Escape to the Movies: Life of Pi

nondescript

New member
Oct 2, 2009
179
0
0
A lot of forum heat about the atheism. If you've never heard it, I recommend the song "Here and Now" by Tom Smith. The funny part is, I'm not an atheist and I still like it cause he says in the spoken bit "If there's a God your purpose is to live, to help people, to make the world a better place... AND IF THERE'S NOT A GOD, your purpose is to live, to help people, to make the world a better place..."

Kinda puts it back in perspective.
 

TheTygre

New member
Jun 17, 2009
145
0
0
leviadragon99 said:
If you must believe in religion, do so because you truly believe the values it promotes, or heck, even if you truly believe it to be literally true, don't take it as the spiritual easy way out and security blanket.
*Mad theist props*

That said, I'm kind of disappointed that the movie with such a directly plugged message. In the book, it really was more of an agnostic thing, or it was for me. To be blunt, I didn't trust Pi enough to believe him when he said he was lying.

>http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0179.html
 

OmniscientOstrich

New member
Jan 6, 2011
2,879
0
0
I listened in for the spoiler and now that I'm aware of this twist ending I'm fucking well glad I've had it spoiled for me before I considered sitting through the whole bloody thing just to be met with that. As you may have guessed I'm an atheist and while I've got no problem with people exploring spirituality; that line of reasoning for doing so sets a dangerous precedent and infuriates me to no end. I spent the last 5 minutes literally just pacing around the room like my own personal angry dome over the fact that this kind of shit is being damn near universally lauded by critics and/or held up as any kind of sound rationale to vindicate their belief in a deity(s). The line about Doug's sister also really cracked me up, which is weird seeing as I rarely ever saw that show as a kid. But I guess that self-infatuated oh so cultured and profound artiste archetype is common enough in animation/fiction in general that you can extrapolate exactly what kind of character you're going to get simply by the fact that they're un-ironically sporting a beret. I actually really liked Garden State so perhaps I won't be quite so harsh on Silver Lining Playbook (no particular burgeoning desire to see it, but may look out for it if it comes up) even if I get where his issues are coming from. I don't know a great deal about Lincoln but the fact that Daniel Day-Lewis is in the title role is a huge incentive for me to see in and of itself. :D But anyway, I shan't be seeing Life of Pi and I'm now really glad in retrospect that I never picked the book up back when I was doing A-Level English Literature.

(Side note: I'll spoiler this post if need be, but I'm relatively sure I didn't inadvertently give anything away here.)
 

DirgeNovak

I'm anticipating DmC. Flame me.
Jul 23, 2008
1,645
0
0
Wait wait wait.
Do they actually pronounce Pi's full name Pie-seen in the movie or was that just Movie Bob screwing up?
It's pee-seen. (Piscine, aka French for swimming pool) The kids even make a bunch of pee jokes (in the novel at least). Kinda hard to miss.

Anyway, I loved the novel despite being an atheist, so unless Ang Lee really overplayed the whole religious aspect, I don't see it as a negative. To me this is more like a eulogy of the suspension of disbelief. If it applies to God it also applies to any other fiction.
 

AxelxGabriel

New member
Nov 13, 2009
175
0
0
leviadragon99 said:
In that it promoted religion on the grounds of "well it's more comforting that way" as opposed to any sort of justification based on the validity of the values emphasized by this or that religion(s) or usefullness to society or anything close to being literally correct in its assesment of how the universe came to be and works.

Living in blissfull, willfull ignorance because it's easier that way isn't something to endorse, indeed it's more of an indictment of the intellectual and spiritual cowardliness of so many people, wanting/needing to believe in a higher power to make the world seem less scary and unfair, to try and give it all meaning, which would have unfortunate implications if you really think about it, that people who have bad things happen to them somehow invariably deserve it, either due to some nebulous wrongdoing on their part or as some assinine "test"

If you must believe in religion, do so because you truly believe the values it promotes, or heck, even if you truly believe it to be literally true, don't take it as the spiritual easy way out and security blanket.
That wasn't the point that the book was making and i think Bob missed this as well.

See, in the book originally, there was ZERO proof for either story that Pi gave the police at the end for what happened to him on the boat. Neither story, the one with the tiger and the one with the humans could be proven 100% happened. And Pi never said which one was ultimately true or that believing either story was automatically right or wrong.

So with no proof of either story, you'd have no choice but to just pick a story that you wish. But from how I see it, if you feel you automatically go for the more "realistic and horrifying story" just because it's more realistic, then you have to accept the fact that you are a very jaded and cynical person who has no faith in mankind at all.

