Now that the dust has settled

dude totally ate his whole family, right?

Not his family, but yeah.
All the animals represented survivors

WE

Please
Accept the mystery

WUZ

>"I can make you believe in God my bradda. Let me tell you story of India."
>tells a story about killing people after his family died on a boat. Richard Parker
>"So, they represented different people on the boat."
>"And so it is with God, poo in loo."
>*interviewer smiles knowingling and nods*

I'm a pretty devout Catholic but damn dude. That's not going to make anyone believe in God.

But if he was stuck on the boat, where did he poo?

In the biggest street of them all

Is the most pretentious film he's ever done?

yes

How was it pretentious? You just sound cynical.

*inhales* GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD did it

Yes, the Hyena is the ships cook, the zebra a sailor, and the orangutan is his mother.

The cook amputates the sailor's leg for use as fishing bait, then kills the sailor himself as well as Pi's mother for food, and soon he is killed by Pi, who dines on him.

He just ate his mother.

No, I was right. You're just cynical.

Yeah

The movie, just like the book, is more of a metaphor for his survival experience. Richard is basically him and his raw survival instinct. The movie connects it more to religion because it's implying that religion, just like Pi's story, is more of a metaphor than a literal retelling

>The carnivourous Island represented his guilt over eating his mother and the cook and thoughts of suicide

I liked the movie, but I didn't get the point of making everyone Indian. They could have been African, or British it had nothing to do with the movie apart from where the ship set out from.

People are Indian because the author of the book was Indian

What kind of Indian? Feather or Pooinloo?

>No one can make a dull film like Ang Lee can. His newLife of Pidoesn't settle for being a 3D extravaganza. At a reported cost of $70 million and three years in production, it is intended to combine philosophical rumination with a tent-pole thrill ride. So soon afterHugo, another presumptuous art-house folly, this one from the book by Yann Martel is titled for a young Indian boy named after the French word for swimming pool, "piscine." Typical of Ang Lee, the name is also meant to suggest highbrow mathematical contemplation as teenage Pi (played by Suraj Sharma) naively embraces all the world's religious beliefs. His youthful optimism gets tested when his family is shipwrecked during a storm in the South Pacific and he is stranded on a lifeboat with a Bengal tiger. Pi is hardly challenged by variations of human behavior, which should be the basis of philosophical pondering and introspection. Instead, Lee treats Pi's childhood taunts and romance blithely-like trite imitation of Wes Anderson eccentricities. But once Pi's adventures get going, Lee designed the film as a series of large-scale, digital images, perhaps to entail the wonders of nature and the cosmos. Lee's literalized 3D compositions (often melding sea and sky) are both overwrought and underwhelming.

>Too much digital technology negates God's miracles. Pi rejects his father's advice, "Religion is darkness. Don't go through life accepting blindly. Begin with thinking rationally." But Lee seems to accept that pragmatism through his rational approach to 3D spectacle. In order for the film's premise to work, it needs the inspiration of a true cinematic artist, not someone literally popularizing a prize-winning book. Lee is ambitious (look at his far-flung filmography-the gallimaufry of a middlebrow who subscribes to theNew York Review of Books) yet he is also far too cautious to exult in cinematic phenomena.

>Life of Piis a movie for those people-and there are many-who don't appreciate the style of visionaries such as Bernardo Bertolucci, John Boorman, Brian DePalma, Leos Carax, Jean-Pierre Jeunet, Paul W.S. Anderson, Chen Kaige, Zhang Yimou, John Moore, Olivier Megaton, Wes Anderson, Steven Spielberg and Wong Kar Wai. How else to explain the unjust dismissal of Bertolucci's magnificent 1994Little Buddha, which combined the modern search for faith with the historical marvel of Buddha's enlightenment? When Bertolucci's contemporary 35mm scenes shifted to 65mm for the ceremonial splendor of the period flashbacks, the transition in detail, grandeur and luxe could make a viewer gasp-and grasp the essential richness of faith. InLife of Pi, Lee's prosaic approach to the boy's adventures from Titanic-style storm to a floating island of meerkats exposes his basic uncinematic nature. He's such an innately dull storyteller that he ends the film with a monologue where middle-aged Pi (played by Irrfan Khan) asks, "Which story do you prefer?" I'd prefer the shorter one we never got to see.

I always thought the point was that though there are different ways to interpret events, the outcome is the same regardless.

Pi is extremely religious so he chooses to believe that the fantastical events of the journey occurred even if it was in all likelihood the product of fever dreams and shit. The straitlaced Japanese folk can't believe that version so Pi gives him a more grounded version, which to him is usually more gruesome or hopeless.

I suppose, but you could ask that about any movie. Why did Finding Nemo take place off the coast of Australia? There were plenty of other places in the world it could have been set. When you start obsessing over stuff like that, you become no different than the SJWs who obsess over why certain superheroes are white or male rather than black or female.

>I didn't get the point of making everyone Indian

Could be a number of reasons. The author needed a location where his protag could be exposed to a variety of somewhat-compatible religions he'd take up with, for one.

I was sad when the tiger left.