On DVD Now: Life of Pi

We snapped this one up the weekend of its release on DVD. For us, that’s unusual. Sure it won a bunch of awards, sure it was critically acclaimed, but was it actually any good?

We gave it a shot.

First and foremost the opening several minutes could easily be a presentation by the India tourist bureau. The scenery, the architecture, the wildlife, the rich, vivid colors were tremendously inviting.

I know a little about India and the cultures there. You can tell that by the way I used the plural form of 'culture'. India is a big-ass land mass. It boasts around a BILLION souls. That’s BILLION with a ‘B’. Three of them for every single American resident, legal and illegal. India is a land of wide diversity, rare is the stereotype that accurately spans the entire nation.

In the most recent iteration of my IT career, the last twelve or so years, I’ve had the good fortune to have known and worked with scores of fine people from India. Not a random scattering, admittedly, but scores of technically sharp, college educated and mostly articulate-English-speaking people from India. I’ve come to know a little about their cultures and their lives and have always been fascinated and impressed.

Theirs is a rich and ancient story mix of adversity and fortune, wealth and poverty. Their society is dotted with a wide variety of gods and demons, stories that predate Christianity by thousands of years. Bizarre tales that seem to us fantastic tall tales of magic and enchantment, betrayal and power-lust that make the Greek and Roman gods seem tame and boring in comparison.

My good friend and co-worker Ramesh once told me about the elephant-headed god that the little statue on his dashboard represented. “He clears obstacles.” He said to simplify the epic stories.

I admire Ramesh, he seems to personify  many of the ideals that I wish I could claim. He is a devoted husband, a doting father of a beautiful little girl, a dutiful son himself, and a cautious, meticulous worker. He is proud and patient. Whenever he is asked about his culture by any of us simple Americans he smiles and explains it in a simple and thorough narrative. He doesn’t take offense at our mistaken understandings, and does not correct us boastfully or arrogantly. He is a humble and polite man, and quick with a joke. Not unlike the movie’s main character, Pi.

In the movie, Pi, the adult version telling his life story, explains to the inquisitive Canadian writer, how he and others can easily be both Catholic and Hindu. “We get to feel guilt towards hundreds of gods, not just one.” He says with a winking smile.

I loved the way Hinduism was interlaced into the movie’s storyline, not proselytizing, rather explaining how the ancient religions that are Hinduism are a very prominent part of the people, and how understanding a little about the religion helps one better understand the people.

In evidence, the reluctance and conflict when Pi, stranded aboard a lifeboat with a Bengal tiger, and early on by an orangutan, a wounded zebra and a hyena, cannot justify killing any of the animals, even when faced with starvation or the teeth and claws of the hungry tiger itself. Upon clubbing a large fish to feed to the emaciated giant cat he weeps with pain and screams apologies to the fish, at the same time praising Vishnu for sending the fish to feed the tiger to keep the tiger from eating him. By this point in the film you get it, you really do.

That’s how good a job the writers and screen adapters did their job. You actually feel Pi’s pain for having to kill a fish to save his own life.

By now you know the crux of the story, Pi is raised by a family that runs a zoo. They decide to move to North America, so they load up all the animals into a Japanese freighter and they all set sail across the pacific.

Then there’s a terrible storm. So for most of the rest of the movie we have Pi and the Tiger in a battle of wits in a thirty-person lifeboat.

What about the other animals I mentioned? Did you not read the part about there being a hungry Bengal tiger aboard? Sheesh, this ain’t no Disney cartoon where the lions and lambs sleep and play together.

I was glad to see that the animals, even though they were almost entirely computer generated, were allowed to portray what they were, wild animals, not cute, talking, fluffy toys. Pi is made to understand this very thing by his father earlier in the story.

Without giving away the real twists and ending, I’ll just say this, the tiger and Pi never, ever kiss and make up or become bosom buddies. I was glad to see this; take that Gentle Ben, Tarzan, Daktari, Jungle Jim, and Elsa the cuddly lioness in “Born Free”.

I’ve mentioned that the animals were mostly CGI’d. Which leads me to the most stunning and pleasing aspects of the movie. The cinematography.

There were many places in the film that were obviously CGI. The animals tended to be a bit jerky at some points, their movements not fully perfected. But what really stood out were the fantasy scenes. As delirium and reality become harder for Pi to discriminate, we too, through absolutely vivid and bright, rich, compelling graphics and detail, are often mesmerized by the unearthly images before us. The brightly glowing jelly fish, the leaping great whale, the tens of thousands of meerkats on the lush, lime-green floating island, and more, much, much more. We don’t care whether it is real or imagined, we just want it to be real, it is real, at least for a moment.

The imagery is not just interwoven into the overall story, it is integral to the story. For the story itself is epic, fantasy-like and surreal, not unlike the many small Hindu stories laid out earlier in the film.

The movie is bright, spectacular and in several places quite funny. Though very dark, almost horrific at the core, Pi smiles, laughs and jokes often about the agonizing turns of fate. Even devout Christians can enjoy this movie, and would note the many similar story lines, not only of the boat full of animals, but also by the Job-like spiraling suffering and the steadfastness and resolve of Pi’s complex beliefs.