See, it's not "God" that ever did anything bad to people due to religion in the past. It's always been Man. We're always quick to blame God, but it's always been man who did horrible things in the name of God. There is corruption and greed in other legitimate institutions, but you blame the men, not the institution itself.

I actually read the book, and I learned that the message isn't about believing in God. It's just about having faith that maybe, JUST maybe the world at large and mankind can be better people.
 

leviadragon99

New member
Jun 17, 2010
1,055
0
0
TheTygre said:
leviadragon99 said:
If you must believe in religion, do so because you truly believe the values it promotes, or heck, even if you truly believe it to be literally true, don't take it as the spiritual easy way out and security blanket.
*Mad theist props*

That said, I'm kind of disappointed that the movie with such a directly plugged message. In the book, it really was more of an agnostic thing, or it was for me. To be blunt, I didn't trust Pi enough to believe him when he said he was lying.

>http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0179.html
I offer my most gracious thanks for the complement I have been given. (bows)

Apparently the mods didn't care about my one-word thank-you though, (shrug) guess they can take context into account.
 

leviadragon99

New member
Jun 17, 2010
1,055
0
0
AxelxGabriel said:
That wasn't the point that the book was making and i think Bob missed this as well.

See, in the book originally, there was ZERO proof for either story that Pi gave the police at the end for what happened to him on the boat. Neither story, the one with the tiger and the one with the humans could be proven 100% happened. And Pi never said which one was ultimately true or that believing either story was automatically right or wrong.

So with no proof of either story, you'd have no choice but to just pick a story that you wish. But from how I see it, if you feel you automatically go for the more "realistic and horrifying story" just because it's more realistic, then you have to accept the fact that you are a very jaded and cynical person who has no faith in mankind at all.

See, it's not "God" that ever did anything bad to people due to religion in the past. It's always been Man. We're always quick to blame God, but it's always been man who did horrible things in the name of God. There is corruption and greed in other legitimate institutions, but you blame the men, not the institution itself.

I actually read the book, and I learned that the message isn't about believing in God. It's just about having faith that maybe, JUST maybe the world at large and mankind can be better people.
We're not discussing the merits of the book and it's message, more what it became in the film adaption which needs to be able to stand on it's own, and it didn't.

Having said that, I do like the message the book made as you interpreted it, though not having read the book myself I can't comment further on how accurate your interpretation was. If there's just people and no god as I believe, we all have to try to be better and believe that we can be, not relying on excuses like god for poor behavior, having said that, the realistic approach based on past evidence suggests we're not there yet, and thus that the darker version would sadly be more likely, I'd take both with a grain of salt and assume some unknown third option is the most likely of all though. we CAN be better but it's not cynical to be aware of the fact that some people aren't so good.
 

AxelxGabriel

New member
Nov 13, 2009
175
0
0
leviadragon99 said:
We're not discussing the merits of the book and it's message, more what it became in the film adaption which needs to be able to stand on it's own, and it didn't.

Having said that, I do like the message the book made as you interpreted it, though not having read the book myself I can't comment further on how accurate your interpretation was. If there's just people and no god as I believe, we all have to try to be better and believe that we can be, not relying on excuses like god for poor behavior, having said that, the realistic approach based on past evidence suggests we're not there yet, and thus that the darker version would sadly be more likely, I'd take both with a grain of salt and assume some unknown third option is the most likely of all though. we CAN be better but it's not cynical to be aware of the fact that some people aren't so good.
See but the problem is, people like you (Im saying LIKE you, not you personally) can easily judge us people who have faith as being stupid, naive, or insane. That it's impossible that miracles can honestly happen in the world (Not religious or god-related miracles, just miracles that can just seem to be beyond your comprehension.

It's not cynical to know that some people are just bad, but it is cynical to say that we are all inherently bad and there's nothing we can do about it. Just because the horrible version is more likely, doesn't mean the fantastic version of the story was impossible.
 

pearcinator

New member
Apr 8, 2009
1,212
0
0
This was funny :p

Pi is just 'so ****ing Quirky!' - I lol'd at that bit.

Also, Atheists are going to go to town on this...they get more riled up on this stuff than they should. Atheists take the bible more literally than Christians do (well definitely more than I do and I am a Christian). To me the Bible is just a collection of stories about morals (good and bad and all that shit).
 

lumenadducere

New member
May 19, 2008
593
0
0
So, as always the book is better than the movie? It's about what I figured. I enjoyed the book but when I first heard of the movie I figured there was no way it'd translate well to another medium. There's far too much of Pi simply talking about his thoughts or having an inner monologue to ever have that work out in a primarily visual medium. That works just fine in text, but it definitely doesn't in film.

