I have never
agreed with the general sentiment that “the book was better than the movie.”
This has always seemed a meaningless assertion to me. Books and movies might
set out to accomplish a similar task – telling a story – but the ways they go
about it could hardly be less similar. Books have the space to fill in details
you can’t possibly bring to light in a film. A reader is privy to setting
descriptions, histories, character development and inner thoughts that often
can’t be represented on the screen. A movie does the imagining for the viewer.
Whereas a book allows a reader to visualize images evoked by the words on the
page, a film director, cinematographer, writer, etc., present their personal
visualizations, which most likely don’t mesh with yours. What we need to test
is whether or not the film adaptation of a book is 1) some sort of faithful
adaptation and 2) good on its own terms by the standards laid out through
cinema history. It doesn’t matter if the movie tells the same story in the same
exact way as the book. All that matters is that the movie works. Does it draw
you in? Do you learn enough about the characters to care about their fates? Is
the story moving?
I’m more of a movie watcher than a book reader. More
often than not, when I read a novel I’ve already seen the film version. I
usually find this to be a more enriching and rewarding way of doing things
because the book fills in details that were lost on the screen. Of course the
downside is you can’t read Pride and
Prejudice without picturing Keira Knightley. There are some exceptions to
this as when I specifically set out to read a novel that I know has been
adapted into a film opening soon. I finished reading Yann Martel’s Life of Pi the night before seeing the
movie. So it was all fresh in my mind. Perhaps too fresh because I kept
anticipating turns that I knew to be coming rather than allow myself to be
caught up in the moment.
Ang Lee’s film, adapted by David Magee, begins like the
book with an aspiring novelist (Rafe Spall) talking to a middle-aged Indian man
– the story’s narrator Pi Patel as an adult – in his home in Winnipeg. Pi Patel
(Irrfan Khan) is supposed to have a fantastic story that will make him believe
in God. The scenes with the novelist and the adult Pi have this wide-eyed
quality produced by Spall’s performance. Khan is really wonderfully grounded as
Pi narrating the early and latter parts of his story. He gives all the
background information about his youth, growing up in Pondicherry, India, and
living at a zoo that his father owned. Then his family decides to move to
Canada, taking many of the zoo animals with them on a cargo ship across the
Pacific. Up to this point I was desperately concerned that the centerpiece of
the story – Pi’s 227 days spent in a lifeboat on the ocean with nothing but the
company of a deadly Bengal tiger – would be consistently interrupted by Khan’s
narrating voice and cuts back to Pi’s kitchen in Winnipeg as he gives the
details to an unconvincingly enthralled Spall. Mercifully, once the ship sinks
and Pi is lost at sea, it is the teenaged Pi who takes over the voiceover work,
from a narration laid out in a scattered diary he keeps in the margins of the
survival manual that comes as standard issue in the lifeboat.
For the uninitiated, I’ve certainly not given away too
much so far. If you’ve seen any commercials or have even seen the novel’s cover
art, you’ll know that it’s about a boy lost at sea with a tiger. This is where
the story really takes off. I felt the same reading the novel. Through the
early chapters I thought I was in for a mystical tale written for a young adult
reading level. And the filming of these early scenes, shot by the
cinematographer Claudio Miranda, feels at times like a children’s movie. The
opening credits feature a who’s who of the zoo animals looking adorably cute in
all their three-dimensional glory (a note later on the use of 3D for this
film). But the animal aspect is not all Disney cute. When Pi as a child wants
to feed the tiger in the zoo, his father abruptly stops him and demonstrates
the animal ferocity of the tiger by making the boy witness its mauling of a
goat. The lesson is that animals are not friends, not human. They are wild and deadly.
This establishes what shaky ground Pi is on when it’s just him and the tiger,
named Richard Parker, on the boat.
Pi doesn’t only receive lessons in animal care as a
child. He also encounters Vishnu and becomes a Hindu. Then he meets Jesus
Christ and practices Christianity before finding Mohammed to usher in his life
as a devout Muslim. He finds meaning and peace in all three religions and
practices all, much to his father’s consternation. This is a trope in the book
I found to be a bit of simplistic moralizing, a facile comment on the sameness
of all mankind and the universality of looking for something greater than
ourselves in life. Pi practices his religions in India, but it’s not until his
journey across the ocean that he can find companionship, salvation, and
communion with God’s creatures in all their mystery that he truly understands
his relationships with his various Gods.
The early scenes of Pi’s youth, especially those taking
place in and around the zoo, have a distinct Wes Anderson vibe to them. You can
almost imagine a sudden march of identically dressed zookeepers parading
through the set or the emergence on the soundtrack of an old, but not quite
forgotten, rock tune from 60s. It’s whimsical, remembered through the eyes of a
man who is enamored with the life he had in India before his family was ripped
from him in a shipwreck. The scenes on the lifeboat are absolutely remarkable. They
are gorgeously conceived and shot using a seamless blend of computer images and
the real thing. The tiger is so convincingly rendered I was shocked. If the
tiger were not depicted as photorealistic, the movie would lose all its impact.
To lose yourself in the middle section of the story, you must believe that
Richard Parker is the most ferocious threat any human could face in those
circumstances. Here is where the cute and cuddly animal depictions end. It’s to
the great credit of Lee that this is decidedly not a Disney tiger. There’s no anthropomorphizing
here. This is a vicious man-killer and he’s growing hungry.
Pi’s life at sea is brutal, demanding that he do things
he never imagined himself doing. This includes killing fish for food, sucking
on the detritus of dead animals, gnawing raw flesh, and eventually trying to
train a Bengal tiger. His survival depends on teaching Richard Parker that they
have separate territories on the tiny lifeboat. And a bond grows between them, a
one-way bond as animals respond to cues, signals, and biology, but not to
emotion.
I have remained largely skeptical as to the efficacy of
3D technology in films. Martin Scorsese did an admirable job really employing
the third dimension to add to the visual palette of Hugo. There are moments in Life
of Pi that are honestly ethereal due in large part to the 3D experience. However,
I also felt those moments could have made more and better use of 3D. But those
moments of great visual inventiveness are so few and far between that I spent
the rest of the time wondering not only why I was wearing uncomfortable
glasses, but why I shelled out extra money for it. I got the sense that my
enjoyment of the film would have been nearly equal in a traditional format.
Suraj Sharma, making his film debut, is the young actor
who plays Pi as a sixteen year old boy. He has a strong presence on the screen
and should have a future in movies. The Bollywood actors Adil Hussain and Tabu
play his parents and make lasting impression in supporting roles. And Gerard
Depardieu makes a brief appearance as the French cook aboard the ship.
The film leaves slightly less ambiguity in the closing scenes
than the novel does. We know, as the investigators for the shipping company and
the novelist know, that the story is rather unbelievable. The adult Pi has an
interesting rejoinder for that and it brings the story round to the beginning
and the claim that his tale will make you believe in God. For me, I wouldn’t go
so far. It works as a wonderful tale of personal struggle and survival, a young
man learning what he’s capable of and how he fits in with God’s creations, but
it’s hardly the big revelatory moment I was expecting. It might have worked
better had it not been spelled out practically in big block letters. The ending
comes off cheap and a little insulting. David Magee would have been wise to add
to the novel’s ambiguity rather than dampen it.
No comments:
Post a Comment