LIFE OF PI (Ang Lee 2012)

[Chris Knipp]

Wed, Nov. 21, 2012: Two big movies release in the US today (pre-Thankksgiving) : Ang Lee's LIFE OF PI and Joe Wright's ANNA KARENINA. Reviews already highly favor LIFE OF PI. Metacritic rating: 83. ANNA KARENINA good but relatively minor. Metacritic: 64. Below is my NYFF LIFE OF PI review which originally appeared in the Festival Coverage section. I'll report on ANNA KARENINA shortly. The screenplay is by Tom Stoppard (BRAZIL, EMPIRE OF THE SUN, SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE) and it's already been published in book form. But Joe Wright made a bold major change to the script that Stoppard explains here.


SURAJ SHARMA IN LIFE OF PI WITH THE DIGITAL "RICHARD PARKER," THE BENGAL TIGER

ANG LEE: LIFE OF PI (2012)

Ang Lee films an unfilmable book, and does a pretty bang-up job of it

Ang Lee's film adaptation of Yann Martel's 2001 Booker-Prize-winning sea adventure of an Indian boy and a Bengal tiger is a winning combination of the narrative and the visual. Thanks to Suraj Sharma, the young actor who plays the oddly named Pi during the key period of his 227-day ordeal in a lifeboat, and to state-of-the-art CGI that makes a hyena, a zebra, a baboon and the tiger come to vivid life in 3D as they duke it out in the confines of the boat, this Life of Pi is a stunning experience. If it has shortcomings, they are those of the book. Despite the terror and the beauty, not to mention the considerable wit and invention, something is emotionally lacking. An initial description of the father's zoo in French Ponticherry, India and the boy's swimming lessons and spiritual explorations -- he is a hindu, but also joins the Catholic church and becomes a practicing Muslim -- sets things up and conceivably makes the long Jobian torment on the water seem like a testing of the soul. But that's an idea, not a passion or a spiritual truth. This inner shortcoming may not matter to many in the audience, because as in Crouching Tiger (this tiger does a lot more than crouch), Ang Lee provides stunning eye candy and lots of excitement too. Do we ever think Pi isn't going to make it? I don't think so. But Sharma, who carries off his long period on screen with flying colors, is being spoken of for an Oscar nomination. Dev Patel has a rival, one with more soul and warmth if less of a comedic edge, and a similar sports and martial arts background.

What is Life of Pi ultimately about? The frame story in which the mature Pi relates his experience to a writer in Canada seeking material (Rafe Spall is the writer, Irfan Khan the older Pi) tells us that he now teaches religion and philosophy. The focus returns to him when he describes how Richard Parker (the Bengal tiger's name), once they finally reach land on the coast of Mexico, simply walks off along the beach and disappears into the woods. Pi desperately wanted some closure, after that long time together. When he recounts this meaningless parting he weeps. He began terrified of Richard Parker, then managed, if not to tame, at least to train, him, so he didn't get killed, and finally, exhausted and starving together, they almost became loving companions.

I think the tiger is Pi's key to survival. Maybe the struggle with the tiger kept the struggle with hunger and the elements from being overwhelming. Ultimately Richard Parker was company: strange company, but he kept Pi from being alone. Or maybe Pi is the tiger, or the tiger is the inner demon in himself that Pi must tame (or train). There are hints -- stronger in the film than in the book, I think -- that all this may be invention. And then the animals in the boat may have an allegorical meaning, while the story becomes a study in the meaning of narrative itself. But this may be asking a bit much of a film that's so pretty and ultimately so light, adapted from a book that is so focused on physical events.

It's a good story. It's an old-fashioned story. In a way it's like Robinson Crusoe -- only without the island and without Friday, which takes away a lot, but adds novel creatures as well as natural phenomena which the film also stunningly recreates. Ang Lee's movie is a pleasure. But ultimately I'm not sure that it matters. However, though you never know how it will turn out when the selection is first made, it seems like a good choice for the New York Fim Festival's opening night premiere film, which it is -- well calculated to appeal to patrons who are not film buffs but might respond to an original tale beautifully told.

