Skip to main content

What do you see, Richard Parker? Tell me, what do you see.


Life of Pi
(2012)

SPOILERS WITHIN Ang Lee’s latest film is beautifully directed (one of the few films I've seen - in 2D - where it’s instantly evident that it warrants the 3D experience) but ultimately flounders as a rather shallow meditation on the existence of God. Like an elaborate joke that builds to a weak punchline, Life of Pi is all build-up. When the gag comes the surprise is not so much one of deflation as it is bafflement that so many people apparently think the joke is such a good one, and further that they are able to find it funny for different reasons. There can be no doubt of the artistry of the delivery, however, and the visuals on display frequently evoke a sense of wonder that partially forgive its philosophical shortcomings.


Going in, even though I had not Yann Martel’s book (I was given a copy several years back, but it has remained indifferently on the bookshelf for all that time, perhaps eluding my interest by dint of being an “acclaimed bestseller”), I knew there was an aspect of the story involving an "unreliable narrator" so I braced myself. In the movie world, such constructs usually don't usually end well for me. There are rare exceptions; The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, buy its very nature, and both Fight Club and The Usual Suspects manage to make something greater than the sum of their parts from their twists. Life of Pi reminded me, to an extent, of Slumdog Millionaire; Slumdog’s narrator is not unreliable as such (although the holes in the script invite such a conclusion), but he introduces a contrived plot constructed to deliver a facile message (although that in itself is murky; Slumdog has been referred to as a fable, but if it is its message remains obscure). In Slumdog’s case the “fairytale” aspect was a reward for the hardship endured to get there, but buying into this requires a suspension of critical tools on the part of the audience; if you’re demanding of internal coherence from the plot you’re asking for the wrong thing because the film employs a classic get-out (it’s a “feel-good” movie); the effect on me, as a viewer, is to disengage from the story being told.


Life of Pi is more internally consistent, in that it adopts the mode of parable to tell its tale, but it is ultimately no less glib with its message. Although, the mode of parable only works in the context of the narrator’s comparison with the second version of events; the tale of the tiger on the boat is not a parable in and of itself (and it is unusual to have a parable featuring both the character and what he represents; Pi and the tiger are the same person). It uses the form so Spall’s narrator can point out who represents who in the actual account and Pi can then deliver the message. I have seen it referred to as a “parable about parables” which more approximates its form.


Lee’s film amounts to easily digestible fast food musing for the philosophically undernourished (I almost used the word spiritually, but my argument is not really about which side of the belief/faith fence the film comes down on). It’s pat and patronising, and easy to see why M Night Shyamalan ultimately decided not to go ahead and direct it (although he wrote an unused screenplay); the construction bears all the hallmarks of the empty twist structure that grew tiresome to audiences somewhere around the time The Village came out. Here, the conceit of a “story that will make you believe in God” is punctured early on by Irrfan Khan’s adult Pi (Khan, who is very good, incidentally also appeared in Slumdog Millionaire) when he tells Rafe Spall’s narrator (Spall’s not too irritating here, probably because he doesn’t get to say much) that he makes no such claims. Nevertheless, the theme has been positioned as central in the minds of the audience. Should we expect to see something wondrous and profound (which the visuals, and isolated setting reinforce once we reach the boat)? And, to be fair, Lee excels himself in translating the theme into film form (“Which story would do we prefer?”)


I was not expecting the film to dwell so long on Pi’s early life; the introductory passages represent far more than a bookend (which the second version of events most definitely is, despite its importance). I had been unaware that Jean Pierre-Jeunet was attached to the project until after seeing the film, but it was his quirky, heightened sensibility that came to mind during these sections (perhaps Lee was summoning his artistic spirit). Jeunet would certainly have done a better job of the opening titles, however, which were “cute” in all the wrong ways. The actors playing Pi at five and eleven years were both engaging. Suraj Sharma (teenage Pi) has come in for some criticism for his perceived shortcomings as an actor (he’s a first-timer), but while I have big problems with the film, he isn’t one of them. These opening sections repeatedly underline the atheistic sensibility of Pi’s father, who openly derides his son’s embrace of any religion that crosses his path. So it goes to inform what will presumably be a battle between rationality and faith over the next 90 minutes. Won’t it? Well, not really.


