Life of Pi

Ang Lee 2012

Multiculturalism, multireligion, multiadventure, multifable, multifact.  The twists and turns in the emotional and fantastic voyage of the life of Pissence….er, Pi Patel go beyond the imagination.  And then in the end we get an “alternate ending” provided by Pi himself, and the question that is posed for us is, “Which story do you prefer?”  Which is also a way of saying, “Which story to you believe?”

This film lived up to every expectation and more.  The SFX, the acting, music, the pace, the sheer beauty, CG or no, was incredible.  My children and I were captivated, moved, and yes, even frightened.  I must confess, this is the ONLY film that has actually made me yell out loud in fear.  I usually jump, take in a breath of air sharply, tense up, grab the chair arm, grab the knee of the person next to me and almost spill their pop or popcorn, but I’ve NEVER yelled out loud.

   

I refrain here from telling you at which point that happens because I am solidly against spoilers.  (I believe in craftily writing my way around spoilers in an attempt to make the story even MORE enticing - if I think it’s worth watching - and I write about very few films that I don’t like).  But yes, it was emotionally incredible, although that word does not really describe the filmed version of this story.  Although there are multiple effects and green screens and animations in the film, the story, the effects, and the outcome of the whole is totally believable, credible.  As Joanna Langfield of The Movie Minute has said, “Ang Lee has accomplished the impossible”.  Not only for making the incredible credible, but for making visual and realistic what would normally be impossible except via the imagination of the fable, the written story.  Visual feast is good. A magazine review stated, “The CG tiger was so real that it makes the Narnian Aslan look like a cartoon.”

The pacing was judicious as well, with plenty of time given to help the story develop via the dialogue with a would-be novelist in search of a story.  Great setup.

That’s the filmic part of it.  What of its dialogue with the heart?  Christianne Amanpour is currently presenting a series of biblical history shows entitled, “Back to the Beginning”, made for TV that are multi-religious, adroitly encompassing the crossover of 3 major faiths via the story of Abraham.  In the Life of Pi we are given such a tour and in such a way, seen through the eyes of a child and young man, that we cannot help but agree that God is a great wonder who is humbling, and real, but also not easily pinned down by our religious assertions.  In fact, Pi proves to us that the best approach to God is humility, and openness, with the eye towards being truthful and transparent.  Yes, and not just stopping there, as he discovers, but completely dissolved of the self, and absorbed.  The VietNam Veteran in Forrest Gump comes to mind as he yells from the top of the mast of the shrimp boat during the storm, only to discover that he still has a place in God, and comes to peace.  The difference between the Vet and Pi would be that Pi starts his journey from a seeking and submitting position, whereas the Vet in Gump is belligerent doubt.  Pi, himself, comes to peace and complete absorption in a great storm, welcoming the beauty of it, while the Vet in Forrest Gump yells into the wind of that storm, shaking his fist, “Is that the best you can do?”

Pi will shock you, enrapture you, and take you on his journey in such a way that you are compelled to leave your reality and join his for the brief period of 2 hours and 7 minutes, and you’ll not regret it.

5 stars

Hugo - 2011

Martin Scorsese

This one felt quite a bit more like a Spielberg film than anything Scorsese ever made.  Good to see that a director with the depth of Marty can begin to stretch into areas that don’t have guns and Italians.  There was very little bloodshed in this one.

Hugo, like the awards, most likely invites just such an award.  Originality, quality, depth of insight into the characters and backgrounds all check out.  Special Effects?  ILM.  This was a roller-coaster of a ride through many layers of models, maps, and meticulous re-constructions from historical reality in order to bring to light one of the most ingeniously creative and innovative minds of the modern era.  Melies was indeed way ahead of his time, and Mr. Scorsese did more than a bang-up job of creating a work that highlighted that life, without it being a “fictumentary”.  Yes, I am inventing that word as we speak.  So if it becomes a meme, let it be known that this day, Friday December 21st, 2012, I created it!  Hah!

Hugo put me in that kind of mood, in any case.

But how much did Martin have to do with all that SFX and scenery and fantastic falderal?  Well, advisedly I’m sure he stayed on top of it.  But let’s talk about the acting.  That’s what directors do you know.  They direct the actors.  He had an automatic gem here in Sacha Cohen, and not because of his loony roles in his 2 mocumentary satires (mocumentary is NOT a word that I have made up, that was already invented some time ago), and especially in Chloe Grace Moritz, whose effervescence is so unique and mystical she could probably act on screen while sleeping.  But what of Asa Butterfield?  He “looked” the part, certainly, with that urchin chin and grin, and naturally falling loose black hair, the street urchin deluxe.  But what of his work?  

