Escape to the Movies: Life of Pi

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

I just wanted to say two things:

First, I didn't get too much of anti-athiest vibe from this book (have yet to see the movie, but what Bob described of the plot/twist/message sounds about the same). I got the impression that when Pi tells the darker story of his troubles, he is actively acknowledging that reality is not rosy or beautiful or any of that. There is no God. He just prefers to tell himself different stories so that he feels better, so that he can go on living his life without curling into a fetal position and giving up. So I guess I feel the "God doesn't exist, but pretending he does makes me feel better" doesn't come off as a purely anti-athiestic argument. Pi just had two choices, and he chose the brighter, fake one.

Secondly, I find it hard to believe the "quirkyness" of Pi could really be that obnoxious. In the book he's just a man who lost his entire family and spent hundreds of days adrift, near-death, who is struggling to cope. I know the "one friend" you're talking about, but Pi never came off that way. Of course everything in his life has a story behind it: if the dark version of his story is really true, he had to go through a LOT. So much so that the only way for him to keep on living is to give everything some form of meaning. I mean, what is more likely to kill your soul than losing your family in the most meaningless/arbitrary (storm at sea) and horrifying (cannabalism, watching as other people tear each other apart) way possible, while getting turned into a monster yourself.

So I guess I just saw the "giving everything a story" aspect of his personality as him resorting to extreme coping measures. During that voyage he was given insight into how truly empty, dark, and horrible life can be. How tragedy happens for no reason, and nothing can stop it. How do you live, when you know in your heart that's how the world is? I'm not talking minor cynicism here: true nihilism. The only way for him to come back from that was to paint a rosy picture of the universe and try to believe in it as strongly as he can, and he assigns EVERYTHING meaning to cope with the fact that nothing has meaning. This is not because he's "so calculatedly quirky." It's because he is an absolutely shattered man who can only exist in a dream world now.

Besides, MovieBob's opinions are 95% intelligent, interesting, and well-executed discussion, with 5% petty rage. Some of the "quirky" rage seemed petty here. Yes the tiger is named Richard Parker, so what? People like to give their pets goofy names, it makes them laugh. Etc.

I mean, I don't know how the tone of the movie's narration differed from Pi's narration in the books, I just heard more "CrankyBob" than "MovieBob" in the "quirky" tract.

Edit: Sidenote: Is it really necessary to always perceive a character's, even a protagonist's life philosophy as some kind of attempt to persuade other people to his/her way of life? There are some character choices/philosophies that are indeed an author's attempt to persuade the world to their way of thinking, but with a lot of characters they are JUST CHARACTERS. They're people, and they have opinions, and since the story is about that character we are likely to hear their opinion. This does not necessarily mean the author is trying to convert you. I always took all of Pi's statements and philosophies as JUST PI'S OPINION, and HIS PERSONAL METHOD OF COPING WITH LIFE. I never thought of it as a persuasive essay. Just a fictional guy talking about his experiences and opinions.

Of course, there is the whole "I will make you believe in God" line, but that to me still just feels like Pi talking to the interviewer, not the author talking to the audience. Maybe that's just me though.

PunkRex:
'ASK ME WHAT IT MEANS, ASK ME WHAT IT MEANS!!!'

I might still se the film, it does look really easy on the eyes.

:/ What do you mean by "what"?

FirebirdXR:
I won't debate the movie because I have yet to have seen it, and he may be right in that regard for all that I know...

But Bob should really avoid saying "self-indulgent".
Since it seems utterly hypocritical coming from him.

(Then again, that might be what a critic is, but with varying degrees. with Bob though...it's off the damned radar)

You may want to say he's off the charts instead. Saying he's off the radar implies more that he isn't noticeable.
>_> Unless you're trying to say that his "self-indulgence" is so big it looks like it's off the radar because it's everywhere, and therefore nowhere to the radar.

Just like God! :D
;)

Akichi Daikashima:

AzraelSteel:
I'm impressed a little that EVERYTHING Bob says about this movie is 100% true of the book, as well.

There's a book?

Who wrote it, Nigella Lawson?
/pun

I really had no idea that this was based off a book.