For anyone interested in the premise, though, I'd recommend the book. It seems to have a lot of little important details changed that make it much better than the movie seems to be from Bob's review. And the "twist" is delivered differently in the book and it's done in a way that...well, doesn't really preach anything.
 

Cody Holden

New member
May 4, 2011
36
0
0
AAAAAND Bob and the antitheists around here missed the point. Shocker.

@Review: I figured as much. It was a book that only worked because it was a book.

@Quirky: Bob, you do realize that every Tuesday the Escapist has a video in which you tell us about how your zany/relevant/weird/silly hobby or obsession is so awesome, right? Pot, kettle, et cetera.

Now then, Life of Pi. SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS CLANG CLANG whatever.

Life of Pi was a book about the importance of making a choice, regardless of whether that choice would be the correct one in the end. Essentially, we all have a choice in how we choose that which is ultimately unknowable (a la the veracity of Pi's castaway story).

There is the side which is ultimately a little more uplifting. The side which makes you feel a little better about the coming dark in your final moments. The one that aids in the perception of a world that is just a little bit more manageable, a little bit more hopeful. You can choose to believe that not everything in the world unfolds in the most logical, practical way. That maybe things just aren't explainable sometimes. That maybe somewhere out there is something that is making sure everything turns out OK in the end. The downside being that anyone who disagrees is going to casually call you a dumbass on every internet board in existence, and also the possibility (probability, even) that you will one day be proven wrong.

Then there's the other side. The "right" side. Everything is explainable. Pi could never have survived that long on a boat with an actual tiger because, well, hungry tiger. There is no God because the universe as explained by the sciences has no need of one. The upside here is obvious: You're right. You'll always have that. No-one can prove you wrong because your policy is to believe that which has been proven correct. The downside is that sometimes being alone or sick or hurt or about to cease to be can be damn depressing. Sure, it often isn't, and being right is fun, but a lot of people like to think there's more out there. Also, the other choice has assholes who will call this group a bunch of idiots. Assholes are kind of everywhere.

So, make a choice. That's all the book is saying. Make a choice, one way or the other. Don't sit on the fence until one side "wins," because neither side ever will. Just make a choice, and live the happiest and most harmonious life you can regardless of which way you believe in the end. Because the choice doesn't matter, remember? We need to know how the ship sank, and Pi's story has no bearing on that at all. But if you never decide whether it was people or animals on that lifeboat, it'll be a hell of a lot better to figure out why the ship sank.

As for why Pi is multi-religious:
Most people who believe in God(s) don't fit completely into one religion. Hell, no independent thinker who believes does. We all realize that the Bible is the re-re-re-re-written re-translation of a bunch of hearsay and legends that had been running around as an oral history for quite some time by the time it was recorded. Thus, most believers tend to stay away from the conservative extremes of their given religion and migrate toward a more universal view. It's pretty much the only way to come up with satisfying answers for the major questions asked of spirituality. Pi is a Muslim, a Christian, and a Hindu because those three religions mesh together well. They, like most major religions, operate on the basic principle of "don't be a dick." It's pretty much exactly like Ethics. Anyone who studies ethics knows that very few people operate strictly under a single ethical ideal. This is because those ideals each have their own weaknesses, and living by one ideal exclusively exacerbates those weaknesses. Yet, despite not living under a specific ethical code, most people have a strong sense of what is ethical and what is not. In the same way, religious extremists amplify the weaknesses of their dogma. Most religious people are not extremists, yet we have a strong sense of what we believe and why we believe it.
 

Gearhead mk2

New member
Aug 1, 2011
19,999
0
0
...wow. This sounds like the second stupidest, most treacly, glurgery, pile of lies and disrespect for it's own subject matter and the intelligence of it's audience I've ever heard about.
 

TheZooblord

New member
Mar 10, 2010
26
0
0
ZexionSephiroth said:
And I certainly don't want one as Dogmatic as the ones currently in existence!

I am the complete Antithesis of Dogma, and I personally believe that the only way to have truly good people is to reject Dogma and find your own way.

I would only worship a god that believed that freedom and kindness are more important than dogma. And so far, no such being has even been mentioned... and even if it had been, there would have to be some serious proof in their existance before I would believe in them.
....so in other words, you and Pi would get along. These snips of your post are pretty close to exactly what Pi is all about. That "collecting religions" thing Bob was frothing at the mouth over was just Pi choosing to take the best aspects of several religions and believe what he wants of them, as many spiritual people do. There's a difference between dogmatism and spirituality: Pi, at least in the books and I would assume in the movie, is complete spirituality with zero belief in or respect for dogma. He rejects dogma, if I remember correctly he's more of a believer than a worshipper, and the presence he believes in is a kind guy who believes in freedom.

And this...

