Life of Pi (2012), dir. Ang Lee
***
Fans
of the 2001 best-selling book by Yann Martel about an Indian adolescent
stranded in a lifeboat with a Bengal tiger should be very pleased with this
picture, as it is just about as faithful a film adaptation could strive to
be. Having read the book myself, I
was quite pleased for the most part, but felt unduly underwhelmed when by all
accounts I should have felt exhilarated.
As faithful as this film is, given the logistics involved it is forced
to approach the story in an entirely different manner from how the book
does. Most of the story centers on
only the two characters: the boy and the tiger. Naturally the tiger cannot communicate with the boy, so any
dialogue is impossible. In the
book this is easily compensated for with a rich narrative that draws the reader
into the affected mind of the boy as an adult, who is telling the story. The movie utilizes this format as well,
as the film’s prologue is densely narrated by the adult protagonist to an
unnamed Canadian writer (same as in the book). It works quite well, and there is enough dialogue between
the other human characters to pad it out.
But once we get out to sea when it’s just the boy and the tiger, the
narration, when one thinks it would be most needed, disappears almost
entirely. Here’s where, in my
mind, the film runs into trouble.
Because rather than rely upon the narrative to carry the story, it
relies upon visuals—heavily computer-generated visuals, which, goddammit, don’t
impress me at all.
I
should add that I did not see this movie in 3-D. After seeing it I read a few other reviews online, and began
to wish I had, though I sincerely doubt it would have helped much. I’ve never been impressed by the 3-D
format. But neither has Roger
Ebert (whose review I read), and not only has he been unimpressed by 3-D, he’s
been a staunch opposing voice to the medium; however, he was impressed by the
film’s 3-D visuals—go figure. I
still refuse to believe that sleekly done 3-D can effectively draw attention away
from the sickening artificiality that CGI produces. God help me, it does nothing for me, and it has ruined
countless movie-going experiences of mine for the past fifteen years or so. I’ve been thinking about writing an
essay on the effect of computer-generated special effects on the movie
industry, because it’s taken so much of the magic away from seeing special
effects films. Unlike optical
effects, which were only lavishly exploited for little over a decade, there is
no mystery with CGI. The overall
process is simple enough to understand—what you are seeing are
computer-animated visuals, much the same as you would see in a video game. I don’t like watching ‘video game’
movies with humans superimposed into them. And as far as this technology has come, guess what—it still
looks fake! The CGI tiger in Life
in Pi (humorously named “Richard Parker”)
represents some of the finer CGI I’ve seen, but never at one moment did I
believe I was looking at a real tiger.
And for that reason, it was impossible for me to share in the fear and
apprehension that boy must have felt to have been stranded alone in the middle
of the ocean with the beast.
This
story (which is widely known, so I won’t bother summarizing it), in both the
book and the film, is told in a fashion to where it should ostensibly be
true—“a story to make one believe in God,” we are told. Aside from the part involving the
carnivorous island, the story is quite feasible. In the book, given the highly emotional narrative account,
it is even more convincing.
Regrettably, with the film’s highly artificial visual presentation (as
sleek as it may be), we are robbed of some of the doubt we are meant to feel
toward the story’s alleged reality.
But perhaps I am being too harsh.
My little tirade on CGI aside, my review is still a favorable one. The director, Ang Lee has an excellent
sense of flow, and the story unfolds very smoothly. Even without the narrative, the simple visual aspect in
regard to what actions we see and how they are shown to us allow us to
empathize with the character of the boy enough to feel his fear and sense of
uncertainty. It is a pretty
miraculous story, and a fun one besides.
It’s obvious that the people behind this film have a profound admiration
for the book, and it’s that affection which is most communicated.
No comments:
Post a Comment