Life of Pi ****/5: A visual feast that is not as profound as it hopes to be

Life of Pi is one of the year’s best films and is certainly one of the most visually captivating films ever made. It is superior to Avatar (2009) because most of the magic comes from the basis of our own life experiences and so it does not seem trite and unforgiving in its calculation to manipulate and distort. With that said the moral basis of the film may or may not be profound in its delineation of Pi’s fantastic story. The story is well told regardless of its fantastic basis and the conclusions arrived at by the protagonists. Whether you disagree or agree with the conclusion Pi’s story is one he is supposed to have experienced and so who are we to judge. Pi’s story is said to make you aware of god’s existence in some shape or form and at times I thought the film would become preachy but it never went that far because religion is central to Pi’s upbringing and one can say that his experience as a shipwrecked sailor is almost fatalistic. This is the primary weakness of the film: its grounding in idealism. It veers towards the nonsensical as a result, at times, or one could say the profound. The film is at its best when it is rooted in the Indian society and Pi’s upbringing but as it progresses one could say that it could have been more definitive simply because it ends in a static fashion. It almost compromises its beliefs by limiting his story to the episode at sea. This is so because one would have liked to see progression into the distant unknown and this is hinted at in the final shot but I would have loved to see it reflected primarily in the life of Pi himself. The issue with this however is that it would probably become too fantastic however this would have made us truly discover god but instead we are left with abstract images that do not reveal much or they might reveal a great much because of the film’s visual splendor. The way I am writing this film makes it seem as if I am not sure what to make of the film but that is not the case because the visual splendor of the film is so striking that one may choose to see it as profound naturalism or simply an appendage that merely serves to reveal the emptiness of the film particularly the final half.  I conclude that the film attempts to make profound statements but it is not conclusive because the writers themselves do not have the answers and so they envelop the film in such mystery that it probably will not be deciphered and will only be revealed in the actions of the characters themselves. The main thing I do agree with in the telling of Pi’s story is the struggle of letting go during our life’s journey in order to make true discoveries about the life we live. I have lived it myself and I can identify with this although my life itself is not as profound as Pi’s. It is an element of most people’s lives as a matter of fact (a moment where the individual’s experience becomes the universal). The degree of fantastic elements we encounter is relative however that is why we have stories. In order to make sense of the world you live in you have to undergo some measure of upheaval. Order devolves into chaos and in that chaos you come to certain determinations about life and find a new order where you make a break with the previous order or how you lived life prior to the upheaval. This is the natural cycle of mankind and the only constant is the life force or the fact that we are alive. All great films carry this message and Life of Pi is no different the only difference is that it explicitly states that the story allows you to discover god in all his many manifestations. This story is similar in some respects to the idealist dialectic although I am more inclined to the materialist dialectic whereby the society of man undergoes its many upheavals on the basis of the class struggle with the outcome that one may encounter a classless society and then the notion of equal rights and justice will come to pass.  The idealist way out has emerged as a composite of very particularistic endeavors where god comes into people’s lives in some way or form after we have encountered the negative and emerged with a new positive but only on the basis of how the world is interpreted by that individual. The only agreement the idealists and I share is that Life is constant and our perceptions do change over time based on upheavals  on the basis of what we thought we knew so as to emerge with a new form of knowledge. The basis for change on my part is societal change or a change in the values held dear by society any other change is strictly due to the processes of nature which is what Pi encounters in his story.

Life of Pi stars Suraj Sharma as Pi (Irfan Khan portrays the older Pi but with less screen time) who on a trip on a ship, with his family, to Canada where he will begin a new life he emerges as the lone survivor after the ship is sunk by a storm in the Pacific. His only companions on the life boat are animals that once belonged to his father’s zoo: a hyena, a lame zebra, a orangutan, a rat and, lastly, a tiger. In the end it is only Pi and the tiger, Richard Parker that remain and their relationship becomes the basis for Pi’s discoveries about life or the notion about the meaning of life. His answer is limited strictly to nature and echoes an earlier experience he had with the tiger. His father warns him that what you see in the eyes of the animal is reflected back into you. They do not think like we do, according to the father, and so one must not go on thinking that they have souls etc.  Pi and the tiger, now stranded at sea, have come to the realization that they have established a bond but it is a bond that seems to reflect our relationship with god.

Positives

Obviously the most striking element of this film is the visual splendor enhanced by 3D. The splendor of the visual element is tied into the nature of god, the absolute, or life as we know it. It is even better because the image is so clear/ pristine at times particularly a scene in a pool and when Pi, stranded at the sea is in the presence of a sunset.  As stated before the images in this film are superior to Avatar not merely based on the technology used but on the basis of how real most of the images are or the organic nature of the images. It does not ask you to go ‘ooh’ and ‘aah’ when you see a certain image because this is the life we live. It only brings these images to life  in a more strident fashion. The images are organic because it is tied into nature which is the world man seems to have divorced himself from apart from seeing it as a means of mass exploitation to artificially benefit the so called human race although we are no further from nature as we were 2,000 years ago. We are yet to go through the dramatic shifts in our physicality that nature has seen over its almost limitless time span by our own conception. The natural world as we know it is only the world that we know and the ideas we have created about it. We cannot fathom it and we can only do this through exploiting it for our own use. The images in this film, for instance, about life under the sea are not necessarily a marvel because it is already there this is how it is. The filmmakers it seems could not remove themselves from the temptation to make the eye candy befuddle some. I probably would have been bamboozled by this hyper naturalism if I had not watched an enormous amount of documentary material about life on the ocean floor where the natural lights flicker in the darkest recesses of the ocean where no light can penetrate. The presentation in this film is not entirely accurate and exaggerates the look but there is an underlying reality. This natural world therefore should not evoke more than it does for if it evokes anything it highlights how out of touch we really are with it all.

