"Life of Pi"

For posts related to a specific film -- beware of spoilers o ye who dareth enter!
Stewball
Posts: 3009
0 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:18 pm

"Life of Pi"

Post by Stewball »

A beautiful, stylish, substantive, original masterpiece. Go see it.
________________________________________________________________________
Trivia from IMDb: "As in the novel, the name of the Japanese ship is Tsimtsum. Tsimtsum is in fact a Hebrew word used by the 16th-century Kabbalist Isaac Luria to denote God's "contraction" of Himself from the world at Creation. In the novel, the adult Pi mentions doing a college thesis on Luria's theories about creation. In the movie, he simply mentions teaching a course on Kabbalah and does not specifically reference Luria."

I'm assuming that "'contraction' of Himself from the world at Creation" is a phrase meaning God withdrew and became laissez faire or hands off.

There's a lot of depth and details behind the story. Richard Parker, the name of the Tiger, was the name of a shipwrecked sailor from Poe's 1838 novel, The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket, who was cannibalized by the 3 other survivors.

THEN, now get this, in 1884, after the sinking of the yacht Mignonette, the cabin boy named Richard Parker, was eaten by his three surviving shipmates for food.

How could I not mention the fact that Richard Parker was the father of Peter Parker, aka Spiderman.

Last but not least (of several other Peter Parkers), the English playwright, Owen Thomas, in 2010 presented a play titled "Richard Parker", which is a dark comedy dealing with coincidence. Image

-----------------------------------------------------------
The Nut:
At the beginning of the movie, Pi tells the writer that his story will make him believe in God. [spoiler]Then at the end he asks the writer which story he liked best, the one with the animals or the one with the people in the boat that he told to the Japanese investigators. The writer responds, the one with the animals, to which Pi says, "And so it goes with God", (smiles).[/spoiler]

ShogunRua
Posts: 3449
0 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 3:18 am

Re: "Life of Pi"

Post by ShogunRua »

I have a strange feeling that Stewball hasn't read the novel.

Stewball
Posts: 3009
0 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: "Life of Pi"

Post by Stewball »

ShogunRua wrote:I have a strange feeling that Stewball hasn't read the novel.


Oh shit, I'm sorry, I didn't know that was a requirement, is that the canonical version--and gee whiz, if I had I could get to act pompous too. You sure have had a rag up your butt for me lately, going out of your way particularly well in this case with nothing more than that. You got something to say spit it out professor.

And for the record I dedicate what I read to non-fiction almost exclusively.

Oh yeah, one other thing......bite me.

ShogunRua
Posts: 3449
0 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 3:18 am

Re: "Life of Pi"

Post by ShogunRua »

Stewball wrote:
ShogunRua wrote:I have a strange feeling that Stewball hasn't read the novel.


Oh shit, I'm sorry, I didn't know that was a requirement, is that the canonical version--and gee whiz, if I had I could get to act pompous too. You sure have had a rag up your butt for me lately, going out of your way particularly well in this case with nothing more than that. You got something to say spit it out professor.

And for the record I dedicate what I read to non-fiction almost exclusively.

Oh yeah, one other thing......bite me.


Haha, I didn't realize that such a simple statement would cause you to throw a temper tantrum and soil your panties!

I didn't have anything to "spit out" to you; from reading your post, I simply thought that you probably hadn't read the book, and decided to post this impression. It's no big deal if you haven't, and definitely not something to get butt-hurt about.

However, I wouldn't exactly call it an "original masterpiece" either, considering its adapted source.

Stewball
Posts: 3009
0 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: "Life of Pi"

Post by Stewball »

ShogunRua wrote:However, I wouldn't exactly call it an "original masterpiece" either, considering its adapted source.


So a film isn't a team effort by all the artists and technicians that work on it. To be original, everything must be done by the director, including makeup, choreography, cinematography, acting all the parts, writing the screenplay AND whatever it's source is--etc. Absurd. It's still an original film.

You are working under an awful prejudice having only seen/ranked 3 movies this year--which are:
The Pirates! Band of Misfits--65
One for the Money--25
Star Wars Uncut: Director's--20

Image

ShogunRua
Posts: 3449
0 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 3:18 am

Re: "Life of Pi"

Post by ShogunRua »

Stewball wrote:
ShogunRua wrote:However, I wouldn't exactly call it an "original masterpiece" either, considering its adapted source.


So a film isn't a team effort by all the artists and technicians that work on it. To be original, everything must be done by the director, including makeup, choreography, cinematography, acting all the parts, writing the screenplay AND whatever it's source is--etc. Absurd. It's still an original film.


What's "original" about a work of art closely modeled after one that has come before it? Isn't that the very definition of "unoriginal"?

Not that I have a problem with unoriginality ("The Godfather" was still a pretty good movie, heh), but let's not misuse adjectives.

You are working under an awful prejudice having only seen/ranked 3 movies this year--which are:
The Pirates! Band of Misfits--65
One for the Money--25
Star Wars Uncut: Director's--20

Image


I'm curious how seeing these 2012 movies has made me suffer from an "awful prejudice", as well as the precise nature of this horrible malady?

Stewball
Posts: 3009
0 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: "Life of Pi"

Post by Stewball »

ShogunRua wrote:I'm curious how seeing these 2012 movies has made me suffer from an "awful prejudice", as well as the precise nature of this horrible malady?


The prejudice was your trashing me for my critique of a movie you haven't seen, because I haven't read the book which I made to claim to have read, and which isn't necessary to view/review it in any case. And your dedication as a cinophile is in question what with the low quantity of the movies you have seen, and the low quality the 2 of those which were from 2012 had.

Is this a test?

ShogunRua
Posts: 3449
0 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 3:18 am

Re: "Life of Pi"

Post by ShogunRua »

Stewball wrote:
ShogunRua wrote:I'm curious how seeing these 2012 movies has made me suffer from an "awful prejudice", as well as the precise nature of this horrible malady?


The prejudice was your trashing me for my critique of a movie you haven't seen, because I haven't read the book which I made to claim to have read, and which isn't necessary to view/review it in any case. And your dedication as a cinophile is in question what with the low quantity of the movies you have seen, and the low quality the 2 of those which were from 2012 had.

Is this a test?


I never claimed to be a "cinophile", if such a thing even existed. I believe you meant "cinephile", which is yet another reason you should try reading more.

And yes, I mentioned in another topic that I probably watched fewer films in 2012 than I have in any year since I turned 7. So what?

ayall
Posts: 458
0 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:17 pm

Re: "Life of Pi"

Post by ayall »

I read the book several years ago, haven't watched the movie yet.

When I heard they're making the movie, I couldn't figure out how [spoiler]they'd adequately portray the anthropomorphism or personification the book/story drops at the end of the movie[/spoiler].

Filligan
Posts: 154
204 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:14 am

Re: "Life of Pi"

Post by Filligan »

ayall wrote:I read the book several years ago, haven't watched the movie yet.

When I heard they're making the movie, I couldn't figure out how [spoiler]they'd adequately portray the anthropomorphism or personification the book/story drops at the end of the movie[/spoiler].


Are you talking about the [spoiler]second version of the story? If so, I think that was handled in a brilliantly simple way. That single scene elevated the film quite a bit for me.[/spoiler]

Post Reply