By the end of the film, the word I came up with was ‘Wow!’

I was entertained, thoroughly. I was not preached to, hit over the head, or tricked into liking the movie. There were no A-list celebrities at all, no one’s ruggedly handsome mug nor quaffed Hollywood perfection to steal scenes and attention from the story itself.

The movie makes many points, mostly subtle, but the one I came away with that stands out above the others is that it is not so important what the characters in a story are, often they are merely symbols. What is important are the life lessons learned form the stories, whether the story character be a tiger, a talking snake, a human living in a fish, an elephant headed god, these elements merely make the lesson more memorable, something even old Aesop recognized. You certainly remember those talking, magical animal morality tales don’t you?

What is important is making the story and the lessons memorable, and “Life of Pi” certainly masters this.

Highly recommended!

On DVD Now: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy

John le Carré can spin a whale of a cold war spy story. Take The Spy Who Came in from the Cold for example, it doesn’t get much better.

In his writing, le Carré fills the page with excellent prose, efficient, minimal dialog and he paints a dreary scene beautifully. He populates the story with a broad cast of characters, most of them minor, but none wasted.

I could go on cooing like this if I were reviewing his books, but sadly, I’m not.

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy was filmed in 2011, but set in the early seventies, around the time the book was written. You remember the seventies don’t you? The cold war, the global tensions, the secret battles fought between agents of the superpowers?

If you don’t, then this movie will have very little meaning to you.

FLR-9 Antenna array, Misawa AB Japan c. 1980

On the other hand, old farts like me will recall the era well. Some of us even served in one capacity or another as soldiers in the cold war. We were constantly briefed on the dangers and clever, devious shenanigans of Spy vs. Spy encounters. We were to report any strange contacts, especially with too-curious strangers with accents. My own role was never front line - James Bond stuff, just a technician in support of an electronic eavesdropping operation. Hardly clandestine, the site I was at was well established, and its mission was well known. The Godless commies knew we were listening, as we knew they were listening to us. That was part of the conundrum, the paradox, the duality of cold war Spy vs. Spy.

By the seventies the cold war was twenty years in, rules of engagement established, entire careers contained within that framework. That era was also economically stagnant and politically corrupt. In the U.S. as well as our western allied nations, unrest had surged, activists set fires, riot-geared police and national guard troops quashed large protest rallies with teargas and rubber (mostly) bullets. The innocent fifties and age of Camelot and Aquarius had subsided, the world simmered in a stew of paranoia, unease and restlessness. The once proud intelligence agencies were starting to unravel, interventions had loudly and publicly backfired, good intentions soured with age.

Thus is the backdrop for Tinker, Tailor. . .

MI6, the Circus, The U.K.’s once vaunted foreign espionage office is in the throes of a catastrophic and embarrassing international incident, heads rolled, loyalties vanished, leaving the politicos and department heads rushing toward the exits.

‘Control’ (John Hurt) Is canned, as is his much less gregarious ally, Smiley (Gary Oldman).

With the death of the old department head, Smiley is called back in from retirement to hunt down a mole, an unknown Soviet agent within the highest echelons of the Circus.

Hilarity does not ensue.

This is a serious, somber, dark and dreary tale of treachery, espionage and epidemic distrust. Nothing that is meant is said, and nothing that is said is without motive and double or triple entendre.

This is managed very well in le Carré’s books. Not so much in the film adaptation. As a book, outlined with the author’s rich writing, you ride along with the characters, get to know them as they creep in and out of dank shadows. In this film they walk on, deliver some lines, and make prolonged facial expressions, mostly in silence.

Gary Oldman does this to perfection. His character you get. You know there’s much more going on in his mind then most mere mortals merely watching the flick will ever comprehend. The other characters, scores of them, come and go. We’re supposed to be engaged, aiding in the hunt, figuring out who’s lying, who’s betraying whom.

I understand the period, the agencies, the tensions, of the era. I’ve read dozens of novels about the time and the global intrigue presented. I should be the target audience for this work.

Yet I drifted. Too many characters, too many sub-plots, too many complex relationships. I even mentioned to Angel that to keep up with the story that it might be wise to start taking notes. Everyone in the film had code names and human names and those were bandied about interchangeably. The dialog was mostly whispered, always guarded. By the second hour I’d started getting easily distracted by a couple of moths flitting around the lights. By the second half of the second hour, I’d gone to bed. On my way I mentioned to Angel the character I suspected was the mole, based not on the clues in the story line, that was deliberately written evasively. I made my pick based on the star-power among of the cast of suspects. You don’t blow big dollars on xxxxxxxxx just to have him end up as an also-ran. I was proven right.

The movie is slow, whispery, drab, and populated mostly by sleazy middle aged British men, fops. The kind of cold, calculating, understating, humorless men that most of us have virtually no interest in and cannot identify with, and are wholly unable to stir up any feelings for. Executive and bureaucratic spies ordering hits on and ratting out other spies is about as empathy-vacant as brutish thugs bumping off other brutish thugs, but without the gory, bloody footwork and fisticuffs.

