Life of Pi

Life of Pi promised a lot: the possibility of finding true God, a look at human and animal relationships, finding a purpose in life. But the book failed to deliver.

Piscine Molitaire Patel lives in India with his parents and brother Ravi. They operate the Pondicherry Zoo. Due to the unrest in India in the 1970s, Pi’s father makes the decision to move the family to Canada. They sell the zoo and the animals are packed on the freighter with them, to be sold in North America.

Pi (Piscine’s self-given nickname so the kids will stop calling him ‘Pissing’) is a Hindu/Christian/Muslim teen. Let’s get one thing straight- those three religions do not compute. You cannot believe all of them unless you too stupid to know the difference or if you don’t believe the foundations of all of them. Hinduism has 33 million gods. So throwing a few more in there isn’t a big deal, which is why Pi can justify believing in multiple religions. I don’t know much about Islam, but its pretty hard core about its practices and beliefs. And true Christianity denies all other religions as a pathway to God. These religions are so diametrically opposed. But does Yann Martel illustrate that? Of course not. He sets up an imaginary meeting between three leaders of the religions. And their arguments are unrealistic, faulty and plain stupid. Any priest or imam that can’t articulate the fundamentals of his religion isn’t really a priest or imam.

The first half of the book is riddled with questions (and wrong answers) about God, and the second half largely leaves God out. Was this intentional? I’m sure it was, but the two sections seem divorced from each other. And that to me is bad writing, not bad reading on my part.

Through a series of unfortunate events, Pi is shipwrecked, and he the only survivor. Well, he, a zebra, a hyena, an orang-utan named Orange Juice, and a tiger named Richard Parker. Soon, only Pi and the tiger remain. What ensues is an epic (although impossible) story of survival for 227 days in the lifeboat. In the end, they wash up on the shore in Mexico. And Richard Parker walks into the jungle, without ever turning back. Pi is upset that he never got the chance to say goodbye to his greatest enemy, friend and saviour.

In the end, Pi forces us to question the entirety of his story. Two men from the insurance agency looking into the sinking of the ship. Pi tells them his story. The two men don’t believe him. So Pi asks if they want another story. One that is more believable. One that doesn’t have animals or a carnivorous island. They say yes. So Pi tells another story, this one with humans surviving the shipwreck. A cook, he (Pi), his mother and a sailor. He tells a story of the cook being a savage man, one who killed and ate the sailor, and eventually Pi’s mother. Pi says he killed the cook himself. And this leaves us asking: which story is true? Is the first just a metaphor for the second? One that shows the animal-like savagery in our nature? One that sets up and understanding for the second? Did he just make the second story up to satisfy the insurance men? We don’t know.

This is a clever twist. One that makes you think. I appreciate what Martel was trying to do. He was trying to add more depth to his story. He was trying to make his book greater literature, literature that perhaps does more than entertains, but one that asks questions. To be honest, I thought it was lazy. Interesting, but lazy. Instead of incorporating the deep questions into the body of the story, instead of showing human nature, instead of asking who God is, instead of illustrating his point, he discredits it and expects us to do the rest. It’s a very post-modern story in the end. Who can say what Truth is? Who can say which story is true and which isn’t? Who says that an answer exists?

Now, after I read the book, I watched the movie. And while the storyline is similar, and in some ways identical, I got a very different feel from the movie. The visuals in the movie are stunning and the acting is great. That aside, God is woven throughout the story. At one point there is a huge storm. Pi yells at the storm, “What more do you want from me, God? What more can you take?” It’s a powerful scene. Pi believes he sees God in the storm. He rips the tarpaulin off the boat, he exposes Richard Parker to the fury of the waves and the wind. He almost kills him. The cat is thrown about, realistically resulting in broken bones, but that isn’t explicitly revealed in the movie.

The movie also omits some of the incoherent, random and plain non-sensical parts of the book. In the book, Pi talks to Richard Parker and he talks back. This is seen as the madness of a boy dying of thirst. Okay, I can buy that.  They are both blind with malnutrition. (Possible? Not sure.) Another life boat floats up. Somebody is in that boat. He too is out of supplies. He and Pi talk and then he climbs into Pi’s boat. Pi tries to warn him about the tiger. He’s too late. Richard Parker attacks and kills the man. Pi crawls into the other life boat and finds that the man lied. He had some supplies, which helps Pi survive until he comes upon a strange floating island covered in algae and inhabited solely by Meer cats. The island supplies Pi and Richard Parker with food. But the island turns carnivorous at night to all who are on the ground or in the water. Pi and the Meer cats sleep in trees. Richard Parker sleeps in the boat. Pi realizes the island is a lonely place where he will eventually die, so he gathers as much provisions as he can and then sets sail again. The movie includes the floating island, but not the strange, possible imaginary conversations between the boy and tiger and unnamed man.