On the other hand, like Flight and Hyde Park on Hudson, two other selections, Life of Pi doesn't seem like the kind of film you need to include in an "elite" and "highly selective" event like the New York Film Festival, (whose Main Slate is honed down to only 33 films). But economic and box office reality mean that you need something that won't put off those patrons, and you need to sell tickets. Life of Pi is likely to sell plenty of tickets when it's released, as well.

The cinematography is pretty, but the music by Mychael Danna; is conventional. The screen adaptation by David Magee (of Finding Neverland) captures a lot of the book, but minus the grittier and more harrowing or grotesque details that would take us as deep into the ordeal as Martel does. Rafe Spall is probably a less interesting presence than Tobey McGuire, who was originally going to be the writer. For that matter Irfan Khan is not as winning as his younger avatars, and the narrative sessions between Khan and Spall are somewhat clunky and obtrusive. Ayush Tandon, on the other hand, is very appealing as the young Pi who first takes on the world's major religions. Gérard Depardieu seems wasted as the oily and repugnant ship's cook: one can't help feeling some of his footage wound up on the cutting room floor.

But to compensate for any shortcomings in detail or superficiality in the story, Lee provides virtuoso displays of old-fashioned cinematic skill embellished with state-of-the-art techniques, the CGI augmented by the use of the world's largest self-generating wave tank, where the smoothly circling camera builds astounding images of the shipwreck and the lifeboat at sea, with Sharma going through heroic and convcincing changes of weight and appearance and emotion in the course of Pi's shattering but triumphant ordeal.

Screened for this review (in 3D) with an audience of press and industry and a Q&A afterward featuring Ang Lee and cast and crew memberrs, as part of the New York Film Festival at Lincoln Center, in which as mentioned it was the opening night film, and premiered, on September 28, 2012. It showed at Mill Valley Oct. 14. French release of Life of Pi (as L'Odyssée de Pi) is Dec. 19; and in the UK, the day is Dec. 21. The US theatrical release date (Fox) is Nov. 21.

[tabuno]

I read through Chris's commentary on this movie and I am more confused and puzzled by the tone of the commentary and the contradictory statements it contained. By the end of Chris's review I found myself both more in doubt about what the overall assessment of this movie is. Chris has some harsh things and some great things to say about this movie and mysteriously ends up with what appears to be a glowing recommendation even though Chris also had much to criticize about this movie. In short, Chris's commentary almost needs to have a meta-evaluation of the movie itself that discusses how one can actually arrive at any ultimate judgment of this movie from all the leaden baggage of problems that Chris mentioned in his commentary.

[Chris Knipp]

You keep saying this about a lot of my reviews lately. But how difficult is it to grasp where my review ultimately leads when it begins like this?

Ang Lee's film adaptation of Yann Martel's 2001 Booker-Prize-winning sea adventure of an Indian boy and a Bengal tiger is a winning combination of the narrative and the visual. Thanks to Suraj Sharma, the young actor who plays the oddly named Pi during the key period of his 227-day ordeal in a lifeboat, and to state-of-the-art CGI that makes a hyena, a zebra, a baboon and the tiger come to vivid life in 3D as they duke it out in the confines of the boat, this Life of Pi is a stunning experience. If it has shortcomings, they are those of the book.

What follows may add a little complexity to round out the picture of a film that has faults, but the evaluation is there, in the opening.

[cinemabon]

I just came from a 3D viewing with my wife and we were stunned by this film. Not only does it contain some of the most unique images I've ever seen in any film, but the framing, the color, the cutting, and the lighting bordered on the incomprehensible. When we see Pi, floating in the water, watching the ship sink, and along with it his parents - even as we watch his back, we can imagine his face. How clever of Ang not to show it. This ghostly figure, floating as this giant behemoth slinks into oblivion.

