Dec 10 2012, 07:01 PM
QUOTE(defaultname365 @ Dec 9 2012, 01:44 PM)
» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «
^Is it. I watched a featurette before and Ang Lee mentions "Kuala Lumpur" as one of the locations the visual effects department is in.
Had my second viewing yesterday, I picked up quite a few parallels that might question the animal story. Plenty of spoilers ahead.
This is what happens when an 'outside' factor affects your beliefs, you start to question them. There are a few more, can't place it at this time. What I mean is that, if you so choose to believe in the human story, these "parallels" serve as a possibility that the animal story could be a metaphorically told story of the human story. Possibly the human story was too painful to be told in its actual form that Pi used animals instead.
The nature of the animal story seems like fragments of Pi's life told in a more 'pleasant' form. We won't really know exactly which story is the truth as we were not in Pi's shoes. I'm still sticking with the animal story as no matter how exceptional / unlikely the story may be, it could be real... just like say, the Bible stories or religious myths.
Had my second viewing yesterday, I picked up quite a few parallels that might question the animal story. Plenty of spoilers ahead.
» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «
1. When Pi is forced onto the boat, the Cook is on it - - the human story sees the cook in it (only realized it on my second viewing)
2. "You must be thirsty" says the priest (this was pointed out here I think) - - interestingly the name of the tiger was originally supposed to be Thirsty. Could it be that there was no paperwork and that Richard Parker was actually Father Richard Parker the priest at the church?
3. When Pi first catches the glowing fish, he says "Thank you Lord Vishnu, for giving me this fish etc." - - young Pi said "Thank you Lord Vishnu, for introducing me to Christ", interestingly Christ is represented by a fish symbol
4. Pi said he remembers everything the day he broke his love with Anandi except saying goodbye - - this is exact feeling that Pi had when Richard Parker left without a goodbye
5. The island looked like Lord Vishnu when shown from a distance - - young Pi was thanking Lord Vishnu (laid down statue) and the shape of it was exactly like the island, it was unmistakably the same!
6. When Pi looked into Richard Parker's eye, he saw the universe - - this is same implied notion when young Pi was reading about Lord Krishna and the camera zooms into the eyes and he sees the universe
7. It's interesting that at the end, Pi actually tells the writer "I've told you two stories, neither of which can be proven" or something along this line. If Pi really had been with the animals, he wouldn't have given a choice to the writer to choose from but then again, Pi gave him a choice just like anyone would have a choice to believe in God or not.
2. "You must be thirsty" says the priest (this was pointed out here I think) - - interestingly the name of the tiger was originally supposed to be Thirsty. Could it be that there was no paperwork and that Richard Parker was actually Father Richard Parker the priest at the church?
3. When Pi first catches the glowing fish, he says "Thank you Lord Vishnu, for giving me this fish etc." - - young Pi said "Thank you Lord Vishnu, for introducing me to Christ", interestingly Christ is represented by a fish symbol
4. Pi said he remembers everything the day he broke his love with Anandi except saying goodbye - - this is exact feeling that Pi had when Richard Parker left without a goodbye
5. The island looked like Lord Vishnu when shown from a distance - - young Pi was thanking Lord Vishnu (laid down statue) and the shape of it was exactly like the island, it was unmistakably the same!
6. When Pi looked into Richard Parker's eye, he saw the universe - - this is same implied notion when young Pi was reading about Lord Krishna and the camera zooms into the eyes and he sees the universe
7. It's interesting that at the end, Pi actually tells the writer "I've told you two stories, neither of which can be proven" or something along this line. If Pi really had been with the animals, he wouldn't have given a choice to the writer to choose from but then again, Pi gave him a choice just like anyone would have a choice to believe in God or not.
This is what happens when an 'outside' factor affects your beliefs, you start to question them. There are a few more, can't place it at this time. What I mean is that, if you so choose to believe in the human story, these "parallels" serve as a possibility that the animal story could be a metaphorically told story of the human story. Possibly the human story was too painful to be told in its actual form that Pi used animals instead.
The nature of the animal story seems like fragments of Pi's life told in a more 'pleasant' form. We won't really know exactly which story is the truth as we were not in Pi's shoes. I'm still sticking with the animal story as no matter how exceptional / unlikely the story may be, it could be real... just like say, the Bible stories or religious myths.
This post has been edited by sickx: Dec 10 2012, 07:02 PM
Quote
0.0225sec
0.28
6 queries
GZIP Disabled