In Review: Life of Pi

Directed By: Ang Lee

Stars: Suraj Sharma, Irfan Khan, Rafe Spall

What I Liked

Ang Lee's visual poetry is spot-on, a pretty straight out adaptation that respected its source material

What I Disliked

Some magic was lost in the translation and the film felt hurried, providing symbolism but not fully fleshing them out

Gist

Ang Lee's adaptation of Life of Pi is visually spot-on, and his choice of narrative fits the material perfectly. It can't be helped, though, that some poetry was lost in translation. The film has a spirit and an emotional pull but not one as intense as its source material.

Piscine Molitar "Pi" Patel is son to a zoo owner. He is named after the "best" public swimming pool his Uncle has swam on in France. When Pi reached his 16th birthday, India found itself in a political turmoil, and his father decides to sell the zoo animals to North American zoos and move permanently to Canada to ensure their future. On board the cargo ship Tsimtsum, they sailed through the Pacific with all the zoo animals on board. But things go wrong when a storm in the sea caused the Tsimtsum to sink. Pi, awake during the storm, managed to escape death and soon finds himself on a raft in the middle of the Pacific Ocean in the company of an adult Bengal Tiger.

***This review does not contain spoilers, but may affect your experience of the film***

In 2002, writer Yann Martel won a Man Booker Prize Award for the book on which the film is based on. Before getting published, his manuscript was rejected by at least 5 publishers. Subsequently, the tiger in the book is called Richard Parker, a play on the coincidence that the name "Richard Parker" often appearing in several shipwreck stories. The source material isn't as unfilmable as some may think (Cloud Atlas is more unfilmable, actually, owing perhaps to length). Ang Lee's adaptation was pretty spot on, except that he didn't go into excruciating detail of Pi's hardships in the sea--which could've given the movie a deeper emotional tug. Not that the film skimped on the emotional beatings, but the book was more punishing and stressful to the reader.

The actors that played Pi did well, particularly Sharma, whose performance was central to the film. His is the human voice that put things into perspective: the guide to the journey and our connection the film and the trials at sea. In my book though, Sharma plays second fiddle to a domineering CGI tiger in terms of importance to the movie. Life of Pi, the book, is full of symbolism, and if you read through them, you'd see that the sea represents a difficult journey or life itself, the boat represents our limited resources, reaching civilization is our destiny, and the tiger is our inner struggle that we need to control as well as our will to survive--in short, the tiger is our spirit. This pretty much worked the same way in the film. Richard Parker, though made of CGI, is the movie's spirit. He is the life and the propeller of Pi as well as the story. The CGI work was done so well that you will forget that Richard Parker is nothing more than 3D modelling with fur. It is quite impossible to not fall in love with and be frightened of the magnificent Richard Parker. Pi's struggle with Richard Parker is so affecting that it will stress you and compel you to rejoice with him when he trains him. And that would not have been possible if Richard Parker wasn't as lifelike as in the film.

And since we're on the topic of CGI, majority of the film is strongly in CGI, thus I entreaty everyone who will be watching this to watch this in 3D. The film will possibly lose some value if seen in 2D. It's just more beautiful when everything pops. Scenes like the fish, the sunsets, the storm, and the like would stun you. A major kudos to Ang Lee's vision of bringing the story with such picturesque execution.

Ang Lee's adaptation of Life of Pi is so visually spot-on, and his choice of narrative is perfect for that approach. It can't be helped, though, that this approach loses some poetry in its translation. The film has a spirit and an emotional pull but not one as intense as its source material. Life of Pi's emotional pull is that it's a story people can relate to in a sense that we all have struggles. The struggles were pretty short-lived in the film, not fully capitalizing on their effects on its audience.

***The succeeding part may contain spoilers, but I tried my best to keep it clean***

The biggest complaint I can give perhaps is how Ang Lee did the meerkat island (you saw this on the trailer, technically not a spoiler). In the book, Pi spends weeks in the island, developing a deeper relationship and understanding (or fear) of Richard Parker as the tiger was nourished back to full health. In the movie, he spends a day and a night before setting sail again. The meerkat island represents the comfortable endings that we settle for in exchange of fulfilling our destiny--Pi admits that he would've wanted to stay in the island for as long as he can. The book describes the meerkats in the island as oblivious to the danger of predators so much so that they accept their fate as Richard Parker's dinner wholeheartedly. The meerkats represent the people who have accepted these comfortable endings as a way of life that when problems (or dangers) happen, they are easily overcome. My problem with that is that Ang Lee did not fully flesh out that symbolism. It was an important symbolism and a missed opportunity.

But still, Lee stands as one of the most poetic directors and his mistakes are forgivable if you haven't read the book and relate to it in a manner that you wouldn't in the movie. The struggles are still intense, picturesque even, conjuring a spirit of humanity that would speak to its audience.

Judgment: I'm still sad over the poetry and symbolism that Ang Lee didn't fully capitalize on. I wouldn't mind spending another hour in the theatre if those were fleshed out properly. But I guess majority would prefer the film as it is. I am torn because I loved what I saw but I wanted more out of it.But still, they are pretty intense and the visuals conjure a certain sense of spirit that would speak to you. My recommendation is that if you are to watch this film, you best pay for 3D. 4 out of 5 stars.

For this movie, I'm willing to pay: 250 to 300 PHP, but only if in 3D.