Life of Pi and religion.

So, the point of the entire story is that religious texts are parables. I don't understand how this knowledge is supposed to make someone believe in God.

I'm definitely not trying to start any kind of religious debate. Though I don't practice any myself, I respect those who do, and I definitely don't think there's any right or wrong way to go about it. Anyway, many people take religious text literally, whereas this movie, in my opinion, is strongly suggesting that none of it should be interpreted that way. I happen to agree with that stance (that religious text is parable), but I don't understand how that's supposed to make someone believe in God. Couldn't it just as easily have the opposite effect?

Not arguing that we shouldn't use spoilers. I'm usually the cautious, better safe than sorry, let's be considerate to (perhaps) a fault kinda guy, myself. But, I will just point out that the religious or spiritual component does actually seem to be well out of the hat. In fact, it seems to be part of the advertising and the buzz. I mean to say, the religious or spiritual aspect and its reputation seems to be well ahead of the general public seeing it. That is to say, it seems to be common knowledge. But let's, as you wish.

So, I'm going to see a movie tomorrow/today/Thursday with family. It will almost certainly be Life of Pi. But yes, the vaunted religious aspect is actually a turn off for me. I want to be very careful on this forum to state very clearly that I am not trying to make that value judgement for anyone else. I make it only for me. But, no, I'm not thrilled about a film trying to lead me to belief in God or gods or to faith. It's liable to make me grumpy. But, I'm not choosing or paying for the film, likely, so. I am an Ang Lee fan. By the looks of the trailer, the CGI also looks a bit wanting. It doesn't look like the state of CGI is yet convincing enough. I suspect that it will be a big distraction for me. But, as I'm fond of saying, Heaven help us when CGI is so good that we truly can't tell the difference anymore. But, because of the buzz about the religious and spiritual nature of this film, and reading about it on Wikipedia, I probably wouldn't choose to go see it at the theater on my own; I'd wait for video, very likely. Nonetheless, I will admit to looking forward to seeing it, anyway. Though I do expect it to make me grumpy.

This is another great C.R. interview. It's really interesting what Lee has to say. More than once he says something to the effect that his intention was to convey a sense of faith in filmmaking and storytelling (,not necessarily to push religion or spiritualilty?).

Let's put this all into a historical perspective. When Judaism and later Christianity (and to some degree, Islam) emerged as religions you have to keep in mind that a large majority of the people in the societies of 2,000 and 3,000 years ago were illiterate. You spent your most of your days scratching for a living; why did you need to learn to read? Who had the time? What benefit was there to your day-to-day existence? Most people never even got outside of their own village. Let's also keep in mind that keeping the "peasants" illiterate was a way for those in power to maintain their power.

Since the general population was illiterate how did the religious leaders impart religion to their congregations? They told stories - parables - that pertained to the religious beliefs of their followers. Let's face it, just reciting theological dogma is BORING!!! So instead they told their followers parables. Parables are instructive, illustrating the principles the rabbi/priest/shaman/whatever wanted to impart upon their followers; "The moral of the story is..." They are easy to remember.

From Wikipedia:

A parable is a short tale that illustrates universal truth, one of the simplest of narratives. It sketches a setting, describes an action, and shows the results. It often involves a character facing a moral dilemma, or making a questionable decision and then suffering the consequences. (Sounds a lot like filmmaking, doesn't it? ) Though the meaning of a parable is often not explicitly stated, the meaning is not usually intended be hidden or secret but on the contrary quite straightforward and obvious...

...The defining characteristic of the parable is the presence of a prescriptive subtext suggesting how a person should behave or believe. Aside from providing guidance and suggestions for proper action in life, parables frequently use metaphorical language which allows people to more easily discuss difficult or complex ideas.

So in addition to instructing their followers about their religion it was also another form of control - "stay on the straight and narrow or God will strike you down."

