Like the novel on which it is based, Life of Pi is often heavy-handed on the metaphors, but its beauty and seamless use of CGI overshadows most narrative deficiencies. This is not to say that the story, as a whole, is poor or poorly written, just that the exposition at the end to summarize the theme of the previous two hours feels a bit unnecessary and distracting. Sure, there’s an overall relevant comment on interpretation (as it pertains to life and religion); I’m just not sure it needed to be spoon-fed to the audience, but I digress.
As the survivor of a terrible tragedy that claimed his parents and a number of other lives, Pi is sought to inspire a blocked author (and, perhaps, make him belief in God). While the story is fun, the special effects make it real. The tiger that made the book – by most accounts – un-adaptable is incorporated smoothly and beautifully into the waterlogged setting.
But herein lies the rub. Yes, the film is beautiful. The colors are brilliant. The character is charming. But, does this warrant Ang Lee’s second Academy Award for Best Director. Don’t misunderstand; I like Lee a lot. I thought he deserved to win for Brokeback Mountain, and probably should have napped a statuette for Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon. Furthermore, The Ice Storm, which is also adapted from a rather deep novel by Rick Moody, is one of my favorite films. So, this is not meant to be a knock on Lee. Rather, it’s a question as to whether or not the director should be credited for stunning visual effects.
James Cameron, in his win for Titanic, first prompted this argument, but the CGI available in 1997 was, as a whole, drastically immature in comparison to today’s capabilities. That said, if awards are given to directors with amazing special effects houses, then Cameron probably should have won a second Oscar for Avatar. But he didn’t. As I’ve noted a number of times, I’m no fan of Avatar and wouldn’t have awarded Cameron an Oscar because much of the direction was taken over by a computer graphics program.
So, I wonder whether I would have awarded Lee an Oscar for having some of the same tools in his box. Avatar’s story was basic at best. And Life of Pi, while interesting, boils down to a pretty transparent metaphor on religion. On the surface, it’s more complex than Avatar. (To its credit, there’s a more palpable connection between Pi and the audience than any of the Navii or cartoonish humans in Avatar.) However, I’m not sure that the metaphors, cute animals, and fun play on the name “Pi” makes the story more well-rounded, or just equipped with more endearing moments.
But again, should Lee be credited with how we find some sort of connection with a cartoon tiger?
If the animation lines around the tiger were more obvious, it would have been a distraction, so any connection between him and Pi would be voided. However, Lee did not control the animation. He controlled the story board and directed the main actor around where the animation was presumed to be. But, the presence of the animation is created by the visual effects house, a presence that includes the tiger, the ocean, the sky, the ship, and the island – so, about two-thirds of the films that exist outside of Pi’s house and his elementary school.
Now, if Lee were to have made this film without a wealth of special effects — perhaps intimating the tiger and its ferocity, using close-ups on Pi to show just how isolating floating around the ocean is, instead of wide-angle shots of the ocean and its consistent storms – then it would have been a more incredible feat to direct an “unadaptable” film. But this isn’t what happened.
Lee was afforded the benefit of a VFX studio that performed phenomenal work on this film.
