AD reader spotlight: Life of Pi

Marshall Flores writes: Irrational, circular, and transcendent – these three adjectives can describe many things: the conundrums of the universe, the mathematical properties of numbers such as pi. They also apply to the following short story, which I will use as a preface and frame for this review.

I know two people who had a long distance friendship. It was probably wholly inappropriate, but sometimes you find yourself drawn to someone even if you end up subverting many social norms that pertain to relationships. In any case, it was a close friendship that eventually couldn’t hold. Conflicts turned into total disconnect – ultimately, the friendship silently disintegrated. After one and a half years, one attempted to reconcile with the other. The catalyst: Life of Pi.

A film adaption of the Man Booker Prize-winning novel by Yann Martel, Life of Pi offers an introspective take on the mysterious, beautiful nature of life. A marvel of storytelling and visual resplendence, it tells the tale of Piscine Molitor “Pi” Patel, a young, religious teenager who, after a tragic shipwreck, is suddenly thrust into a harrowing journey on a lifeboat in the middle of the Pacific Ocean – a journey replete with spiritual motifs as well as extraordinary (and often dangerous) encounters with nature. Life of Pi is not only a parable for survival and the resilience of the human spirit; it is also a meditation on the mercurial, madcap, but ultimately glorious disposition of life in this universe. It is one of the very best films of 2012.

I was introduced to Life of Pi back in 2003, when it was assigned reading for my AP English class. I was immediately enthralled with the novel, but it was undoubtedly a dense read. Pi was a novel with that could not possibly be fully understood with one reading; comprehension would only arise from repeat readings as well as age. Although I was never in the camp of Life of Pi devotees who insisted that a film adaptation was impossible, I was certainly of the opinion that it would take a unique talent for Pi to flourish on celluloid.

In retrospect, only a filmmaker endowed with a nearly unrivaled grasp of the human condition as Ang Lee could have brought Life of Pi to such exquisite life on screen. Ang Lee is, without a doubt, one of the greatest working directors today. Though Lee doesn’t have a readily identifiable “style,” there is a signature DNA (balance, sensitivity, and subtlety) that courses through all of his films, which is augmented by Lee’s incredible talent at visual composition. From the insular social structures of 18th century British society displayed in Sense and Sensibility to the breathtaking, open expanses of 1960’s Wyoming depicted in Brokeback Mountain, Lee has repeatedly demonstrated the ability and commitment to crafting characters strongly embedded in reality – flesh-and-blood creations that the audience can easily inhabit and identify with, regardless of time or place. This enables Lee to convey deeply profound and universal stories that effortlessly transcend boundaries imposed by setting or from moral, spiritual, and sociopolitical conventions.

With Life of Pi, Lee, in conjunction with screenwriter David McGee, has captured all the essential fibers of Martel’s tale in an efficient adaptation that makes great use of timely monologues and voice-over narration. Both actors who portray Pi (Suraj Sharma as young Pi and Irrfan Khan as adult Pi) contribute remarkable, moving performances. Sharma, in particular, is terrific – he manifests Pi’s transformation from naïve, slightly awkward Indian schoolboy to determined, resourceful survivor both physically and emotionally, with equal aplomb. His attempts to tame and co-exist with fellow survivor Richard Parker (an adult Bengal tiger that is a very impressive CGI beast) are among the very best scenes in the film.

Lee, along with Director of Photography Claudio Miranda (whose previous efforts include The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and Tron: Legacy), elected to use a lush, pastel-like palette, enhanced with judicious use of CGI and 3-D, to bring Life of Pi to the big screen. True to form, Lee uses 3-D only to enrich the viewer’s sense of places and circumstances, never as a gimmick for artificial gags. The result is nothing short of spectacular: a vibrant rendering of a world where surreal is a bit of understatement. Every wave, every ripple, every whisker is so convincingly depicted that one cannot resist reaching out to touch them. One scene in particular where Pi is standing alone on a homemade raft was committed to memory; the camera, high above and angled down, captures a perfect reflection of the sky in the transparent, mirror-like surface of the Pacific. In this shot, there is no boundary, no distinction between Pi, his raft, the lifeboat, the sky, and the ocean – all are instead melded together on a single tableau of sheer beauty. But as dazzling as the visuals are, Lee makes sure that they remain subordinate to the story unfolding on screen.

Although Life of Pi isn’t really about the number pi at all, in many respects, pi is a very instructive analogy for its themes. Pi is a symbolic representation of a ratio that relates a circular quantity to a linear one, a constant that is essential for so many mathematical and scientific formulas. However, pi is a quantity that can only be approximated; its digits are without pattern, its transcendent properties make it impervious to simplification. There are various algorithms that can estimate pi; one test of a computer’s power is how many more decimals it can spit out while computing pi when compared to the previous generation of computer. But ultimately, no matter how sophisticated technology or mathematics becomes, pi inevitably ambles on without end. Mathematicians and scientists will never fully comprehend pi – like a surprising number of other math and science concepts, pi is to some extent an “article of faith” that is widely used without being totally understood.