This was a weird section of the book, one that isn’t really talked about much afterwards. I’m glad the movie omitted it. I’m not sure what Martel’s point was in telling us this. Apparently movie makers thought it was weird and unimportant as well. When Pi tells his second story to the insurance agents in the movie, he tells it much more convincingly than in the book. The book left me thinking that Pi just wanted to confuse and satisfy the agents. The movie made it a much more plausible possibility. He cries while telling it. He says he’ll never forget the cries of his mother.

Aside from that discrepancy, I liked the movie better than the book. The book was drawn out, focused on religion entirely too much without giving answers, and was too post-modern for my liking. The movie has its problems as well, and I almost wish they left the alternate story out of the movie. It would be very different from the book, but it would be superficial enough to make me happy. The relationship between Richard Parker and Pi is much deeper in the movie. At one point, Pi takes the tiger’s head in his lap and strokes his head. This made me cry. I have deep relationships with animals and that scene really hit home with me. Ultimately, the movie showed that savage beasts can put aside their savagery. They’re human, in a way. The book never alleged this. I listened to a podcast on Plugged in Online about the movie. (Podcast 177, available here: http://www.pluggedin.ca/familyroom/podcast.aspx) What Bob Smithouser said was exactly what I felt after the movie. “It was like looking into the eyes of a beautiful animal with no soul.”

1984 vs 2012: Red Dawn

I was excited when I saw previews for Red Dawn. It looked gritty, interesting, and best of all, Chris Hemsworth played in it. Then my parents went, “Red Dawn? I remember that movie. It was pretty cool.” So, Red Dawn is a remake of the 1984 “classic”. I saw the new version in theatres when it first came out. Jed, played by Chris Hemsworth, is a marine on leave. He and his estranged brother Matt don’t get along too well but Jed knows that’s his fault. He joined the military immediately following their mother’s death, leaving Matt and their policeman father to fend for themselves. Jed is back, at least for a little while. Maybe, just maybe, he can patch things up with Matt. Then the power goes out all over. And then the North Koreans invade. Jed, Matt and whoever manages to jump in their pickup hightail it out of town to a remote cabin. They decide to fight back. Some people are cooperating with the North Koreans. But not the Wolverines, as they’re come to be known as. They get weapons and ammunition. And people start dying.

Jed’s relationship with Matt is complex, as is the group dynamics. And the kids take a while to learn how to use guns, and how to come to terms with taking life. These elements are missing in the original movie production.

In the 1984 version, Jed, played by Patrick Swayze (swoon) is not a marine. He’s just a kid like the rest (A 32 year old kid. Who would believe that Swayze is 20?). So the character is very, very different. Hemsworth’s character is withdrawn, emotion-less (for the most part) and is accustomed to the reality of war. Swayze’s character is too the leader of the group, but he breaks down on numerous occasions. Initially I thought that made the original a little more human, but then I considered the fact that Hemsworth behaved like any Marine would have. It makes the whole endeavour and success a little more realistic. Hemsworth has experience and tactical knowledge. I also found that the remake has more of a plotline. Matt has to choose between the group and saving his girlfriend. The attacks are more explained and have more substance and purpose. I found the original spanned a number of months for little reason. And the imprisonment of the civilians is hardly showed in the original. There are a few explosions and executions, but the remake felt more urban and more important. There’s more action and more story. The original was slightly dull and at times, redundant. The Wolverines in the remake gain fame in captive America. Eventually they meet up with some ex-Army men. “You’ve made a difference,” one of them says. “Hell, you are the difference.”

The 1984 version has a little more substance with the female characters. They are the grandchildren of a man the group knows. It is implied that at least one of them was raped by the Russians. Her journey and character, as well as Toni’s are explored more in the original. The girls in the remake just feel like pretty props.

Josh Peck is phenomenal in the remake as Matt, and Charlie Sheen was good in the original. In fact, his final scene brought me to tears, and the remake never did. The scene with Swayze carrying Sheen and the Russian commander letting them go was so profound.