Then lost on a mirror like sea surrounded by glowing jelly fish with a myriad of twinkling stars overhead and the tiger, so serene, so ghostly... My wife is convinced it was all imagined. Perhaps. The clincher, of course, is the Japanese report which adds the touch of irony to the end of this amazing film. Moreso than "Cloud Atlas" I thought the consistancy of beauty (especially in 3D) that flowed throughout the movie lent itself to one continual image of art - a perfect example of film as art. I don't know where you would begin... the cinematography? Special Effects? Art Design? And what about the performance of Pi - both as the youth who had to prove his name or the older Pi, stranded on a raft; and finally the adult Pi who had the sell the story's climax with no effects, just his face at the end, sorrowful and reflective.

An outstanding work, highly recommended, Oscar-worthy

[tabuno]

Chris himself appears to gloss over his negative commentary about this film in his follow-up comments just as I myself feel strangely compelled to offer a more glowing emotive satisfaction to this movie despite a number of technical weaknesses in the movie.

Strangely, it seems that Chris and I have traded places when it comes to CGI-3D which Chris for a long time has had doubts about its value and importance to films in the past, while I have looked more optimistically with hope of this cinematic evolution. Yet with this film 3-D both captured some brilliant, amazing visual phenomenon, but at the same was distractingly and unable to fully capture some of the technological potential with several scenes being fuzzy, out of focus and obviously not enhancing the natural look of a number of scenes. Thus as for the technology used to produce the visuals in this movie, it was pretty much a wash overall for me.

While Chris highlights his opening commentary that this movie is "a winning combination of the narrative and the visual" by the end of this commentary he literally takes back this statement by stating "the narrative sessions between Khan and Spall are somewhat clunky and obtrusive" and of which I strongly agree. I found the use of the flashback quite unnecessary and distracting, having some of this information spoon fed for us instead having the opportunity to just experience the natural flow of events from the beginning and also allowing the more tense suspense to build about whether Pi would live or die, without having to see him in old age at the beginning of the film.

Chris also mentions that the movie is "minus the grittier and more harrowing or grotesque details that would take us as deep into the ordeal as Martel does" and while I'm not sure what Chris is referring to here, there are two physical scenes with animals in the movie which are deeply censored and avoid the grittier and more harrowing or grotesque details of animalistic devouring of flesh to which even young Pi was exposed to in one scene early on in the movie that are left out of this movie (perhaps for ratings and a bigger children attendance profit margin) but nevertheless at the same time leaving out what I considered vital visually powerful and disturbing scenes of nature and beast that would have only heightened the contrast between Pi and the Bengal tiger in later scenes.

Chris also observes that the movie "sets things up and conceivably makes the long Jobian torment on the water seem like a testing of the soul. But that's an idea, not a passion or a spiritual truth. This inner shortcoming may not matter to many in the audience" which again seems to be a criticism or weakness of this movie and one which I also experienced in its introducing an interesting fusion of religious diversity but apparently never expanding on this fascinating notion, like an underdeveloped theme that necessarily didn't need to be included if it wasn't going to lead much to anywhere.

Thus, Chris's commentary remains more confusing then illuminating, because it still attempts to remain something for everyone which in my mind it can't, because the bottom line is that somehow this mysterious movie as affected me perhaps like Chris, that regardless of its flaws, it somehow manages to keep returning to rise above its defects. But I shall admit it to here.

[tabuno]

I am glad that Chris's commentary and the Golden Globe nominations sparked me to reluctantly see this movie finally. Thanks, Chris, regardless of the movie's problems, it was well worth the trip and movie ticket to see. The trailer didn't help at all in motivating me to want to see the movie. It was your tantalizing commentary backed up by a major award consideration that I just couldn't refuse to take up the challenge.