Well, I can’t imagine Marin Scorsese having a hard time with children, even though they say that animals and children are the most difficult.  But for some reason Asa did not carry the part on screen.  It was a dismal failure.  Sorry Asa.  It’s not just looks we’re after here.  He does not have the maturity of Chloe.  Beside her he looked like a high school play actor working on a first run of Les Miserables.  I can imagine in scenes like the activating of the automaton as it begins to write that there were many takes.  He still didn’t get it right.  No matter how he threw those bottles around or how he tramped into the chair and attempted the pouty look, or waited between shots as they squirted fake tears into his eyes as the camera rolled, Martin Scorsese’s eyebrows were probably a bit knit together, and there were a few calls for lunch, and dinner, and….to be continued the next days.  He did a lot more with a lesser name, Christopher Serrone, in Goodfellas, than he got out of young Butterfield.

Well, all in all it was still an effectively good story about the great old film master.  It’s quite possible that there should have been a re-write however in this case, to place more background and emphasis on Melies and less on the little boy in the train station. 

I was never quiet sure how the backstory of the station master tied in with him being either/both cruel then sympathetic with orphans.  Cohen brought the very best action and comedy to the film however, and played his part superbly, even though it was all a necessary side-plot.  Wonderfully done.  The station scenes were completely convincing, and all of that side-plot worth the price of admission.

But for some reason I have found myself almost wishing now that someone would take another crack at Melies from a different direction entirely, exploring the fire, the war, the background of the man who bought the automaton at a museum auction, etc.  Those were all very interesting “side stories” here that did not get the attention that they deserved. 

Artistically this was a magnificent feat, but seeing as how it was not the best work produced by Mr. Scorsese, it must be viewed as a foray into a realm that he is simply not as comfortable with as of yet.  If I viewed this without knowing who directed it, I would have said it was by the director that brought us Percy Jackson, and Harry Potter, which would be Chris Columbus.

[As a side note:  It’s also quite possible that somehow in the politics of things that Sacha Cohen and Ben Kingsley worked out some kind of deal in the background of this one, after that horrible film “The Dictator” (I liken that to “Porky’s a la Politics”), that because Ben Kingsley, the great actor that brought us Gandhi, was forced to play a hideous secondary role in that film, they agreed that this time in Hugo, Mr. Cohen would be the idiot, and Ben the center of attention.]

2.5 stars only, sorry Mr. S, try again please?  Maybe a B/W Italian love story?  Hm

The Beaver - 2011

Mel Gison, Jodie Foster

Jennifer Lawrence, Anton Yelchin

Jodie Foster wins again with another tragicomic lighthearted serious drama.  If you find that statement convoluted, it’s because the film conjures up all of those things, yet is itself a single whole piece.  Much in the tradition of Little Man Tate, you cannot take the facts as facts, and seriously, however, the story left me personally with quite a bit of hope, even though in the end our hero father/CEO/puppet-master ended up in an institution.  It proved to be that what he really wanted was more important than his infliction.  What he wanted was more potent than a sometimes malevolent, possessive Beaver.

Mel Gibson was so good.  The native accent was spot on of course, a natural pick for Mel as an alternate voice for his Beaver voice, which consumes the bulk of the film anyway.  He managed somehow to upstage everyone, even Jodi, which she judiciously allowed, in fact purposefully gave to him “on stage”.

   

Jodi’s directorial skills have been sharpened in so many ways, and she has developed her own style, which is highly effective.  She knows how to share and give screen time, how to handle a second story and tertiary characters, and top actors.  Jodi of course was raised in the business, and she knows her way around, so I would expect no less at this point.

This one has so many good feelings about it, despite the undergirding dark content, which in my estimation is one of the best ways to handle a dark subject like this.  People who need hope from this crippling affliction of depression need light and effectively meaningful perspective.  She delivered.

   

The use of the contrasting second story of the son was a perfect story device, and carries the theme, in fact mirrors it, from another angle.  The vulnerability of youth and beauty and intelligence, “top of the class”, but without a real clue, is exactly the dilemma that the father finds himself in.  Both our CEO dad and our Valedictorian cheerleader find themselves needing a voice to express what they really feel.  He uses a puppet, and so does she, a paid one.

Put this one on the must rent list for this season, if you haven't seen it.

**** 4 stars.  Some slightly cheesy predictability, but not enough to distract.  Easy on the language and the eyes, good thematic material for young adults as well and mid-lifers.  Calls on us to love and care for the one next to us while we have them.  No overtly religious content, simply a moral story.
Stars Mel Gibson, Jodie Foster, the highly versatile and busy-now Jennifer Lawrence, the newer and fantastic face of Anton Yelchin, great for his subdued style in this one.  He's been even busier than Jennifer it seems with 5 film in post right now.  Yikes, go to bed man.