The tiger story is true because it speaks to us about Pi’s inner conflict with his wild, aggressive nature in an emotional and spiritually engaging way. We understand what happened on that boat better through the tiger story than we do without it.
The dictionary definition of “true” includes “conforms to reality or facts” but it also means “being or reflecting the essential or genuine character of something.” This second definition if what I mean by deeply true. A story can contain truth beyond a simple recitation of the physical events.
I think what is stated in Post #51 is key. It’s about belief. I think I remember reading that Mantel threw in the island because it was so fantastical - that people may be thinking that the tiger in the boat makes rational sense and he wanted to push that boundary - to see if the reader was willing to take the leap of faith and realize this story is outside the bounds of what your rational mind is willing to tell you is possible.
As a Christian believer (neo-Orthodox [Barth, not Eastern] - which is kind of liberal, but kind of not), this struck and immediate cord for me (FTR - it didn’t affect my liberal Christian friend in nearly the same way - perhaps because of the reasons you articulate). I believe that truth goes beyond our reason & what we believe is possible and I felt that the story was making a wonderful case for that.
I agree, but from the other side. I think the resurrection of Jesus not only happened, but is super important. It may not per se matter in how an individual believer acts, but it matters for the story of cosmos. It’s not beside the point at all, but the fulcrum of history (at least IMO - YMMV ;)).
I read the book then saw the movie with a friend whose religious beliefs I had no idea about. He had not read the book. After the I’ll make you believe in god bit he turns to me and asks if I do. I don’t. Does he? When it suits me, he says.
At the end of the movie he decides he likes the tiger story best. It really illustrates to me that religion is choosing to believe a fantastic story because it’s too uncomfortable to face the truth.
I had hoped the movie would have shown the real drama with the mother and the cook et al.
In the movie, the lifeboat had plenty of rations for weeks, or some unspecified very long time. Pi was staying on the makeshift secondary raft to stay away from Richard Parker, and brought all the rations out there with him to keep them safe from the tiger too.
Then a storm or whatever (I forget) happened and all the rations were spilled overboard the makeshift raft and lost. At this point in the narrative Pi scolds himself for being so stupid; if only he’d left them on the main boat they’d have been fine.
Assuming the tiger represents the animal side of Pi who had to kill the evil cook (hyena) who killed his mother (orangutan), Pi was actually alone on the boat all that time.
Battling his inner demons to try and come to grips with the reality of murdering another human being is well represented by Pi keeping his distance from the tiger by building his own little mini-raft. I get that.
What I don’t understand is how he lost all his rations from the actual lifeboat, since the mini-lifeboat he made to keep safe from the tiger was figurative, not an actual physical construct.
That is my only criticism of the movie. Besides the “flashes” as he’s telling the alternative story, there are no indications that what we saw between Pi and the tiger is anything but what really happened. With the exception of the crazy-ass island, nothing seemed too implausible. I like movies where you can go back and search for clues that what is being presented is not as it appears. Some foreshadowing of a twist rather than a soft-spoken “I’ll let you decide” would have been good…although, I guess his earlier struggle with religion should spell out to the audience what the “point” is.
In the book I believe he doesn’t lose any rations. He just uses them up. He’s only reaches the shores of Mexico 227 days after the ship sinks. He spends a lot of time catching fish and turtles for him and Richard Parker to eat. He collects water very carefully from the rain and from solar stills. It still isn’t enough, and it’s not apparently a balanced diet. He does his best and it’s still isn’t good enough for that long a voyage.
Ah yes, thanks for the reminder about the provisions.
But that’s true only if you choose to believe in alternate story. If you believe the tiger story, no additional explanation is needed.
You’re making the same mistake as Ellis Dee; you’re assuming that your story is what “really happened.”
The two pieces of evidence you have both pointed out (the disappearance of the food, and the lack of any indication that what we saw was not actually happening) support the idea that the tiger story is the true one. OTOH I can’t think of anything in the movie to support Pi’s “alternate” story with his mother and the cook, other than it being easier to believe.
How is being more believable not a reason to believe it over the less believable story? That’s what “believable” means!
Anyway, I think it’s fairly plausible that Pi made the raft in order to get away from the scene of his mother’s being murdered and his committing murder. That’s at least as plausible a reaction to those events as constructing an allegorical version of the events with animals instead of people!
For me to accept the idea that the tiger story wasn’t just a beautiful cover story, I would have to discount the significance of Pi searching for meaning through religion and ignore that he is deeply romantic. I would have to discount the symbolism of that crazy-ass island. I would have to believe the first part of the movie doesn’t inform us about the other part.
That would make both the movie and the book pretty craptacular, IMHO.
Perhaps neither the story told in most of the book nor the story that Pi gives to the Japanese insurance investigators when they disbelieve that story is true.