It’s interesting that, while more palatable version of Pi’s story forms the core of the film, the alternate take is truncated, related by Pi in his hospitable bed to two insurance investigators. I’m unable to comment on how much time this account was given in the book, but in the film it amounts to several minutes. Lee makes the choice not to employ flashbacks to expose this grisly content. I can quite see why; if it were shown at the backend of the film it would remain with viewer, overpowering the romantic version. But it feels like a cheat, a rigged deck. We are shown one, but don’t get to decide on the other. And, it may just be me playing Devil’s Advocate, but as far as “which story do you prefer?” I would prefer to see a telling of those events; how gory such scenes are is at the discretion of a sensitive director and it would have been possible to render them while keeping Life of Pi the right side of a horror film. Hitchcock’s Lifeboat included some fairly unpalatable elements (including a sailor with a broken leg that is amputated and various murders) in a similar confined setting.


I have to admit, I was more engaged by the apocryphal stories involving the name “Richard Parker” than anything I saw involving him in the film. But it’s curious that the film tackles the relationship between human and animal, and the conversation over animal consciousness (Pi is a vegetarian and refers to Richard Parker’s soul during his encounters), so diligently for such a period only to have it discarded when it is revealed that the human was the animal all along. So too, a seemingly resonant observation becomes less impactful when it’s immediate reference is revealed as insubstantial.


Pi: I suppose in the end, the whole of life becomes an act of letting go, but what always hurts the most is not taking a moment to say goodbye.

Martel apparently approves of the film version, while commenting that it is less ambiguous over which version is “real”. Presumably, therefore, he agrees with the film’s take on God; the story with the animals is the better story, “And so it goes with God”. There appear to be different inferences from this is stunning revelation (as profound statements go, isn’t it pretty trite really?) I took away from it an unmistakable (Richard) Dawkins position; it is easier to believe in God, because it is more comforting than the cold, harsh truth. Others appear to have read into the line that there is no difference “since it makes no factual difference and you can’t prove the question either way”. That seems like a stretch, at least as far as the film is concerned; the viewer is supposed to identify the horrific account as the actual one. So I’m not quite sure how one can walk away inferring the message as an affirmation of faith and belief in God.  Yet there is clearly sufficient wiggle room for this, from the Lord President of America down (he referred to the book as “an elegant proof of God, and the power of storytelling”).


While this open debate is interesting, up to a point, it only reinforces that an idea the filmmakers would like to present as a profound realisation is actually little more than an empty shrug. It’s difficult to see the point as anything but a patronising one. To all-but the least inquiring mind, anyway.


It would be tempting to dismiss the entire film for the insubstantiality of its message but (again, not unlike Slumdog) it would be unfair to do so; to malign Lee’s achievement in sustaining a narrative (fake or otherwise) as well as he does (Hitchcock was at least aided by characters interacting with each other), or to dismiss the achievement in effects and cinematography. Life of Pi may be a long way off from profundity, but as a piece of filmmaking it is astonishingly accomplished (one thing is certain, if this doesn't take the Best Special Effects Oscar something is very skewy).

***

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I added sixty on, and now you’re a genius.

The Avengers 4.3: The Master Minds
The Master Minds hitches its wagon to the not uncommon Avengers trope of dark deeds done under the veil of night. We previously encountered it in The Town of No Return, but Robert Banks Stewart (best known for Bergerac, but best known genre-wise for his two Tom Baker Doctor Who stories; likewise, he also penned only two teleplays for The Avengers) makes this episode more distinctive, with its mind control and spycraft, while Peter Graham Scott, in his third contribution to the show on the trot, pulls out all the stops, particularly with a highly creative climactic fight sequence that avoids the usual issue of overly-evident stunt doubles.

Exit bear, pursued by an actor.

Paddington 2 (2017)
(SPOILERS) Paddington 2 is every bit as upbeat and well-meaning as its predecessor. It also has more money thrown at it, a much better villain (an infinitely better villain) and, in terms of plotting, is more developed, offering greater variety and a more satisfying structure. Additionally, crucially, it succeeds in offering continued emotional heft and heart to the Peruvian bear’s further adventures. It isn’t, however, quite as funny.

Even suggesting such a thing sounds curmudgeonly, given the universal applause greeting the movie, but I say that having revisited the original a couple of days prior and found myself enjoying it even more than on first viewing. Writer-director Paul King and co-writer Simon Farnaby introduce a highly impressive array of set-ups with huge potential to milk their absurdity to comic ends, but don’t so much squander as frequently leave them undertapped.

