Life of Pity

Rating: 6/10 (10 April 2013)

Life of Pi (PIE not PEE) directed by Ang Lee and starring Suraj Sharma is based on the novel of the same name by Yann Martel, who joins Lees as co- writer on the film's screenplay, in what is probably one of the most surprising features of the film version of a truly great novel. Lee, a master of cinema on the theme of fractured relationships, who also brought to us unforgettable screen versions of the likes of Annie Proulx's classic short story "Brokeback Mountain" and Rick Moody's "The Ice Storm", here takes on what to most readers of Martel's gripping debut must have seemed like a virtually impossible task, filming the unfilmable. At the heart of Martel's tale is the story of a young Indian boy, Pi, and a Bengal Tiger adrift in the middle of the Pacific ocean after Pi's family are lost in a shipwreck on route from India to a new life in Canada, leaving only Pi and one of the family circus animals to fight the odds and each other as they cling to the hope of reaching dry lands across thousands of miles of open ocean. Yet in what might have initially been tenuously achievable in the form of a Pixar or Walt Disney animation, Lee, in characteristic ground breaking style, opts to tackle in a live action version. Perhaps, Lee felt emboldened in his mission by having the original novel writer on hand to adapt the novel for the screen. In this regard there are both winners and losers - most of all the story itself and in particular its denouement. It has to be said, however, that Lee excels in turning the imagery of Martel's novel into a visual feast. There is no doubt in High Definition 2D, Lee has created a magnificent palette for the eyes (I have heard the 3D version is breathtaking (I cannot believe I would agree, I find 3D visually distracting). Not alone that, but with his usual flair, Lee somehow manages to makes a seemingly restricted scenario unfold with a tension worthy of Hitchcock. This is one of the aspects that, in addition to the imagery, Lee has translated faithfully to the screen since, for much of the novel itself, the reader is kept adrift with the protagonist in gripping prose on the open sea, suffering the mindless boredom, the cracked lips, stinging with salt, the chapped fingers, the scorching sun and the ever present danger of fading hope. The cinematography is seamlessly intertwined with the fate of the boy the and the tiger so that the viewer is not left in the virtual doldrums, but pulled along on a tide of rising anxiety for the fate of the rafts occupants. Then something goes uncharacteristically wrong. The closing acts of the film suddenly seem like the work of an altogether different director. The final ten minutes are stuffed with explanation after explanation. The script itself becomes noticeably lazy and flat, the characters utterly functional in a way which hits the viewer like a stupid stick and drains away the essential novelty and searing brilliance which made the novel a rightfully acclaimed work. It is almost as though, the film-makers of indeed editors had decided the visual spectacle of the film was sufficient for the audience and the story itself, even the horrifying truth at its core, was somehow dispensable as a narrative. Martel's novel is a profound multi-layered polemic on hope, belief, imagination, survival and trial. In his book the strands of several stories are intricately interwoven and so brilliantly so that the explosive finish unfolds in a matter of sentences casting the reader back through the entire experience of the novel. All this of course is lost in the film. What does this say about Lee or Martel? Lee was awarded with best director for his efforts and clearly due to the visual translation of the novel which is simply stunning. But, it is hard to imagine anyone being inspired to read Martel's novel on the basis of this version of his story. It falls apart quite possibly because, after all, it just might be an unfilmable novel - even by Ang Lee and even with the novelist at his side.