (the one that he needed to be in order to survive 9 months at sea).
Did anyone interpret this any differently?
Question: Can a real tiger actually survive for 9 months on a boat, exposed to constant salt water and the elements, while being fed fish and rainwater?
The insurance agents who visit Pi at the end say that there were the bones of many small animals in the lifeboat. I assumed those were meerkat bones. Thoughts?
I agree, or at least the bones of the animals that Pi had to eat in order to survive.
This is related to what I think was a big theme in the movie that hasn’t really been discussed much in this thread: Pi’s vegetarianism. The fact that he is a strict vegetarian, before and after his ordeal, is pounded home to us over and over. I think that Pi’s converting the real humans to fantasy animals was based on this. How could he reconcile watching one human kill another for food/bait and then his mother? How could he reconcile his own murder of that human as well? The only way to do this was by mentally transposing them to animals in his zoo. Finally, he had to eat many living things in order to live. How could he reconcile that with his own vegetarinism? The only way he could live with himself is by turning himself into a tiger, and then by converting back to a vegetarian human when possible.
Or maybe I’m just stating the obvious. I can never tell.
I’ll say it again since the threads were merged and it came up again, I think the book and movie have very different endings.
The movie says basically that the people story is true, and we make up God to help us feel better about the indifferent cruelty of the real world.
Whereas the book says that the tiger story is true, God is real, and we make up rationalizations for the things we cannot explain because the idea of God and the true nature of reality is too fantastic and overwhelming for us to come to terms with.
jackdavinci, I haven’t seen the movie, but I think the book provides convincing evidence for and against both stories. The small animal bones back up the algae-island part, at least. On the other hand how DID the animals get out of the cages on the ship if the tiger story is true?
You don’t believe what happened to me and want the truth? Well here’s a story so unpalatable that you can report it if you dare. What investigator, “wanting to make his boss happy” would dare to open themselves up to a story of one of their employees killing someone and eating them?
A box-office reporton Pi: though it got off to a slow start it’s doing pretty well especially outside the US where it has grossed 350 million dollars compared to 95 million in the US. In its first few weeks I was a bit worried it would be lose money but the worldwide gross should be enough to cover its production costs and TV/disc revenues should create a decent profit. The Oscar nominations won’t hurt either. Pi was definitely a big commercial risk and I am really glad it’s paying off.