I don’t walk out on very many movies, especially cold-war spy movies, but this acclaimed work failed from the beginning to get even a modest rise out of me. I didn’t care, couldn’t be bothered with the effort of sorting out the twisted storyline, and was bored by the multi-layered, deliberately deceptive, plodding pace.

Angel thought better of the film than I, she stuck with it to the end, and though she said she enjoyed it, there was reservation in her remarks. There was no high praise, only a lack of tangible dislike.

Once again, a movie that I wanted to like. The cast was first-rate, the cinematography captured the era splendidly, no expense was spared to make it look and feel like the time and place. But it simply lacked the symphonic pacing and intricacy required to maintain interest in an eventual crescendo. Like a Beethoven work without the brass, tympani and crashing cymbals, nothing but strings and woodwinds pointing and counterpointing for two hours before eventually just stopping.
Go ahead and watch it, but have a crossword puzzle on hand. 

On DVD Now: Hugo

http://www.amazon.com/Hugo-Three-disc-Combo-Blu-ray-Digital/dp/B006OAXL92

I wasn’t exactly dying to watch this movie. I’d heard about it, seen previews, yawned. The fact that it won lots of snooty awards didn’t help.

But Saturday night came around and I was tired and sore from contorting myself most of the day trying to replace an almost-fits bathroom faucet. I hate plumbing, the outgoing part much more so than the incoming part, but I don’t really care at all for either. It’s all about fiddly parts. If you don’t have the exact right one, you’re doomed to use hammers, slip-wrenches and pliers. Knuckles will get busted, you will get damp, and there’s never any telling what that disgusting, soggy glob that just fell out of the trap is.

So I was not really picky. I’d scanned through the DISH-On-Demand offerings and couldn’t find anything better. Angel and Adam had mentioned wanting to see Hugo, I was indifferent, they won.

It didn’t help that the rental screen indicated that the movie was two hours and six minutes long. That’s about twenty more minutes than any movie should be.

But I was tired and sore, and had a box of wine beside me to take off some of the edge.

The movie is about an orphan boy that lives behind the walls at a Paris train station, circa 1931. His drunken uncle worked there keeping the clocks running. Once taught all the steps, the boy took it upon himself to be there caretaker in the frequent and later permanent absence of his uncle.
It's a very Disney-esque story, an orphaned critter uses spunk and charisma to rise above diversity, with predictable villainy and  pratfalls to follow, and become a hero. As far as story goes, it's nothing unique or especially deep.

He has access through tunnels, catwalks and other openings to just about every nook and cranny in the station, enabling him to spy on the travelers and venders below, unseen. We are shown how he watches the pastry shop for opportunities to steal food. We are never shown how he bathes, if he does at all, but then again it is France. (In 1789 the French revolted, some say they are to this day, still revolting.)

Some of the characters barely rise to the level of easy, lazy stereotype. Even though it is France, no one actually seems to speak French. In fact a key character, the station inspector, wounded in WWI and played by that obnoxious Borat guy, speaks not only in a non-French accent, but inexplicably in a near-cockney British one.

After about forty five minutes watching the kid skulk around looking for mechanical parts for his broken automaton, left to him by his recently deceased father (museum fire), he runs into the cranky old proprietor of a toy shop, who goes by one name, but is in fact a formerly famous movie maker, one Georges Méliès.

Silent movie buffs and students of the arts will recognize that name. He made hundreds of silent movies, some of the earliest ever made. If you’ve ever seen clips showing the jerky and stained scene of a scientist firing a large bullet-shaped capsule to the moon, where it lodges into the eye of the man in the moon, that’s his work.

The movie accurately describes most of the real film-maker’s plight. The only thing not factual is the bit about the boy and his broken automaton.

Man reluctantly helps boy, boy helps man, boy has a crush on the man’s god-daughter, etc. Inevitable, heart-warming happy ending ensues.

In the meantime, the transparent comic relief, Sacha Baron Cohen, three-stooges his way through the movie along with the real scene-stealer, his patient and long suffering Doberman, Max.

    This may sound like I didn’t care much for the movie. This would be mostly incorrect. This Scorsese work is visually stunning. The giant gears, steam venting, slender utilitarian spiral staircases, the large but delicate clockworks indicative of the period and place filmed with a subtle sepia tone are brilliant and engrossing. Originally shot in 3-D, the film in a modern 3-D capable theater I imagine, would be even more so. I personally don’t care for movies in 3-D, they make my head hurt. I prefer my movies the same way I prefer most women, with very few dimensions and silent, whenever possible.

The acting of the lead cast is splendid, even the kids did a fine job. I was a bit perturbed by the background players, they seemed to be barely-believable stereotypical and overly-caricatured French fops as if yanked from a Pepe LePew cartoon.

The story, though based somewhat around a real time, place and person, is far more about the visual appeal than the actual story and it is very, very successful on that front.

It is long, plan on an intermission or two, especially if you have dogs or middle-aged men  that need to go out frequently. Though I can’t say I loved the movie, it was a fine escape and certainly not awful, the boxed wine sort of  helped.

If you have a good TV and Blu-Ray player, you’ll probably enjoy it much more than you would on smaller, lower resolution devices.
Give it a shot, let me know what you think!