I remember reading the book, and would have thought it was okay if dull and pointless, if not for the whole 'god'-thing, which confused me. I didn't get it. And I'm not sure I do even now.

Isn't that an argument against the existence of god?
"Yeah, people believe in silly shit because they don't want to face the truth."

Silk_Sk:
I thought Bob was above butthurt /r/athiest whine-botting but I suppose nobody's perfect. God to me has always been a concept beyond the logistics of reality or fiction. Present in both, exclusive to neither. Saying he exists just because it's more fun that way is as good an argument as any for both sides of the debate. Really, the problem with God is that everyone's concept of him is too limited. God is unlimited, completely and utterly. Taken to it's logical extreme, there is no possible argument for his existence because any logical concept of him would define a limit to him that we can conceive of. He exists simply because he can't not exist, they same way you and I do.

Isn't that kind of concept of god totally useless, then? All you've done is claimed that there is something that cannot be understood in any way, and by its very nature cannot be proven to exist or have any characteristics.
It's a useless concept.

Silk_Sk:

Pi's argument is that it is necessary for us to believe in God because it is necessary for us to be uplifted. The other half of that argument is that if God did not exist then it wouldn't be necessary for us to be uplifted in the first place.

That's not really an argument, though. You could just as well claim that because cats exist, god must exist as well. Unless you prove that those two things have anything to do with each other, you're just claiming that x means y.

Milanezi:

Imp Emissary:

That all said, there really isn't any "necessity" in believing in God, and that seems to be alright with God from what I can see. I mean, Jesus said himself that as long as you're a good person you don't need to be of any specific faith to get to heaven. Also, while the ten commandments do say to not make yourself out be be God, or to treat something/someone like God it never says you HAVE to believe in any "actual" God.

That sounds like a (dead) lawyer trying to convince an angel that he's allowed in Heaven in though he doesn't believe in God lol Like looking the commandments for gaps to make your way in lol

:) Ha ha ha. Well the first time I told someone about this theory I did start by telling them, "I lawyered up the ten commandments."

That said, it is true. Also, the reason Jesus was saying you don't need to believe in a specific faith was because some people working for the Roman empire came to him and asked "What religion is the right one?" They were trying to trip him up and get him to piss off anyone not of the specific religion he would name. They failed.

At least that's how the story goes. At any rate I find that way of thinking to be true. As long as your a good person, you're fine.

Akichi Daikashima:

AzraelSteel:
I'm impressed a little that EVERYTHING Bob says about this movie is 100% true of the book, as well.

There's a book?

Who wrote it, Nigella Lawson?
/pun

I really had no idea that this was based off a book.

I had to read this shit in school...
The entire first third of the book is pretty much all that really uninteresting back story stuff Bob hints at. When Pi tells the interviewers at the end of the book

Man, I think Bob went way too overboard in his criticism of this movie. I thought it was really good and didn't mind the religion aspect(s) of it. Bob REALLLLY overstated that element of the narrative. You can tell a lot of the dialogue was from a book just because of the way everything was phrased but that too isn't a much of an issue. I never got on Bob's case before, (even thought it seems like everyone else on the escapist loves to bash him at some point or another) but this is just weird to me. It appears to me that since he doesn't like the religion in the movie he felt compelled to tear apart the main character and his credibility so us reviewers wouldn't go and see it.

I'm glad I saw this film before I saw Bob's review because it was a great piece of entertainment. I'm sad that a lot of commenters are already voicing that they won't see it because of the religious aspect, I was afraid of that. I'm kinda mad to be honest that Bob blew that aspect out of proportion because it's really not like that. My friend and I both really liked it, which according to Bob shouldn't happen because we're both stone cold atheists. How strange.

I just wish I could've posted this earlier so people could see it.

Initial Reaction: This movie looks pretty! I HAVE TO WATCH IT!

*Hears Bob Say the Word God* Huh...Well Paulo Coelho rags on about spiritualism and god, and i still like his stuff...

*Listens to 'It'll make you believe in god part'*...Uhhhhh....

*Listens to the spoiler* Oh well fuck this noise.

