Directed by: Ang Lee
Starring: Suraj Sharma, Irrfan Khan, Rafe Spall
Rating PG, 127 minutes
Suraj Sharma is the young Pi Patel in “Life of Pi.” (Courtesy photo)
“Life of Pi” is a unique movie. It’s an adaptation of a book many thought unfilmable; it’s a terrific advancement of 3D capabilities; it’s a spiritual journey with a perfectly non-preachy resolution; and, most significantly, it’s a testament to the ability movies have to deliver profound messages in visually impressive ways.
Based on the Booker prize-winning novel, “Life of Pi” recounts the adventures of Pi Patel, an Indian boy who emerges the sole survivor of a shipwreck in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, only to find himself alone with an adult Bengal tiger in his lifeboat. In the present day, an unnamed Canadian writer (Rafe Spall, “Prometheus”) talks to adult Pi (Irrfan Khan, “Slumdog Millionaire”) about the experience, which Pi deftly narrates.
Young Pi (Suraj Sharma) is a religious scholar in the making. He follows three religions, worships every god he comes across, and has no reservations even when others call him out for such oddities. His parents, meanwhile, are the proprietors of a zoo, so Pi also has a special connection to animals.
Due to economic worries, the Patels ship off to Canada, hoping to start a new life there. But the ship sinks in a terrible storm, and the zoo animals end up scattered about, including some that end up in the lifeboat with Pi—most notably Richard Parker, an insatiably carnivorous tiger. Pi manages to keep his wits about him, knowing that failure to do so would mean his death.
Faced with this ordeal, he must make do. He learns to fish, he manages to train Richard Parker a little bit, he “sets his house in order.” Eventually, it even seems as if there could be a deeper connection between Richard Parker and Pi, something transcending species, but such things are never certain.
And then Pi reaches land, putting an end to the adventure. When rescuers find Pi lying all alone on the ground, the question becomes, who’s going to believe his incredible story?
This last question is asked to terrific effect in “Life of Pi,” and it is, I think, where the heart of the movie lies. At once a simple allegory and an intricate fable, the movie lets the viewer decide what the point is. It could be seen as a movie about survival, or even as a movie about self-discovery, but to call it such is, I think, an understatement. It’s about the innate desire to explain the world we live in, and how everyone’s explanation holds water in some way.
That Ang Lee (“Brokeback Mountain”) tells this story through cinema is a meaningful choice in and of itself, and his attention to detail makes it a pleasure to watch. Designed beautifully, with sharp visual effects, and paired with a beautiful score, the movie is quite the technical feat. Additionally, I saw this movie in 2D, but the experience would have been much different—and perhaps much better—in 3D. This marks the first time I’ve ever said such a thing about a movie, because up until now the only effect 3D had on movies was to increase the ticket price. But when so much of the story’s message rests on the way it is told visually, the use of 3D is apt.
All of this makes the utter blandness of the dialogue and characters a real shame. The necessary framing of the story—the writer’s interview with adult Pi in modern Canada—could have used a good deal more subtlety and liveliness. Rafe Spall is as dull as they come, and Irrfan Khan isn’t much better. Suraj Sharma is a solid lead, and deserves recognition as such, but most scenes outside the lifeboat are plagued by stagnant, boring conversations between stagnant, boring characters.
But this is only a minor error, given the nature of the movie. “Life of Pi” is very nearly a masterpiece, a pleasure for the eyes and a vehicle for an interesting philosophical question. The unfilmable novel works so well as a film precisely because it is about telling stories in different ways. Ang Lee chose 3D to make this story come to life, and the result is magnificent. I wonder, then, if and how 3D will change from here on out. At any rate, any remaining 3D naysayers ought to go see just how well the technology can be used.
Danny Eisenberg is a 2010 graduate of the Bromfield School and is currently a student at the University of Pennsylvania.
