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

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…

Espionage isn’t a game, it’s a war.

The Avengers 3.3: The Nutshell
Philip Chambers first teleplay (of two) for the series, and Raymond Menmuir’s second (also of two) as director, The Nutshell is an effective little whodunit in which Steed (again) poses as a bad guy, and Cathy (again) appears to be at loggerheads with him. The difference here is how sustained the pretence is, though; we aren’t actually in on the details until the end, and the whole scenario is played decidedly straight.

Set mostly in a bunker (the Nutshell of the title), quarter of a mile underground and providing protection for the “all the best people” (civil servants bunk on level 43; Steed usually gets off at the 18th) in the event of a thermo-nuclear onslaught, the setting is something of a misdirection, since it is also a convenient place to store national security archives, known as Big Ben (Bilateral Infiltration Great Britain, Europe and North America). Big Ben has been stolen. Or rather, the microfilm with details of all known double agents on bot…

This is no time for puns! Even good ones.

Mr. Peabody and Sherman (2014)
Perhaps I've done DreamWorks Animation (SKG, Inc., etc.) a slight injustice. The studio has been content to run an assembly line of pop culture raiding, broad-brush properties and so-so sequels almost since its inception, but the cracks in their method have begun to show more overtly in recent years. They’ve been looking tired, and too many of their movies haven’t done the business they would have liked. Yet both their 2014 deliveries, How to Train Your Dragon 2 and Mr. Peabody & Sherman, take their standard approach but manage to add something more. Dragon 2 has a lot of heart, which one couldn’t really say about Peabody (it’s more sincere elements feel grafted on, and largely unnecessary). Peabody, however, is witty, inventive and pacey, abounding with sight gags and clever asides while offering a time travel plotline that doesn’t talk down to its family audience.

I haven’t seen the The Rocky & Bullwinkle Show, from which Mr. Peabody & Sh…

Ah yes, the legendary 007 wit, or at least half of it.

The World is Not Enough (1999)
(SPOILERS) The last Bond film of the 20th century unfortunately continues the downward trend of the Brosnan era, which had looked so promising after the reinvigorated approach to Goldeneye. The World is Not Enough’s screenplay posseses a number of strong elements (from the now ever present Robert Wade and Neal Purvis, and a sophomore Bruce Feirstein), some of which have been recycled in the Craig era, but they’ve been mashed together with ill-fitting standard Bond tropes that puncture any would-be substance (Bond’s last line before the new millennium is one Roger Moore would have relished). And while a structure that stop-starts doesn’t help the overall momentum any, nor does the listlessness of drama director Michael Apted, such that when the sporadic bursts of action do arrive there’s no disguising the joins between first and second unit, any prospect of thrills evidently unsalvageable in the edit.

Taking its cues from the curtailed media satire of Tomorr…

I know what I'm gonna do tomorrow, and the next day, and the next year, and the year after that.

It’s a Wonderful Life (1946)
It’s a Wonderful Life is an unassailable classic, held up as an embodiment of true spirit of Christmas and a testament to all that is good and decent and indomitable in humanity. It deserves its status, even awash with unabashed sentimentality that, for once, actually seems fitting. But, with the reams of plaudits aimed at Frank Capra’s most enduring film, it is also worth playing devil’s advocate for a moment or two. One can construe a number of not nearly so life-affirming undercurrents lurking within it, both intentional and unintentional on the part of its director. And what better time to Grinch-up such a picture than when bathed in the warmth of a yuletide glow?

The film was famously not a financial success on initial release, as is the case with a number of now hallowed movies, its reputation burgeoning during television screenings throughout the 1970s. Nevertheless, It’s a Wonderful Life garnered a brace of Oscar nominations including Best Picture and…

He’d been clawed to death, as though by some bird. Some huge, obscene bird.

The Avengers 5.6: The Winged Avenger
Maybe I’m just easily amused, such that a little Patrick Macnee uttering “Ee-urp!” goes a long way, but I’m a huge fan of The Winged Avenger. It’s both a very silly episode and about as meta as the show gets, and one in which writer Richard Harris (1.3: Square Root of Evil, 1.10: Hunt the Man Down) succeeds in casting a wide net of suspects but effectively keeps the responsible party’s identity a secret until late in the game.

Dude, you're embarrassing me in front of the wizards.

Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
(SPOILERS) The cliffhanger sequel, as a phenomenon, is a relatively recent thing. Sure, we kind of saw it with The Empire Strikes Back – one of those "old" movies Peter Parker is so fond of – a consequence of George Lucas deliberately borrowing from the Republic serials of old, but he had no guarantee of being able to complete his trilogy; it was really Back to the Future that began the trend, and promptly drew a line under it for another decade. In more recent years, really starting with The MatrixThe Lord of the Rings stands apart as, post-Weinstein's involvement, fashioned that way from the ground up – shooting the second and third instalments back-to-back has become a thing, both more cost effective and ensuring audiences don’t have to endure an interminable wait for their anticipation to be sated. The flipside of not taking this path is an Allegiant, where greed gets the better of a studio (split a novel into two movie parts assuming a…

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …

Dirty is exactly why you're here.

Sicario 2: Soldado aka Sicario: Day of the Soldado (2018)
(SPOILERS) I wasn't among the multitude greeting the first Sicario with rapturous applause. It felt like a classic case of average material significantly lifted by the diligence of its director (and cinematographer and composer), but ultimately not all that. Any illusions that this gritty, violent, tale of cynicism and corruption – all generally signifiers of "realism" – in waging the War on Drugs had a degree of credibility well and truly went out the window when we learned that Benicio del Toro's character Alejandro Gillick wasn't just an unstoppable kickass ninja hitman; he was a grieving ex-lawyer turned unstoppable kickass ninja hitman. Sicario 2: Soldadograzes on further difficult-to-digest conceits, so in that respect is consistent, and – ironically – in some respects fares better than its predecessor through being more thoroughly genre-soaked and so avoiding the false doctrine of "revealing" …

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.