The endings in the two movies are very different. Erica narrates the end of the original movie, saying how the war ended as all wars do, but she never forgot. The remake ends with the uprising of the American people. It’s more hopeful, more patriotic, more open ended but ultimately more artful.

Initially I thought, “Undying American patriotism. Yuck. Cause that’s what the American public needs- an ego boost”,  but I quite enjoyed the new film. The 1984 version just didn’t cut it for me. And that’s definitely because the film quality is so low, and the sound quality sucks, and the special effects were lacking and the filming was so simple; the lackluster plotline didn’t help either. But that’s because I’m used to the flashy, 3 second scene shots of today’s film industry. But my opinion is firm: the remake is better than the original. Even though the original had horses in it. So now you know I mean business. The storyline is more interesting and substantial, the filming is better, and the characters were way more complex. I think 1984 Red Dawn can only be truly appreciated by those who grew up with it. Who knows, maybe in 25 years, the Red Dawn remake will be considered too simple.

The Hobbit: good, but not best

I’ve seen The Hobbit twice in theatres now. And while I like it, there are quite a few things that bothered me about it. The first is that the movie makers are releasing three movies on The Hobbit. It seems like such a money grab. They squeezed six books into three movies, and cut out major characters like Tom Bombadil. And in The Hobbit, they added characters. I made The Hobbit as a child into a movie with my siblings and young uncle. It was half an hour long. 45 minutes tops. So the idea that they are going to make this book into 9 hours of film makes me confused.

The film itself was a bit scattered, and kind of ADD. Much of the film is not content from the book. I think this movie covers maybe three chapters of the book. Much of the content and characters are either made up, or are stories from the Lost Tales or the Silmarillion. Ergo, NOT The Hobbit.

Another thing was the special effects. They were okay, but not nearly as detailed or well executed as LOTR. Which is embarrassing, considering LOTR is ten years old. The movie as a whole was a bit confused, not sure if it should follow in LOTR’s footsteps. It’s trying too hard to be Lord of the Rings, when it is not. It is The Hobbit. And it should have its own themes, nuances, storyline and visual scenery.

To me, the only thing that made the film good was Martin Freedman. He is absolutely brilliant as Bilbo. I loved him in the film. He’s sincere, and delivers his lines with perfect timing and expression. His character is quite different from the Bilbo in Lord of the Rings. And I appreciate him more. Richard Armitage plays Thorin. Armitage has a tendency to over act, being too angry, too loud and trying too hard. His unidentified accent is only present half the time and no one knows what it’s supposed to be. He is trying too hard to be Aragorn instead of developing characteristics of his own. Although, that is probably the script writer and/or the directors fault as well. Similarities and comparisons to LOTR is inevitable obviously. But for me it was trying too hard to be something that it’s not.

The highlight of the movie for me was the riddle telling between Bilbo and Smeagol. Andy Serkis is excellent as always and I felt a pity for his sad state. Bilbo’s decision to spare his life has huge consequences for the fate of Middle Earth, which was felt profoundly in the film.

I enjoyed the movie, enough to see it twice. Which has only happened one other time, for Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (which happens to be one of my all-time favourite movies ever). The Hobbit is worth watching, but the following two movies will only tell if the trilogy is a success. And the sequel has been pushed back until 2014. Sensing a pattern? The timeline on these movies has been pushed back too many times to count. The Hobbit is cool. But one thing’s for sure: It’s no Lord of the Rings.

The Hunger Games Trilogy

The Hunger Games has been reviewed to death. But I read all 3 of the books and my aim is to review all the books that I read in 2012, so here it goes. I’m not going to review each book individually, but the trilogy as a whole.

In the somewhat distant yet surprisingly near future, the country of Panem sits on what used to be North America. The Capitol lies at the center, surrounded by twelve districts. Actually thirteen, but district thirteen was nuclear bombed 75 years ago. In order to exercise its iron grip on the people, the Capitol holds the annual Hunger Games- a televised gladiator-like event. One male and one female are selected at random from each district at the Reaping. Katniss Everdeen’s sister Primrose has been selected. But Katniss can’t let Prim go. She would dead in the first 10 minutes. So Katniss volunteers and she is whisked away to the Capitol to undergo training for the Games. Enter Peeta, a boy she never spoke to but who saved her and her family’s life years earlier. In order to survive she must kill the other 23 tributes. Including Peeta.