*wears ear plugs to the cinema*

I don't understand the indignation at the non-denomination deism subtext.

I mean I'm atheist, I f****** wanted to tear Pi's throat out throughout the movie, but the only impression I ever really got from the movie was that people are willing to tell themselves whatever makes it easier to live with themselves.

Yeah, Pi was a dumbf***, the movie itself handled things quite even handedly.

Oh look, he gave away the plot twist with an advance "mute" warning. How quirky!

Rarely do I ever have to pause what I'm doing to vent a sudden burst of rage, but Bob's summary of the twist and its meaning finally pushed me over the edge. That twist just makes me burst at the seems with pure rage.

It's been about three years since I read the book, but I'm pretty sure that the message was quite a bit different there.

kwagamon:
It's been about three years since I read the book, but I'm pretty sure that the message was quite a bit different there.

It's about the same in the movie.

Bob might have been slightly overreacting in regards to the twist, or maybe I just lumped everything I hated about the movie into Pi himself, which allowed the movie and Angle Lee to retain their dignity. I didn't find the message all that heavy handed.

All the people talking about being hungry after this review made me laugh, seeing as what really happened in the boat, lol, boy I have a sick mind

I haven't seen this movie yet but if it's anything like the book, and from Bob's description it sounds exactly like the book, then you shouldn't avoid going to see it just because of the religious aspect. There's a lot more to the story than that, and the religious stuff isn't as heavyhanded as Bob's making it appear.

Oh wow... Most of the people in this thread never read the book and take Bob's quick summery without any real explanation or thought into what the original book was about.

I hate to be that guy, I really do. But... you people just don't "get it".

By the way Bob, F you, I bet if this was an anti-religion film, you'd be all over it like candy.

Ugh, screw this movie's "message" Y'know what? Not believing in a higher power may give a somewhat bleaker outlook of the world, but at least it's being honest with yourself, I'd say this actually works better as an indictment of that "believe because it's comforting" bollocks.

AxelxGabriel:
Oh wow... Most of the people in this thread never read the book and take Bob's quick summery without any real explanation or thought into what the original book was about.

I hate to be that guy, I really do. But... you people just don't "get it".

By the way Bob, F you, I bet if this was an anti-religion film, you'd be all over it like candy.

It's not the religious message, it's that the religious message was dumb.

As the kind of atheist you probasbly think Bob is, I feel the need to remind you that Bob considers atheists to be boring people for some reason and thus distances himself from us too.

Interesting. Bob calls the Life of Pi anti-atheist because it has a positive message for those with religion, while my Christian mother hated it because she thought the message was agnostic in nature devaluing certain religions.

Remember children, if the message of a movie doesn't line up with your personal beliefs perfectly, it is inherently against them.

Anyway, I found the sentiment a little more genuine than Bob, though I guess if you have ire for other one-sided message films like Narnia or the Golden Compass, I can understand why people would take umbrage with this film as well. That said, I wasn't as thrilled with it like others seem to be, though I had seen the absolutely brilliant Lincoln before this one so perhaps my bar had been set pretty high that week. But yeah, I don't shake my easily-offended fist at the film just because it adds value to the opinions of those who believe in a higher power. I think this is yet another movie review where Bob entered the theater with a bad attitude before the previews even rolled.

leviadragon99:

It's not the religious message, it's that the religious message was dumb.

And how exactly was it dumb?

I think you're mixing up "pro-theistic" with "anti-atheistic".

At any rate, it's certainly different than what ELSE is in theaters normally. :D

I plan on taking my Mom, we both loved the book.

lacktheknack:
I think you're mixing up "pro-theistic" with "anti-atheistic".

At any rate, it's certainly different than what ELSE is in theaters normally. :D

I plan on taking my Mom, we both loved the book.

A very good point. The Life of Pi is very original and unique in visual style, tone, and message from what Hollywood usually puts out. Even if it's only an adaptation, it shouldn't matter if you don't agree with the subject material to appreciate the artistic value it holds.

That's odd.

The book wasn't "anti-atheism" at all. And I hate to speculate on things I haven't experienced, but I suspect that the movie ain't, either.

