Life of Pi

Yesterday I went to watch Life of Pi, in 3D nogals… The visual effects are spectacular.

The film is about a 16-year old boy named Piscine Molitor “Pi” Patel, who suffers a shipwreck in which his family dies, and is stranded in the Pacific Ocean on a lifeboat for 227 days with a Bengal tiger named Richard Parker. With some interesting religious, spiritual and theological themes (which are syncretistic however) coming through, I was quite captivated and not sorry that I went. Most of the crowd at the theater however seemed to be heading to the Hobbit and Skyfall shows.

And like Yann Martel’s book, on which the show is adapted and based, the movie certainly provokes the viewer into thinking about God, in a world that is made beautiful and given meaning by Him.

And so it is with God.


5 thoughts on “Life of Pi

  1. I saw The Hobbit last night and found it enchanting. Must admit I never read the book, though I did read The Lord of the Rings trilogy. I think the key is to make sure you sit far enough back from the screen, though I did have a few moments of sea sickness. It is long but I was not wishing it would end and while I do not care for battle scenes, they did not seem to go on forever and, well, killing orcs doesn’t arouse normal human sympathy! Never read Life of Pi and doubt I’ll go see the flick. Really enjoyed Skyfall and it seems Bond’s family were recusant Catholics!

    1. I suppose being in the middle of the theater was not far enough!

      As for the Hobbit- At least we can agree the battle scenes weren’t gratuitous. The first major battle scene sets up the sort of hardships and losses the Dwarves had to endure. That, coupled with their song makes one cry manly tears of sympathy.

      The pacing is questionable. There’s this one really static scene where leaders were discussing things leaders discuss. It shifts shots only twice and takes at least two to five minutes of talking with little action going on. This is different from the Gollum scene, where the long talking time is paired with actions and dialogue that elicit a feeling of urgency and being menaced. (Great work by Andy Serkis).

      I feel that Peter Jackson is trying to do the best he can to stretch out one book into three, so he adds fillers like Radaghast, Dol Guldur, and extended scenes at Rivendell and Goblin Town, but at the same time he wishes to be true to the book, which was a very simple story of slaying the dragon. No doubt, we shall be introduced more intimately to the Men of Dale in the second film.

      Bond’s family were recusant Catholics? Excellent. Still can’t approve of Bond and his promiscuous lifestyle. In this respect, Batman is infinitely superior. (Totally regret not watching that last Batman film)

      1. Although The Hobbit has lots of filler (and having now seen it I am of the opinion that it should have been two films rather than a trilogy), rather a lot of it comes out of Tolkien’s other Middle Earth writings. As long as we don’t get any gratuitous changing of personality or plot, I’m prepared to live with that.

        Maybe my eyesight is going (well actually, I know my eyesight is getting worse), but the movie presentation didn’t bother me at all, and I was sitting just back from the middle.

  2. Father, I love your words: “…thinking about God, in a world that is made beautiful and given meaning by HIM” – how we so need to explore and LIVE this–daily!

Post a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s