Like pi and as demonstrated in Life of Pi, the nature of life is circular and irrational; we endlessly cycle through highs and lows, hope and despair, love and loss, as we journey from birth to death – the circular related to the linear. Many events occur on micro and macro levels without regards to rhyme or reason. Nonetheless, we still endeavor to understand life, to understand the nature of everything around us. Our primary tools of approximation (or, as used in Life of Pi, storytelling) are religion and science; both can explore and replicate aspects of the human experience well, but are often portrayed as mutually exclusive. As a Catholic who attended a Jesuit high school, my broad-based education enabled me to have no conflict between the two – there only exists a complimentary unity. Life of Pi also emphasizes this point by displaying a vibrant coexistence between Pi and Richard Parker, a balance between man and beast, the natural order and a supernatural order.

But in the end, life is still way too mystifying, way too transcendent for our feeble minds to grasp. The best thing we can do as humans is to take the time to appreciate the nonsense of life, marvel in its many wonders. Inevitably, we will be shuffled off of this mortal coil, and life will continue its unceasing cycles for future generations, traveling on a path to further unknowns long after we expire.

As for the estranged friends in my preface; well, as Pi tells Yann Martel in both film and novel, “This story has a happy ending.” The Life of Pi-induced reconciliation was successful, and both are now closer than ever. I chalk it up as yet another totally irrational, absurd miracle of life. “And so it goes with God.”


AD reader steve50 writes: I finally caught Life of Pi and I have to say, Lee’s film shimmers with the hyperrealism intensity of selective memory, like the reflective surfaces in Richard Estes paintings. Gorgeous and moving, he did justice to the book and made an outstanding film.

Now, to the “god” thing and the brief retelling of the story in the last act that seems to have caused some wincing.

(I don’t believe in SPOILER ALERTS when the original material was published 5 years ago, or more, but if you do, consider one here)

On a quick, personal note, having studied, even dabbled in, several belief systems in my life, I’m entirely empathetic to Pi’s spiritual hoarding, the scene that got the biggest smile from me was when the Buddhist sailor (literally and figuratively) showed up at the table last, just before Pi’s world changed in that horrendous storm.

In the story, poor pantheistic Pi is told by his father, “If you believe in everything, you will end up not believing in anything at all.” About the film, NYT critic AO Scott said in his review, “the movie invites you to believe in all kinds of marvelous things, but it also may cause you to doubt what you see with your own eyes.”

Parallel statements, equally true, but used with a critical connotation when, in fact, they are positives – doubting is the very positive result of exposure and learning. Doubt is key to survival, much more so than doctrine, in that it causes us to make intelligent decisions based on nature, not dogma. In any standard religious belief, there is no room for doubt, which makes “god” a soothing panacea in a crisis, but doesn’t resolve the matter at hand. Nature will definitely resolve it, and this occurs over and over in the film, where hell has all the trappings of a paradise. It’s a place where the glorious breach of a whale in a night sea teeming with phosphoric algae becomes a destructive force, while the presence of a hungry and nervous Bengal tiger in the boat becomes the sole reason to stay alive.

Which brings us to Richard Parker, and conflict between the “real” story (nature) and the “acceptable” story (doctrine).

First clue: Yann Martel, the author of the book, chose the name “Richard Parker” because of the number of occurrences of people by that name who were shipwrecked, two of them (one real and one fiction) cannibalized by other survivors. So “Richard Parker” has a history of “becoming one”, as it were, with other castaways.

Second clue: Trauma, hunger, thirst and solitude all impact our memory and perception of reality. That’s nature, dogma long flushed away.

Third (and most important): Truth is always stranger than fiction because fiction can only be framed by the limits of our own beliefs while truth happens in the most chaotic and circumstantial ways.

While the secondary version (at the end of the film) of the events is the more outwardly plausible and acceptable to society’s limited understanding of the way things are supposed to happen, it’s the first story that Pi has taken for himself. It’s his story of how he survived and how he continues to reconcile events in his own memory. It’s what happened to him.

I love Richard Parker. I love the idea of him and the manifestation of him in Life of Pi. “Richard Parker” has saved my ass and helped me keep my wits on many occasions, and tending to his needs is what keeps me going. He’s unsentimental and always retreats to the jungle when he’s not needed. Is he “god?” No. Using that word means subscribing to the confines of something without scope, imagination or doubt, and Richard Parker is unrestricted by such things. But can he make you believe in god, as Pi says to the writer? He might, if you can drop the trappings of religion and use doubt to help you understand what you really see.

Life of Pi moves to number one on my list this year.

  • Ryan Adams

    [Goes without saying, there will be ::: SPOLIERS ::: throughout the comments.]

  • AnthonyP

    Why do people cringe at the mention of God? My guess is that images of molesting priests and birth control opponents pop in their head.
    There are many variations of God that people follow. Not just organized Catholic religion.

    I’ve come across two kinds of people who really loathe the mention of GOd. 1) Those who were forced to believe in God by their parents and 2) those that have lost a loved one and uttered the tired line ” What kind of God would take away someone so good?” (If you truly believed in God and Heaven, you would be happy for anyone picked by God to be brought up there.)