Dilemma of the century.

In the following second and third books, Katniss (What?! She survived? Who saw that coming? Spoiler alert!) becomes the symbol of rebellion against the Capitol. She’s not sure she wants to but she seems to have little choice. The ball is in motion.   The fire is catching. Katniss must lead the rebellion, or be burned in the encroaching fire of the uprising.

I was a terrible person and watched the Hunger Games before I read the book. Bad Ashley.  So, to be honest, I liked the movie better than the book. The writing in the book was surprisingly simple. I had expected better. It was easy to read and honestly, it took me about 3 hours of reading per book. The first book was great, the second book was good and I hated the third book. Unfortunately, that’s what happens all too often. The third book was long and drawn out, and there was no real climax. I don’t know why they intend to split the third book into two movies. If anything, you’d need to do that to the second book as it has more content.

Anyways, the books were good. Read them. But don’t expect a good ending. Of course, there is a team Gale and a team Peeta. That’s what we do when there’s a love triangle- we pick sides. So one of those camps will be severely disappointed. I was. Her choice didn’t make sense to me, and Peeta and Gale’s choices made even less sense. Plus way too many people die in the third book. It’s majorly depressing. I was hoping that the rebellion would bring about lasting peace and happiness. But Katniss is not happy. The country is hardly better off. Which makes me sad. I was hoping for something a little more uplifting, but that’s probably my fault. The books started out wonderfully, but for me they fell kind of flat, and I lost interest during the third book.  That doesn’t mean that I’m sorry I read them; I’m not. I guess I just expected more from an author whose first book started out so well.

Water for Elephants

I had desperately hoped that the library would send me one of the original copies of Water for Elephants. You know, one without a picture of Robert Pattinson and Reese Witherspoon on the front. Alas, it was not to be and the copy I received has the two of them nestled in each other’s arms. Not off to a great start, as I really don’t have much appreciation for either actors. Anyways, cover art aside, Water for Elephants was a very interesting read. Although the characters were a little clichéd, I found that the atmosphere of a 1930s carnival came alive in the novel.

Jacob Janowski is an honour student, attending Cornell to become a veterinarian. He is days away from writing his final exams when his parents are tragically killed. He has no money, no home and nothing to live for. He jumps on a moving train on a whim and ends up on the Benzini Brothers’ Most Spectacular Show on Earth’s train. And soon Jacob becomes the resident veterinarian for the crumbling circus. Jacob wants no trouble, but he finds himself falling in love with Marlena, a star performer who is married to the cruel animal handler August. Jacob must give everything he has to try and escape the imploding show alive before it’s too late.

The entire story about Jacob working for the circus is one big flashback told by Jacob as he, now in his 90s, lives in an old age home. The parts that tell Jacob’s life in the present are touching and they really give us an understanding of what the elderly must feel, sitting alone day after day. Jacob’s character is strong, albeit somewhat predictable. I would have liked to see more character development in Marlena however. I got the feeling that I didn’t know Marlena at all, nor why Jacob is so desperately in love with her.  Many of the minor characters are what you would expect: cranky, fake Uncle Al leading the show, the working men who are rough around the edges and underpaid, the performers who want nothing to do with the working men, and so on. They are quite stereotypical but stereotypes come from truth, so perhaps it’s an accurate portrait of the workers. I enjoyed the fact that the book is not centered on romance. There is romance, obviously, but the main plot of the book has little to do with love until the very end. I was pleasantly surprised.

  The plot moved at a steady pace, with interesting (although not unexpected) twists and turns. Sara Gruen does a marvelous job of building the suspense as the story reaches its climax. One thing that I found disappointing was the bad language. The book is riddled with vulgar words and swearing. This is probably realistic, given the setting, but at some points it made me uncomfortable how easily such depraved words and phrases were thrown around. The end of the book was quite happy, and it left me smiling. I had fallen in love with 90-year-old Jacob Janowski, and I couldn’t have been more pleased with how his life progressed.

Water for Elephants was an interesting book, and I’ll bet the movie is too, although I doubt it will be very true to the story. Hollywood loves romantic stories, and I think the essence of Jacob’s life will be lost. They will, undoubtedly, focus entirely on Jacob and Marlena’s relationship. The movie will be filed in my mind as one of those ‘hey, I should watch that sometime’ movies and then I’ll never end up renting it. Which is probably just as well because I don’t need the poor choice of language repeated, this time, out loud.