I happened to watch Life of Pi on the first day it was released, which was just a chance happening. We went to see Skyfall and noticed that Life of Pi was playing in the same multiplex and decided to watch that instead. I am really glad we did that for on a scale of 1 to 4, I would certainly rate Life of Pi above 3.14159…….
As the previews of upcoming Hollywood movies gave way to
the feature film, the lilting song Kanne Kanmaniye made my
heart skip a beat. Hearing our mother tongue on an American screen still has a
special allure for me. The song was composed and rendered very
soulfully by Bombay Jayashree. From that point on, until the end of the
movie, I was sitting on the edge of my seat, fully absorbed in the movie. The
3-D version made me feel like I was there as part of the story. I highly
recommend the 3-D version, if you have a choice.
I read the book soon after it bagged the Man Booker award
and hence I do not remember the details. But, I can say with reasonable
confidence that the movie was true to the story. Usually, I do not like movies
made out of good books because the movie marginalizes the level to which one communes
with characters and situations. (Gone with the wind was one exception for I
loved the movie almost as much as I loved the book.)
Life of Pi is a
classic example of how a movie can exploit dimensions that are orthogonal to
the experience of reading a book. While reading the book, I imagined I was Pi
(or at least with Pi), stranded on the sea, with only Richard Parker, the
hungry tiger as companion. The three days I took to finish the book, the book
occupied my mind and I agonized over what might happen in the next chapter. I
I followed the journey of Pi's spiritual evolution through these 227 days
on the sea. The movie on the other hand, unraveled other dimensions - brilliant
direction, amazing visuals, and excellent acting. The director made incredible
situations look remarkably life-like. With CG technology, they made a tiger not
only look realistic, but I even felt that we could read his emotions and
thoughts! The way they made him move, quaver, bounce and pounce was
simply mind-boggling. The director Ang Lee took care to show
the tiger grow skinnier under that loose skin as days passed by, just as Pi's
hair kept growing longer and his skin more sun-tanned with the sun and salty
sea spray.
As for acting, I felt Suraj Sharma fit the bill very well
and his debut performance was quite praise-worthy. Though Irrfan delivered his
piece with his usual aplomb, I felt he did not have much of an opportunity in
this movie to show his brilliance and hence I failed to understand why the
critics said it was an Oscar-worthy performance. Likewise, Tabu had very little
chance to show her thespianism.
Now, coming to the sociological aspects of the book – I
was a bit flummoxed by a Patel family talking in Tamil in their home. Granted,
they were living in Tamilnadu. But, their talking in Tamil was not natural and
needed some kind of explanation, which I do not recall from the book. Indian
culture is complex and multi-layered that not even Indians can pretend to
understand it fully. But, the association of surnames with the state that
people belong to – many Indians are adept at, and a little more research by
Yann Martel would have corrected this fallacy. Also, I was confused about
whether Yann believed that all Indians are vegetarians (like many in the US
believe) or was he trying to show that this was a Brahmin family (reading
Krishna's story at bedtime etc.). If so, Brahmins in the 70s were very
unlikely to be zookeepers, another incongruency that would have done well with
some explanation.
But, all in all, I would say that Life of Pi is a must
watch movie. Here is a trailer to pique your interest.