The majesty of the surroundings is only paralleled by Pi’s isolation as an individual. His story is well told by Ang Lee and co. and as I have not read the book I cannot compare but it is clear that from the viewpoint of a filmgoer who has not read the book I did not feel as if anything was missing in the sequences that were not previously explained. It is clear from the story that the character of Pi was meant to stand out. We see this with the attention he gets from his full last name which sounds a lot like pissing. We also get a glimpse into his quest for god which seems to have started since he was quite young. We see Pi engage with the major religions that he encountered while growing up in India; Christianity, Islam and Hinduism.  He seems to have synthesized all three while taking from each that which suits him at a particular moment in his daily routine. We see this contrast with his father who believes in reason and who brings him down to reality with a poignant scene involving the tiger, Richard Parker.  When he has to leave India for Canada and becomes embroiled in stormy events and is then stranded at sea we understand that everything was meant to reflect Pi’s isolation or his distinctness as an individual. It might seem convenient that he alone of all the ship’s crew and passengers should survive however one should see it coming particularly those that are distinctive in life that always seem to be out there on their own. They simply do not fit well with the rest and this distinct quality always lays the groundwork for the fantastic stories that the world seems to enjoy. Ordinary people are so called because they simply do not possess a distinctive quality that will make them standout against the crowd and their attitude seems to be one of compliance and subservience to the world they know and enjoy; the ordinary person will never challenge the system or allow him or herself to be challenged by it they will merely comply with what is required to be done so that they can be either the exploiter or the exploited. This is what the film does well it makes the life of Pi distinctive and therefore worth telling on its own and how fantastic is it that he is stranded along with a tiger.

 The fact that the story of the film stood rooted in the pacific or throughout Asia is very significant. It is clear that an older Pi has moved to Canada and recounts his tale to a white western man who is startled and then ends up transcribing it to his fellow readers of the west who become bamboozled by the mystic nature of the east and seek to create a fantasy package around it. This does not change the fact that the important part takes place in the East. This film by Ang Lee and others released over years from Asia clearly reveals that there is an abundance of material for artists to exploit and the stories are just as vibrant as those in the West although the stories from the West have assumed a petty bourgeois/middle class stance in their portrayal.  It is no surprise therefore that when Pi lands in the west he is rendered ordinary and trite, a mere comic that has a good story to tell. There were times when stories from the West were this vibrant and so the story in Life of Pi reminded me of certain episodes of a Forrest Gump particularly the character, Lieutenant Dan (Gary Sinise), who questioned the belief in god who he encountered, just like Pi, in a storm and all was revealed. 

 I agreed with the concept of the life force and letting go as we progress.

The final shot of the film is a powerful one.

Negatives

It is not clear whether this film is profound or merely empty at its core for even the visual splendor cannot mask the mere simplicity at the film’s core. This simplicity would not have been a problem if it was not beaten into our heads that this story was about discovering god in nature. If it was a story without the moral element then the images would not have been so strident because one therefore keeps hoping to discover some magic in nature that will reveal god somehow. This does not occur in our daily lives only some exaggerated visual images that do not reveal much and reveal that at its core nature is not amazed by its own splendor it is us humans that ascribe all sort of fantastic elements and string them up as art and so exaggerate its premise. There is an episode where Pi encounters a mysterious island that not many have seen before because there is clue that someone did reside there. If this island really does not exist then what was the point of bringing it to our attention and this is where the artist feels he can escape; he will say that Pi experienced it so who are we to judge however I am speaking of the world we live in and it is strange that no one has been able to report about such an island. The film tries to hint that the existence of such an island is possible like Skull Island from King Kong (1933&2005). If the island does not exist then the story is baseless and satellite images should be able to determine whether or not it does and so the great story of Pi is truly a fantasy with no inherent base but the imagination. This is why towards the end of the film the absence of any true revelations or any profound insights makes the experience seem interesting but pointless. The scene where he tries to ascribe the character of the animals to human beings rings hollow.  It is clear that the writers, all along, sought to make this comparison between the nature of animals and humans. Pi reveals himself as the tiger by saying that he was reflected in him. The tiger existed independently and so how could he call himself the tiger. If he tamed the tiger then why did it just desert Pi; even great carnivores such as the tiger can be tamed. I suppose the question why he deserted Pi? is intended to be a great mystery. If Pi did succeed in taming him he would have responded affectionately although the attachment between the two is made clear in a poignant scene near the end. It is a powerful scene and one wishes that the others had the same impact.  

I had a problem with the life of Pi after this great episode in his life. He settled down and became static or an ordinary man. The weight of that story at sea does not seem to progress further and it becomes stagnant and so his life, although not complete, must have come to an end when he returned to human civilization. The life of Pi does not seem complete and one would have wished that his fantastic story encompassed his life much like in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2010). His life ends up like any petty bourgeois and does not seem truly definitive apart from the shipwreck and existing side by side with a tiger. After this story he has no other definitive moments to make his life interesting.

I never saw god in this film and the story brought me no closer to him. It was basically a story about the relationship between Pi and a tiger that survived a shipwreck. On this level the film works not as some mysterious divine watch. The visuals cannot convey god just like that; showing nature in its pure form does not reveal god anywhere it only reveals nature and its various cycles. This superficiality is what will make you question whether or not there is a divine element. Some light piercing through the clouds during a storm is not necessarily god/divine but the light of the sun; nothing more. Unless Ang Lee and co. were prepared to reveal god to us then all these images certainly will not do it. This is the eternal curse of the idealists that are not bound by the material world because they love to speak of fantastic things but cannot demonstrate them in the real world.

Only time will tell whether the film is as profound as it hopes to be.