ZexionSephiroth said:
P.S. I somehow do not think its inconceivable to worship something and yet not believe it exists. I do it all the time actually; but I know its ultimately pointless. Fun, but pointless.
Is literally the point of the ENTIRE movie. That's its message. Literally. This is what Pi says at the end when he reveals the journey was just him and some other humans starving until they all killed each other then starving some more. He specifically says "You can choose whether you believe in the tiger story or the murderstory, I pick the tiger story because it at leas makes me feel better." Not because it is literally true.
 

NinjaDeathSlap

Leaf on the wind
Feb 20, 2011
4,474
0
0
I'm an Atheist, but I must point out...

Way back when, when Bob reviewed The Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader much issue was made of the increasingly heavy religious undercurrent in the Narnia series, both as books and films. However, it was Bob himself who said he didn't find it bothersome at all precisely because the attitude of presenting religion more as a 'fairy-tale but with a serious moral message' rather than 'dogma that must be completely submitted to in all aspects lest ye be punished' was something that he found far more appealing than much of organised religion in itself.

Why is Life of Pi so different?
 

TheRightToArmBears

New member
Dec 13, 2008
8,674
0
0
Eh, I'm one of those people that read the book and didn't like it, so I'd only be going for the visuals if I were to see it and to ruin the plot for everyone else.
 

snd_dsgnr

New member
Feb 14, 2009
17
0
0
AxelxGabriel said:
leviadragon99 said:
See, it's not "God" that ever did anything bad to people due to religion in the past. It's always been Man. We're always quick to blame God, but it's always been man who did horrible things in the name of God. There is corruption and greed in other legitimate institutions, but you blame the men, not the institution itself.
If one believes the Bible to be a true account, this is simply not accurate.
 

TheRussian

New member
May 8, 2011
502
0
0
pearcinator said:
-snip-

Also, Atheists are going to go to town on this...they get more riled up on this stuff than they should. Atheists take the bible more literally than Christians do (well definitely more than I do and I am a Christian). To me the Bible is just a collection of stories about morals (good and bad and all that shit).
So, what you're saying is that in order to be a good Christian you shouldn't believe in Jesus / God?
I am an atheist and I only have a problem with Christians that take everything in the Bible seriously.
[sub][sub][sub]As i contemplate not posting this I realize that I have not made it far by being nice to people who I don't like.[/sub][/sub][/sub]
 

Korenith

New member
Oct 11, 2010
315
0
0
Do you think we'll see a film version of The Alchemist? The two books seem to have very similar themes.
God I hope not. The alchemist has a main character who has little to no personality and the pseudo spiritualist philosophising comes off about as deep and soul enriching as making a novel out of the messages in fortune cookies. I really really don't understand why The Alchemist is so well loved, whereas Life of Pi is a very good novel which despite the religious themes comes across as quite balanced and not trying to force some easy resolution.

Also either Bob missed the point or the movie doesn't get it across properly (hasn't come out here yet) because the whole point of which story the people believe at the end isn't suggesting that you SHOULD believe in God because it'll make you happier, it's more of a comment on the fact that people do believe (on a subconscious level) because they're scared of a world where awful things happen for no reason. And it's doing the whole self-reflexive fiction thing where the book/film examines the nature of story-telling which is really popular at the moment. See: Stranger than Fiction, The Dark Tower, Lannark etc.
 

FinalHeart95

New member
Jun 29, 2009
2,164
0
0
I thought the religious stuff behind the movie was rather interesting, actually. It's not actually saying that you SHOULD believe in God because it's more comforting, just that some people tend to do so. Actually, everyone essentially believes what they believe because it makes them feel better. Whether or not it's believing in a God because you don't want death to be the end, or believing in the lack of a God because you feel that it's more "correct," and that's more important than you than a happy end.
For example:
An atheist at the end of the movie would've believed the story with the people as opposed to the animals. It's far more realistic, and an atheist perhaps would look at which story is more realistic as opposed to which story seems more comforting. At no point does the story suggest this is wrong. I feel that Pi is a bit of an unreliable narrator, honestly. He was pretty religious, and went through a lot of trauma on his journey. Who's to say the other story didn't happen, and that he's projecting the animal story BECAUSE of his religion and not wanting to deal with the implications of people having done all of those things. I mean, Cloud in FFVII thought he was someone entirely different. Why can't this be true? The chef was played up as a shitty person on the boat as well, which I think kind of supports this view.
So, to me, this movie has an open ending. It's not a matter of which story is true, but which story you want to be true.
Of course, I could just be growing some epileptic trees.
Also, I thought the whole "Muslim Catholic Hindu" thing was cool, because it is essentially saying that all religions are pretty similar, which they are.