We are much more advanced today (yeah, right). A majority of the worlds population is literate, and we have access to all sorts of information; the 'net, cable TV, radio, newspapers and magazines. So the parable may be anathema to modern society, but it was central to preliterate society.

the book is about how sometimes you have to do horrific things to survive. And sometimes you can't take it so you develop a cognitive break in order to cope. Maybe I missed something, but nothing about that seems like a "lead you to god" sort of thing. Or "fun family entertainment", but that's a different issue

I'm certain it didn't have a religious message. Sure, there was a spiritual component to it, and I suppose if you're a very religious person and see everything through a religious filter, there's plenty of fodder in the story for you to work with. But yeah, if we're just going by the book, it's like Feutus said. It's the story about a boy who loves stories and tells a colorful one to himself and others because it's the easiest way to cope with what happened to him.

15 minutes later

Ok, so I re-read the author's note at the beginning of the book, as well as the final 'reveal.' Yes, it does say in the author's note 'this is a story that will make you believe in god.' And in the end, the last few lines of his 'human' story are, "I managed to get it out. It tasted delicious, far better than turtle. I ate his liver. I cut off great pieces of his flesh.
"He was such an evil man. Worse still, he met evil in me--selfishness, anger, ruthlessness. I must live with that.
"Solitude began. I turned to God. I survived."

So yeah, for Pi, it affirmed and deepened his spiritual beliefs. Makes sense, he spend almost a year alone on a boat. I'm with you though that I don't see how the story itself could make you, the reader or the viewer, 'believe in god' if you weren't already inclined to do so. I mean, there are plenty of stories of survival and humanity out there and if those haven't turned you into a 'believer', this story won't either.

Personally, when I read the book, I loved it up until he told the 'human' version. I know they sort of left it as a choice of which you want to believe, but I was a little mad that they even put the idea in my head that they were all people. But again, the spiritual side of it never struck me as preachy and really the 'this will make you believe in god' was just the author's claim because that's what someone told him and it did affirm his (the author's) faith.

Yurp, saw it today. Mostly, I guess I like it. I have or had problems with it. Holes or stupid things. Primarily, when he lets the tiger back into the boat, I probably would have put the book down or stopped watching the film had I been watching at home (although, with the film, I was impressed enough with the visuals that I would probably have watched it through just for those.

I'm with you, CF. I don't get how it would have brought me to belief in God or gods etc. I haven't read the book, but a family member who has said that the book really doesn't take that pushing religion approach, like others have already posted above. I wonder if it doesn't really come down to the marketing guys. After all, which is likely to sell more tickets? The fantastical version about a boy and his tiger? Or the grim version about the horrors of reality?

But unlike Dready, the twist at the end possibly saves the story for me. The father is I. I mean, the father and I are on the same page. So, the ending comes along and says, look, okay, we know that the tiger story is a bunch of baloney. So here's what really happened. But, that also puts a new perspective on the fantastical story. For example, sitting here thinking about it, that might help save the nonsense, for me, that is, of the kid letting the tiger back on the boat, for example. Because, hearing the real, grim story, and hearing him talk about it, allows room for us to see it in psychological terms that are more palatable and less egregious, to my mind. That is to say, when he lets the tiger back onto the boat, he's not really doing the completely asinine thing which is to literally let a literal tiger back on the boat. And, perhaps the story isn't, after all, necessarily expecting me to accept the explicitly religious or spiritual rationalizations for his doing so, but perhaps we may interpret it in this way: he is allowing that psychological aspect of his personality -as represented metaphorically by the tiger- to continue to reside in himself in order to fortify him and his will and his ability to deal with his predicament and to survive.

So yeah, if the story is actually that clever, I might be able to warm up to it. I'll have to ruminate on it.

And like I said in the 3D thread, it's gorgeous to look at.

The first third of the movie has absolutely nothing to do with a shipwreck. It's all about his childhood, how he got his name, and more importantly -- how he came to identify himself as a Catholic/Muslim/Hindu. This isn't mere character development; it is central to the entire theme of the movie.

