Life of Pawn

Rating: 7/10 (28 November 2012)

This film is mildly recommended.
Give me the real thing anytime! Sparkling rhinestones never trump diamonds. Plastic trees and silk flowers can never substitute for nature's glories. Artificial sweeteners are fine for awhile, but usually leave a funny aftertaste. Which brings us to Ang Lee's Life of Pi, a so-so entertainment that is long on style and short in substantial value.
Overdone best describes this film. Visually, the film is a stunning work of art. ( I found the 3-D to be totally enthralling, almost too precise and overworked at times, but still a remarkable undertaking of this process. ) The film's color palette has an exciting vibrancy that is unmatched by other films, but also an artificial over-saturated glow, as if colors were boosted beyond their limits. There are scenes of true artistry that give this film a distinctive allure ( the staging of the actual shipwreck sequence, the surprise meeting of the boy and his tiger aboard the small lifeboat, a surrealistic hallucination that is filled with stark imagery, the colorful sunsets and ominous cloud reflecting upon the waters ). These effects do create an otherworldly atmosphere, which I suppose was Lee's goal, but the film's onslaught of phantasmagoric dreamscapes becomes excessive and outweighs the slenderest of plots: a philosophical and spiritual parable about a boy and his tiger lost at sea.
This paradoxic metaphor is the basis conceit that enables the director and his screenwriter to explore the deeper meaning of religion, faith, and God that, in the end, makes Life of Pi become a preachy treacle, continually musing about our existence in this vast universe. ( Recent films by major directors like Terrance Malick's The Tree of Life, Lars van Trier's Melancholia, and the recent Cloud Atlas by the Wachowskis have explored this territory with similar mixed results. So one cannot fault Ang Lee with his passion and determination to film this novel and its metaphysical ruminations. )
Ultimately where Lee's film fails is in its conventional storytelling. The screenplay literally sinks the movie. Its script by David Magee rambles on and is especially slow-moving in the first half hour of the film with all its tedious exposition and build-up prior to the shipwreck. Based on Yann Martel's novel, the plot set-up is told in flashback, with the adult Pi bookending the more exciting adventure storyline. As he narrates his tale of survival, the character of the younger Pi ( Suraj Sharma ) emerges, but he is never fully realized. He is merely a pawn in this sea of woe. More time and success is spent on the exquisite photo-realistic rendering of Bengal tiger nicknamed Richard Parker. The CGI enhanced Mr. Parker gives a more lifelike performance and upstages the real life actor, Mr. Sharma, who could use some acting lessons. This imbalance sacrifices a real emotional gravitas needed to really care about the central character which I found completely missing in the film. ( In fact, the tiger had a lot more patience that I would have had if I was on that lifeboat and had to subject myself to Pi's religious rants and whining. He clearly would have been dinner by midday. )
Life of Pi is slightly adrift, a film full of excesses and self-important swagger. Lee overindulges his vision and seems more preoccupied in creating an ethereal world that is quite beautiful and strange to behold but, contrary to his own beliefs, it is also quite annoying to experience all of its religious dogma too. The overall effect of Life of Pi is a mixed blessing, so to speak. Life of Pi is a visually impressive achievement in filmmaking, but it remains intellectually and emotionally off-course. GRADE: B-
ANY COMMENTS: Please contact me at: jadepietro@rcn.com
NOTE: Years ago, there was a wonderful film based on a children's novel called The Black Stallion which followed a similar storyline: a boy and an animal are shipwrecked and need each other to survive the hardships they face together. That film used a visual, almost wordless narrative to connect story and imagery; this film relies too heavily on the imagery to connect the pretentiousness of its hollow and holiest of words.