Actually, neither story is true. And you know why ?
... because it's a M.O.V.I.E.
shareYes, it's a movie, what a great excuse not to think about it at all.
shareI mean, there's more to it than my truism.
This is what Pi's final question means : which story do you prefer ?
As a movie-goer ?
Who cares if the tiger story is wrong ?
The point is just to have a good time, dream, hope. Get back to infancy.
Who would have liked, or even, stood the sight of a story involving cannibalism ?
This is the question this film asks : why do you go to the movies, at the end of the day ?
"This is the question this film asks : why do you go to the movies, at the end of the day ?"
Movie is the highest art form that human can reach so far. It will add "smell" sense to it one day :-) Can you smell of the island in the movie?
At the Oscar, did Ang Lee say 'Thank you, Movie God'?
It's funny you mention that. I have a memory of attending some kind of alternative cinema event as a child and part of the event was they gave out little cards with scratch panels. Beneath each scratch panel was a unique smell and they would give cues during the movie (or whatever it was, can't remember properly) to let the audience know when they should scratch the panel and have a sniff.
As the evolution of our brain goes on, some sense will fade away and new one be created. We created temple architecture to create a spiritual sense/feeling The 3D movie is the latest one.
Wasn't that Waters' "Polyester," which included the scratch n' sniff handouts (dubbed "Smell-o-Vision, if memory serves)?
shareI also remember! Polyester (John Waters, 1981, with Divine and Tab Hunter) started out with the scent of roses. Successive fragrances were: Flatulence, Model Airplane Glue, Pizza, Gasoline, Skunk, Natural Gas and Dirty Shoes/socks. In all there were ten scents featured, and according to Wikipedia the producer made a last minute decision to replace the Glue Sniffing element for something else as it was deemed 'politically incorrect'.
The technique of sniffing cards was initially developed & used by William Castle for his 1960 movie Scent Of Mystery and after him no other filmmaker featured it until Waters came along and revived it for Polyester. He used his Odorama only once. Fortunately, whenever there's a John Waters Festival that includes Polyester, the cards are reprinted.
It depends on your perspective.
You can have a preference for one story, and still believe the other story is the true one. They're not mutually exclusive.
Just like how you can prefer God (as a Christian), and still believe in science (physics, chemistry, etc).
In a sense like how people still to believe in a vague notion of "luck", even if they are scientists or mathematicians or businessmen.
Sure, but then again, all I'm saying is : why care which story is the true one ?
I believe that's one of the questions asked by the movie.
Of course it's interesting to keep guessing about that, but that makes you miss out on what is more important.
It's weird because we're approaching the question from multiple angles. And unless we understand and agree to one another's ground rules, there will be all sorts of logical conundrums at play.
- I accept it is a movie and completely fictional.
- However, I see the movie universe as exactly the same as ours in terms of the laws of physics, possibilities, etc. Eg. people don't fly and animals don't talk and so on.
- Much of the movie is taking place within Pi's personal account of his time on the lifeboat. It is from this sanitized account that most of the unlikely visuals are derived from (the ridiculously placid ocean, the island, etc)
- When I "care about which story is true", it is the basis from which I personally choose to approach the movie. I understand the point Yann Martel is trying to make, that religion was never about absolute truth, but about the faith that carries us through our darkest hours.
- That may sound petty and insignificant to those for whom missing the bus qualifies as having a bad day, but believing there is a greater power watching over us allows the billions of disadvantaged - the destitute, the starving, the oppressed, the disabled, the sick, etc - to entertain a modicum of hope.
Between choosing to live in a harsh, merciless reality and one where great things are promised to those who live with morals and generosity, which would YOU choose?
When I "care about which story is true", it is the basis from which I personally choose to approach the movie. I understand the point Yann Martel is trying to make, that religion was never about absolute truth, but about the faith that carries us through our darkest hours.
Well, that's part of "what religion was [is] . . . about," but somebody gets it.
That is the most intelligent, thoughtful comment I've seen on here in a while . . . well put. I especially like ". . . those for whom missing the bus qualifies as having a bad day," which crowd will most likely NOT "get" this story. Although, I think "logical conundrums" were a big part of what Martel (and Lee) were playing with here. "Which story is true" is NOT the point. (Just FYI, commas and periods almost always go INSIDE quotation marks, and the correct usage of Eg. is ,[comma]lower-case e.[period]lower-case g.[period],[comma] followed by an example of your point. I know what you're thinking, but hey . . . somebody had to tell me at some point as well).
As for the movie itself, I was very impressed by the visual effects "art" created by this team, e.g., the "flying fish sequence," where they cropped the picture, and some of the fish actually moved outside the main picture into the "black bars" at the top and bottom of the screen. They were excited to get the chance to create something other than aliens, dinosaurs, and monsters, and it shows - right from the opening credits sequence (and Oscar-winning music).
