Life of pie message12/28/2022 This may be because in the tragic portions he was recollecting the incidents of hyena killing the orangutan and the zebra while he said about people. The tiger not coming out during the hyena's time might be because it was drugged like all the animal + it was very tired from swimming, so that is not a 'proof' of anything.Īt the end Pi narrates the people-story, and his body language suggests that he is lying until he starts to narrate the tragic portions. it has made the incident a beauty of his life. Why does the writer prefer the tiger story?įor a 'flat' hearted person - the story is interesting, dramatic and worth remembering.įor a 'deep' hearted person - the story is all the above, because it is wonderful and pleasant, it makes the incident a not regretful one and a memory to cherish beyond all those cruel things that has happened. And we all know a tiger can't come out from nothing.Īnother proof is the human-shaped island, where trees are edible, but that at night, being it so welcoming, "turns into" acid lakes and killing trees. The answer is simple: there was no tiger, there was no hyena, orangutan or zebra There are actually some proofs to this: when seeing the movie, didn't you wonder how come the tiger didn't come out of the covered bit earlier? Why didn't the tiger fight the hyena under that tarpaulin? She came from there, so they must have. He took revenge and did desperate things in a desperate situation. Pi knows the story is not true, and he knows his mother died in that lifeboat. Perhaps because it's more interesting or less dramatic/strong, but certainly not because the writer believes the story is real. Think about it: when in the end he asks the writer "what story do you prefer?", the writer chooses the animal one. He just elaborated that and invented the animal one to get over it. The story he tells in the end is the real one, and even if it's not said clearly, we know that's what actually happened. His animal story is what his mind likes/chooses to believe over such a dramatic event that is losing his mother in a violent way and a shipwreck. Life of Pi is not a fantasy movie, it's drama, it's a dramatic story. But as much as I loved the story with the animals, it's just a metaphor for what actually happened. We don't like the other being true because it's so sad and dramatic. I did too, but when talking about it with someone else, I realized it's just our human side that makes us want to believe it. I know there are people who like to believe the animal story. The other one, the more religious interpretation, would just be the story you're reading and that's what happened.īut at the end, no confirmed answer is there.ĭisclaimer: If you haven't seen the movie yet, please don't read this answer. What I was trying to do in this book was try and discuss how we interpret reality - most secular readers will read the book and say 'Ah, okay, there's one story told and actually something else happened, and Pi 'invented' this other story to pass the time, or make his reality bearable. Some hints the author gave himself too in the same interview: I agree with about the saying "and so it goes with God" reveals that this story might be true (again depends on you). So please dont try to analyze, just enjoy the story as it is. We're not free necessarily to choose the facts of our life, but there is an element of freedom in how we interpret them. One day we wake up and we're in a great mood, the city we live in is a beautiful city, the next day it's an ugly city. Reality isn't just "out there", like some block of cement: reality is an interpretation. This is what made a brilliant contribution for the success of the movie.Įven the author himself wanted to remain the mystery when asked about which is the true one. We're not going to tell you which story to believe. On the other hand, the first story is also totally unlikely. The sheer volume, the proliferation of details, favors the first. Now for the BIG question: Which version do you believe? Do you think Pi, as young boy, comes up with fantastical tale to cope with an ugly truth? Or is it somehow not the point to decide what actually happened? That the beauty of the first story outweighs the believability of the second? On the one hand, Martel spends a good 200 pages developing the first story and about 7 on the second. I found some great piece of lines in the web: It is something that makes the movie healthy. There are a lot of successful movies where a question is kept alive intentionally through out the movie and never a perfect answer is given because public like mystery and they likes solving it themselves if no answer is given (like you are trying :) ). First let me tell you that the ending of the movie is intentionally kept dim because it is the main attraction part of the movie.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |