Shanda and I just saw Life of Pi this week for the first time. First of all, I just want to say that this was one of the most visually striking movies I have ever seen, Ang Lee did a fantastic job with the cinematography! I highly recommend the movie to anyone who hasn't seen it yet, it was one of my favorite movies of the year. The rest of this post will have spoilers, so please don't read this blog until you have seen the movie and/or read the book.
Not having read the book myself, I was very surprised by the ending. It makes for a rousing discussion: which ending (animals on the boat versus humans on the boat) was true, or does it matter? What is so interesting is that how the author/director views faith is highly dependent on which interpretation is true:
Interpretation 1 - The human story is true
There are some troubling implications behind this interpretation of the ending. The human account of the story is quite brutal, with Pi choosing to murder the cook in the boat after watching him viciously murder his mother and the sailor. By choosing to recast the story in more innocent terms with animals, this essentially portrays faith as nothing more than a repressive reconstruction of reality to gloss over one's sins and troubles. In other words, faith is not based on truth, but based on an inability to come to grips with reality.
Interpretation 2 - The animal story is true
If the animal story was the true story, than Pi had to make up the story about the humans simply because many people aren't capable of wrapping their minds around how fantastical the world can truly be. By this view, God can interact with His creation in such grandiose ways that many humans cannot even come to believe that it could be true. What is fascinating here is that now the exact reverse is true compared to the previous interpretation: it is the secular-minded people who are repressing reality because they cannot come to grips with how big God is.
Interpretation 3 - It doesn't matter which story is true
I think this is the most likely meaning the author intended, which if true would be akin to Pantheism. Pantheists believe that God is in all things, and that all things lead to God. Everyone finds God/truth by their own path. Ironically, Pi's father aptly explains the fundamental flaw with Pantheism when he says to Pi: "People who believe in everything end up believing in nothing." What he means by this is that the only way that every religion and belief could be true is if they are all equally false and meaningless. After all, each of the primary religions makes objective claims about what the purpose of life is and how to attain righteousness, so they cannot all be true unless they are all equally meaningless.
What do you all think, which ending did you believe? Does the open interpretation make the book/movie shallow or profound? I would be interested in hearing the thoughts of others.
I think it is all an illustration of how reality can depend on how you look at it. Kind in the Buddhist way of you create your reality. I can't explain very well what I mean - kind of your number 3, it doesn't matter which is true, but also that they can both be true, depending on which one you believe to be true. I am so glad you saw the movie and hope you will read the book! I really enjoyed that book, and I enjoy the challenge of trying to figure out the ending!
ReplyDelete