Paddington’s succession of odd jobs don’t quite escalate as uproariously as they migh…

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Where is the voice that said altered carbon would free us from the cells of our flesh?

Altered Carbon Season One
(SPOILERS) Well, it looks good, even if the visuals are absurdly indebted to Blade Runner. Ultimately, though, Altered Carbon is a disappointment. The adaption of Richard Morgan’s novel comes armed with a string of well-packaged concepts and futuristic vernacular (sleeves, stacks, cross-sleeves, slagged stacks, Neo-Cs), but there’s a void at its core. It singularly fails use the dependable detective story framework to explore the philosophical ramifications of its universe – except in lip service – a future where death is impermanent, and even botches the essential goal of creating interesting lead characters (the peripheral ones, however, are at least more fortunate).

He mobilised the English language and sent it into battle.

Darkest Hour (2017)
(SPOILERS) Watching Joe Wright’s return to the rarefied plane of prestige – and heritage to boot – filmmaking following the execrable folly of the panned Pan, I was struck by the difference an engaged director, one who cares about his characters, makes to material. Only last week, Ridley Scott’s serviceable All the Money in the World made for a pointed illustration of strong material in the hands of someone with no such investment, unless they’re androids. Wright’s dedication to a relatable Winston Churchill ensures that, for the first hour-plus, Darkest Hour is a first-rate affair, a piece of myth-making that barely puts a foot wrong. It has that much in common with Wright’s earlier Word War II tale, Atonement. But then, like Atonement, it comes unstuck.

Like an antelope in the headlights.

Black Panther (2018)
(SPOILERS) Like last year’s Wonder Woman, the hype for what it represents has quickly become conflated with Black Panther’s perceived quality. Can 92% and 97% of critics respectively really not be wrong, per Rotten Tomatoes, or are they – Armond White aside – afraid that finding fault in either will make open them to charges of being politically regressive, insufficiently woke or all-round, ever-so-slightly objectionable? As with Wonder Woman, Black Panther’s very existence means something special, but little about the movie itself actually is. Not the acting, not the directing, and definitely not the over-emphatic, laboured screenplay. As such, the picture is a passable two-plus hours’ entertainment, but under-finessed enough that one could easily mistake it for an early entry in the Marvel cycle, rather than arriving when they’re hard-pressed to put a serious foot wrong.

Yeah, keep walking, you lanky prick!

Mute (2018)
(SPOILERS) Duncan Jones was never entirely convincing when talking up his reasons for Mute’s futuristic setting, and now it’s easy to see why. What’s more difficult to discern is his passion for the project in the first place. If the picture’s first hour is torpid in pace and singularly fails to muster interest, the second is more engaging, but that’s more down to the unappetising activities of Paul Rudd and Justin Theroux’s supporting surgeons than the quest undertaken by Alex Skarsgård’s lead. Which isn’t such a compliment, really.

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

You’re never the same man twice.

The Man Who Haunted Himself (1970)
(SPOILERS) Roger Moore playing dual roles? It sounds like an unintentionally amusing prospect for audiences accustomed to the actor’s “Raise an eyebrow” method of acting. Consequently, this post-Saint pre-Bond role (in which he does offer some notable eyebrow acting) is more of a curiosity for the quality of Sir Rog’s performance than the out-there premise that can’t quite sustain the picture’s running time. It is telling that the same story was adapted for an episode of Alfred Hitchcock Presents 15 years earlier, since the uncanny idea at its core feels like a much better fit for a trim 50 minute anthology series.

Basil Dearden directs, and co-adapted the screenplay from Anthony Armstrong’s novel The Strange Case of Mr Pelham. Dearden started out with Ealing, helming several Will Hay pictures and a segment of Dead of Night (one might imagine a shortened version of this tale ending up there, or in any of the portmanteau horrors that arrived in the year…

You think I contaminated myself, you think I did that?

Silkwood (1983)
Mike Nichol’s film about union activist Karen Silkwood, who died under suspicious circumstances in a car accident in 1974, remains a powerful piece of work; even more so in the wake of Fukushima. If we transpose the microcosm of employees of a nuclear plant, who would rather look the other way in favour of a pay cheque, to the macrocosm of a world dependent on an energy source that could spell our destruction (just don’t think about it and, if you do, be reassured by the pronouncements of “experts” on how safe it all is; and if that doesn’t persuade you be under no illusion that we need this power now, future generations be damned!) it is just as relevant.