There's a line of dialog, very early on, that is pretty damn crucial -- the author who's having the story narrated to him states that he's heard Pi has a story that will make you believe in God. <-------------

And then, the audience is treated to said story. This isn't symbolism, it isn't subtext, the filmmakers are being very straight-forward with the theme of the movie.

Is the book so blatant? I dunno, sounds like perhaps not, you tell me. I wouldn't think it unlikely that Ang Lee added his own signature to the movie, telling the same story, but adding his own religious theme.

I suppose you could be dismissive of this single line of dialog, if not for the bookend that anchors it, later on. And that bookend, by the way, is the major spoiler that people are giving away here.

The bulk of the movie is his tale of survival, shipwrecked at sea. Throughout this story, there is absolutely no indication that it is anything other than Pi's honest recounting of how he miraculously survived his ordeal. And I use that word, "miraculously", because until damn near the end of the movie, the audience knows no better than to assume that Pi survived because of a miracle. Hence, the reason why the story might make you believe in God.

But then, at the conclusion of the movie, the rug is pulled out from under us. It is revealed that the last hour+ of the movie was a figment of Pi's imagination. He made the whole damn thing up. When pressed, he tells the true story of how he survived at sea, and it's a serious bummer of a story.

Yes, mussoman, this reveal is a major spoiler! Prior to this point, the audience has no reason to assume anything other than that we what we are seeing is how Pi actually survived.

And then the movie really sinks it's teeth in. Pi asks his friend which story he prefers -- the true-to-life, dark and depressing tale of survival, or the inspirational parable, complete with a handful of neat and tidy lessons? Like most anybody, his new friend prefers the parable. To which Pi replies (paraphrasing), "and such is the case with God." <--------------

Which brings us back to the beginning! Pi's father questions how he is able to belong to three religions, when they contradict each other. And the reason is because Pi has figured out that it's all parable.

And that is the whole point of the movie. By watching Pi's story, we're shown the power of parable, and how it can be so much more meaningful than the cold truth. And then we're asked to take that realization and apply it to religion, and embrace it.

Does it make you more likely to believe in God? Maybe, maybe not. But perhaps Ang Lee has no interest in trying to convince the audience to believe in God, some supreme being who actually exists, somewhere in a realm that we don't understand. In light of the theme of the movie, perhaps Lee is suggesting that we should start viewing the entire thought of God as a parable.

In short, I feel like this movie is saying that you don't need to literally believe that some dude named Jesus walked on water and turned water into wine, in order to be a proper Christian. I think it suggests the importance of being accepting of other religions, to the point of allowing their ideas to creep into your own. And furthermore, I think it asks those who don't currently practice religion to at least entertain the idea, by freeing them of the need to literally believe in the religious texts.

I'm actually not convinced that the film/story is about parables, but instead about the nature of storytelling. Storytelling inherently requires you to take things on faith. You cannot ask for proof or evidence when you are being told a story, and that is what is being used as the metaphor for faith.

This is how I saw the final revelation: Pi presents two versions of the story. One has magical elements but is a captivating story of survival, companionship and the awesome power of nature. It is life-affirming and, having come from a position where everyone has died in a shipwreck, is actually full of positivity. The second story he tells is a story of human violence, despair and negativity. He never explicitly states which story is true. Whilst there is the implicit suggestion that the latter story is 'the truth', that's largely irrelevant. He asks the author, 'which story do you prefer?', to which the author replies, 'the one with the tiger'. After that, Pi, crucially, says, 'and so it is with God'. For me, what Pi is saying here is that faith is about being presented with multiple possibilities for the nature of human existence- one that offers hope and redemption despite seeming fantastical, and another than contains all the brutality and lack of reason. As he says, he important points are the same- 'My family died, I suffered and I survived'- but with faith you can create a world that has redeeming qualities. I don't think they're presented as mutual exclusives. Both stories are 'true', it is about having the faith to overcome the worst moments of human existence.