    I am a subsiding Catholic who finds more plausibility in Ancient Aliens than the bible, but I still have an appreciation for the spiritual religious overtones of Life of Pi. It’s too bad that many out there will turn their backs on this film because of whatever negative experiences they have endured from man made organized religion.

  • brite78

    This has been a great year for movies, Lincoln, Argo, The Master, Beasts of the Southern Wild, Moonrise Kingdom, The Sessions, Skyfall, Flight, Cloud Atlas, The Dark Knight Rises… And what all this picture have in common is the theme of the fierce power of the human soul. In that matter, Life of Pi is the jewel that crowns this pattern. I’m deeply thankful for this movie. Kudos to the most universal of the contemporary directors, Ang Lee. In a year when our world seems about to crumble, is relieving to know that at least in the movies we are reminded about the power of our souls to bare with life, to do good and, most importantly, to save ourselves.

  • Astarisborn

    Life of Pi has forever been beautifully ingrained in my mind.

  • Antoinette

    Is he “god?” No. Using that word means subscribing to the confines of something without scope, imagination or doubt, and Richard Parker is unrestricted by such things

    Excuse the fuck out of me. But I wouldn’t have said Richard Parker was God IF the goddamn movie didn’t insist on having you replace the orangutan, and the zebra with his mother and the soldier. I would have prefer if they left it with a real tiger in the boat along with a real zebra, but that’s why there was that stupid writer to take all the mystery right out of it. The movie did it. The movie wanted you to make it mundane.

    Good. Now I hate it. Worst Ang Lee movie ever.

  • steve50

    Now, now, Antoinette…all the movie did was present what happened to Pi and then in a few minutes of dialog, tells us what the official insurance report said. All the other assumptions are your own, based on what you were told.

    It’s the old “two doors” game: open one, life is ordered. Open the other – guess who. The writer (and you) decide which door you are comfortable choosing. Which one do you doubt? Which one does your intuition tell you to believe? Which one do you want to be true? There are no wrong answers here because it’s about what happened to Pi, and he gave you his version of the story.

  • represent DLV

    I was totally underwhelmed by Life of Pi. I was expecting so much more. It felt more like an Indian castaway with a tiger instead of a volleyball. Some of the imagery was beautiful, and overall I liked the film, but at the end of the day I find it hard to recommend to anyone. I didn’t really find Pi all that compelling of a character. I knew he was going to survive and I knew he had to survive with a tiger. I found most of the movie a bit dull. I saw Silver Linings Playbook Friday night and Life of Pi Saturday afternoon, and I would see SLP again in a heartbeat, but have no real desire to watch Life of Pi again. I really wish I liked it more. I wanted to.

  • unlikely hood

    Fabulous review. It aspires to shimmer like the film, and it does.

    True to form, Lee uses 3-D only to enrich the viewer’s sense of places and circumstances, never as a gimmick for artificial gags.

    I hate to take away from movies for which this statement is actually true. Sorry, but the tiger coming from under the tarp to attack the hyena, the stick that Pi uses to “train, not tame” the tiger, the flying fish…Yes, these moments were organic and well integrated, but the film doesn’t pass the no-gimmick test. Hugo was closer.

    Marshall, I love your business about pi as a controlling metaphor. You’ve said many of the things I thought when I got a tattoo of pi. (That’s a cliche, yes; on mine, upon close inspection, the two legs look like yin-yang fish, because it’s also meant to represent Pisces – my birthday is March 14, so the tattoo is a song of myself. Years later – years ago – I read Martel’s book with great pleasure.) Let me just make clear a wrinkle which you basically already implied. Pi is not only an “article of faith that is widely used without being totally understood” – it’s also necessary to human progress. Pi is a fundamental building block of math, science, engineering. To live, we need things that we don’t, we can’t, ever understand…like the brain, like love, and perhaps a belief in something greater than ourselves.

    Other reviewers have said it better than me, but Ang Lee and collaborators have taken a story about storytelling and made a movie about moviemaking, or at least a movie that invites you to luxuriate in gorgeous pictures in motion pretty much as ends in themselves. Call it signs taken for wonders, call it beauty as proof of the divine…but it’s really something.

    It’s funny about the force of parable. I don’t remember anyone asking if the rock in 127 Hours or the volleyball in Cast Away was “really” God (then again, Hanks did have that package with the angel wings). I get why Antoinette was turned off. (But come on, worse than Ride With the Devil? I love 1850s history and I was bored.) You know who would appreciate a story like Life of Pi, and storytellers like Yann Martel, Ang Lee, David McGee, Claudio Miranda, and Irrfan Khan (my upset pick for Best Supporting Actor nomination)? You know who would dig them?

    Abraham Lincoln.

  • Lo

    life of pi happy ending It has a good ending in the book because Pi is annoyed with the people asking him what happened and he tells the second story with no emotions an in the movie you can see him get emotional, but then the man that wants to write a book reads the article that says something about Pi and the tiger and smiles and off course because he chose the first story then he could only smile if he realized that it was the true one :)

Sign In


Reset Your Password