[Chris Knipp]

I would prefer LIFE OF PI without 3D glasses really, but that's not how it was offered to the NYFF audience and it's still visually awesome at many points even in 3D. Some think more so; I don't. I've found most or many 3D movies are also shown in "2D." I tend to look for the non 3D showings when possible. But still slightly curious to see HOBBIT in 3D if that's what it is because said to be a new format.

You misunderstand me, my fault I guess, when you think my compliment on the winning combination of the narrative and the visual is contradicted by my negative comment on the frame narrative element provided by the grownup Pi and the writer. The wholeof LIFE OF PI is a narrative, that's also visual, and my compliment was to the whole movie. It's just the framing literal verbal narration and the appearances of Irfan Khan and Rafe Spall I don't much care for. The action on the boat is also narrative. Everything, if it's a story, is a narrative. And this is very much a story, as is the source book, which I've read. Some of the things you like or don't like are, of course, integral to the book as well.

As for the grittier part Ang Lee's version omits, just the day-to-day description of Pi's survival on the boat are very largely elided, of necessity because it's a long, detailed account. But omitting them makes it seem easier.

Nobody else has complained to me that my review of LIFE OF PI is confusing. I feel I'm doing my best to do just to all aspects of the movie, its virtues as well as its faults. It has both. Overall it's worth seeing and memorable for its unique story and visual splendor. I wouldn't put in on the same level as BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN but it's certainly not as chilly as LUST, CAUTION or as forgettable as TAKING WOODSTOCK. Lee's work tends to be a mixed bag and that's how I gave him to you. Sorry my review doesn't work for you, tabuno.

[tabuno]

When are most movies not narrative, about story? And the visuals? How much do they depend on spectacular, unusual, innovative visuals? Cloud Atlas for me really had all of that. Even Big Miracle based on a real globally inspired event was real. Mirror, Mirror fantasmagorical. So many movies can be a wonderful fusion of story and sight and even sound for that matter (Rock of Ages) or special effect sounds (The Dark Knight Rises).

Argo (2012).
Cloud Atlas (2012).
Moonrise Kingdom (2012).
Looper (2012).
The Dark Knight Rises (2012).
Big Miracle (2012).
Dark Shadows (2012).
Brave (2012).
Lincoln (2012).
Men In Black III (2012).
Mirror, Mirror (2012).
Odd Life of Timothy Green, The (2012).
Rock of Ages (2012).
Safe House (2012).

It seems to be most movies, even just decent ones are winning, but its those small problems that make most movies seem to have big cracks in them that ruin the whole movie, except perhaps for Life of Pi and Dark Knight Rises.

[tabuno]

It took me a night to begin to understand what Chris may be talking about when it comes to the interlocking, meshing of a story narrative and the visual as well as auditory dialogue brought to the big screen. It is because of Chris's immense wealth and dedication to absorbing and experiencing the more laborious task of reading source material, literature, that he has the wide-ranging perspective of the immensity of bringing the human imagination and the word to the movie screen. Unlike the Olympic scoring in figure skating, gymnastics, or diving, a difficulty score is never factored into a movie's ratings and as such the complexity and the greatest of the director, performances, and all the other technicalities that go on behind the scenes to make a movie look both wonderful and great while attempting to transport the written words into something an audience would experience is something often left on the cutting room floor.

[cinemabon]

I was unaware the significance to the name Richard Parker (the name of the tiger) until I came across this reference when doing research on cannibalism for the film, "Cloud Atlas." The story resolves around the famous case in England which became a landmark in law. Richard Parker was the name of the cabin boy chosen by those in the boat to be sacrificed for the good of the others. His death so incensed the British public that the murder trial of the survivors changed the way the law is interpreted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Dudley_and_Stephens

[Chris Knipp]

People have asked me how the tiger in my novel Life of Pi came to be called Richard Parker. I didn't just pull the name out of a hat. In fact, Richard Parker's name is the result of a triple coincidence.

There are three curiously related Richard Parkers, as the author of Life of Pi, Yann Martel, explains here. He had them all in mind. But certainly the murdered cabin boy is the key one.