Silk_Sk:

Wombok:

Silk_Sk:
Behold, ladies and gentlemen! A butthurt /r/atheist whine-botter in the flesh! Please, don't feed it any intelligent discussion or it will shit everywhere and fling it back at you.

Oh bravo! Another ad hominem! You sure showed him!

Please enlighten us more with your bullshit, pseudo-intellectual, hipster philosophy. How about you regurgitate a half-arsed version of the ontological argument or reference some esoteric philosophical book you've never read.

Kill yourself.

Watch, by the time it works itself through that last sentence it will have completely lost control of its faculties and resorted to even more pathetically predictable insults. Fascinatingly dull creatures aren't they?

You don't see a certain sense of hypocracy in that statement? Wow.

MovieBob:
Life of Pi
MovieBob takes us on a very special boat trip with Life of Pi.

Um, Bob. That "crunch time" intro thing was nice, but you already told us what you thought of Lincoln.

So, um...

What did you think of the Man with the Iron Fists?

You know I got a completely different message from reading the book although it has been a few years, I enjoyed the book even though It was dull in a few places. Bob maybe you misunderstood a few thing or you stop paying attention half way through because of how annoying Pi was :3

Man, that one strip of Calvin and Hobbes always gets to me (who would have thunk it?!).

Anyway, I'm an atheist, and I didn't find the story's morality too much in the "bash it over your head until you agree camp." Still, that was the book and I don't know if the movie focused more on that aspect. Personally, I don't find Pi grating (in the book at least) because it was easy enough for me to separate myself from him and think "well, this is what he believes, and I don't feel like he's trying to convert me."

Silk_Sk:

Arakasi:

Silk_Sk:

Watch, by the time it works itself through that last sentence it will have completely lost control of its faculties and resorted to even more pathetically predictable insults. Fascinatingly dull creatures aren't they?

You don't see a certain sense of hypocracy in that statement? Wow.

Ah, the classic "hypocrite" comeback. Once I even saw one spell the word correctly, it's true. And now, my humble audience, comes comes the best part. If he doesn't reply to this comment, I win the argument he thinks he's having. If he does reply, I get to troll him even more.

Thanks for correcting me on the spelling of that, I've been using it incorrectly for quite a while.
As for the argument itself, the victor any argument is decided solely by the audience that interprets the argument, not merely who gets the last word in.
With this, I bid you adieu, there is clearly no further point in replying to your posts, so I shall not.

My the thread has devolved into trolling and petty insults far quicker than I thought it would. Quick reminder, gents: keep your own noses clean by showing your debating partner the same level of respect you think you deserve.

This includes not telling them to die for the simple fact that they disagree with you.

Wasn't planning on seeing the movie, definitely won't now.
I read the book a couple years ago and I was kind of on board with the story until the last few chapters, where I placed Pi Patel firmly in spot number 4 of my 'Most Irritating Book Protagonists' list, behind Asher Lev, Ender Wiggin, and Holden Caulfield.

Odd I would of picked the tragic story with people instead of animals, as it would seem more real.

MovieBob, I've been following you since you started putting out stuff on the site, but you really need to get out of your own ass. Silver Linings Playbook is a "piece of sh*t" because it isn't original enough? Seriously? You're being that petty about a film that otherwise is incredibly well acted and directed? Your personal tastes and beliefs are really getting in the way of your judgment of the quality of films. You don't like the Scream movies because it made geek culture more mainstream (something you just argued in favour of in your latest Big Picture, so you can add hypocrite to the list), you don't like Amazing Spider-Man because it's not the Spider-Man YOU grew up with, and now you're critizing Life of Pi for presenting a character with a lifestyle you find preachy purely because you don't believe in it? I'm an atheist myself, but have a little tolerance man. I seriously considered stopping watching your shows after your utterly trollish fanboy b*tching you call your review of Amazing Spider-Man, but your comments about Silver Linings Playbook have sealed the deal. Congratulations sir! You've just lost one of your oldest followers. I know you probably don't care (and you probably won't even bother to read this), but I can't stand anymore to waste time with a critic whose so up his own ass that he can't smell anything else anymore.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here