It was a beautiful visual/aural experience, and that alone made it worth $5 to me. Mr. Lee has made his share of "darkness (and beauty) of the human spirit" movies. I think he's earned the right to a bit of "beauty-for-beauty's-sake." If you haven't already, watch the "Making of" section of the disc's special features, and you will be even more amazed.
As for the story, I was with them on this meta-journey until the magical, carnivorous, floating, meerkat island (i.e., "Vishnu sleeping on the cosmic ocean"). At that point, it crossed the line into metaphor overkill (As Kirk said to Bones in "Star Trek," "Enough with the metaphors - give it a rest . . . and that's an order." One can only take so much metaphysical mysticism at a time before thinking, "Oh, brother . . . what is this, Philosophy 101?"
But overall, I give it an A-; as for the beautiful visuals, music, and the remarkable performance of the young (non-actor) man (can't remember his name this second), A++. share
This is very similar to the core message of Inception. Spoilers for Inception below:
Everybody lost their minds at the ending of Inception about whether or not the top fell. But the point of the movie is not whether or not it fell, it's the fact that Cobb walked away from it to be with his kids. He no longer cared whether or not he was living in reality. Since one popular theory exists that Inception is a metaphor for filmmaking, this message applies to movies also: do you prefer the reality of real life, or the fantasy of movies?
I mean, there's more to it than my truism.
This is what Pi's final question means : which story do you prefer ?
As a movie-goer ?
Who cares if the tiger story is wrong ?
It might not matter in a movie, but in real life humans can burn people in ovens, tell themselves a good story about why it was the right thing to do, and go home and celebrate Christmas with their families.
Happens all the time. share
It might not matter in a movie, but in real life humans can burn people in ovens, tell themselves a good story about why it was the right thing to do, and go home and celebrate Christmas with their families.
Happens all the time.
It doesn't happen all the time. 70 years ago it happened to millions and we are still talking about it.
Individual acts of atrocity do still exist as well as larger scale events, on occasion. But again, they are rare enough that we don't usually encounter them directly. We have to see it on the news. share
You are right. It does not happen all the time on that scale, but it happens all the time on any scale.
shareYou are right. It does not happen all the time on that scale, but it happens all the time on any scale.
Perhaps you are implying that such atrocities define us as human beings.
I disagree. If we look at all 7 billion people on planet earth, the vast majority of people do not commit atrocities. In fact, we humans have a significant number who are dedicated to reducing and stopping atrocities.
No other species on the planet can say that. We have some things to be ashamed of but we have much more to be proud of. share
I was not actually referring to atrocities. I was referring to what we may call sins, like adultery, murder, violence, stealing, etc.— smaller scale stuff. Most of the time, sins stay small; occasionally they blow up to a huge scale.
Yet the principle is the same; one adjusts reality in order to silence the conscience about the unloving act that is being committed.
It's the only way we can do things that ought not to be done and still live with ourselves. The story of Pi is an extreme but great illustration of it.
I was not actually referring to atrocities. I was referring to what we may call sins, like adultery, murder, violence, stealing, etc.— smaller scale stuff. Most of the time, sins stay small; occasionally they blow up to a huge scale.
Yet the principle is the same; one adjusts reality in order to silence the conscience about the unloving act that is being committed.
Ah I see. In that case, your indictment is for the entire human race. We are all guilty.
On the other hand, I think my principle still applies. What other species on the planet has a conscience which sometimes forces them to alter their perception of reality?
It's the only way we can do things that ought not to be done and still live with ourselves. The story of Pi is an extreme but great illustration of it.
I will only disagree in part. The principle is the same but...
I think Life Of Pi is about adjusting reality so he can do things he MUST do (to survive).
Some might argue that cannibalism is so horrible it would be better to die than participate in it. But given Pi's happy family that we see in the end, I think the argument is that Pi's survival should be seen as a good thing.
(I would say for myself, that I think I would do cannibalism to survive. But only if they were already dead. I would rather die than actually kill someone else for food. There are other acts I would also rather die than do (like "Sophie's Choice"). share
Strictly speaking, though, Pi does not have to practice cannibalism. It is true that survival is the strongest human instinct, but our conscience is there to tell us that there are things that are more important than pure survival.
In Pi's case, since the people were already dead, his act of cannibalism is not as bad as it would have been if he had killed to survive. In fact, most would say that it's not bad at all. I wouldn't judge him on that (except, I would not eat my mother. I'd rather die. Did he eat his mother? I saw the movie some time ago and don't remember).
The point is that our culture strongly condemns cannibalism, and his mind had to come up with a coping mechanism that would make him accept his actions.
Which story do you prefer? To me that was the whole point of this film as well, not to split hairs about which version is "right" and which is "wrong". The same can be said for religion on other posts connected to this film: why make people feel their religion is somehow inferior to another? The art of story telling gives us meaning, pleasure, a sense that our lives matter, and that whatever story one believes in the end is a truly personal decision. Good question you asked at the end: why do we go to the movies? I think we all want to believe in something that gives meaning to our lives.
share