Ang Lee’s Life of Pi is racking-up critical acclaim (read our review) and pre-award season buzz along with solid box office numbers. Though, for every mention of the film’s beautiful 3D or amazing CGI tiger, there’s a fuddled viewer confused by the movie’s controversial ending.
Readers of Yann Martel’s original novel (the ones who made it to the end) have already faced the challenging last-minute question presented by the story’s narrator, but filmgoers expecting a fanciful adventure at sea have been understandably caught off-guard by the finale. No doubt, viewers will debate the ending with friends and family – but to help steer discussion we’ve put together a brief analysis of the Life of Pi ending, explaining why the final question may not be as cut and dry as some moviegoers seem to think.
It goes without saying that the remainder of this article will contain MAJOR SPOILERS for Life of Pi - the movie and the book (especially the ending). If you do not want to be spoiled about either, turn away now.
For anyone who hasn’t seen (or read) Life of Pi and isn’t concerned about having the ending spoiled, Pi’s adventure concludes in a Mexican hospital bed – where he is interviewed by a pair of Japanese Ministry of Transport officials. The agents tell Pi that his story – which includes multiple animal companions and a carnivorous island – is too unbelievable for them to report, so Pi tells them a different version of the story: one that paints a much darker and emotionally disturbing variation of events. After both stories have been shared, Pi leaves it up to the viewer (or reader) to decide which version they “prefer.”
Personal “preference” has larger thematic meaning, when viewed in the context of the overarching story; however, before we analyze the ending (via the question) in greater detail, we’re going to briefly lay out the two versions of Pi’s story.
In both accounts, Pi’s father contracts a Japanese ship to transport his family, along with a number of their zoo animals, from India to Canada in an effort to escape political upheaval in their native country. The stories are identical up until Pi climbs aboard the lifeboat (following the sinking of the cargo ship) only re-converging when he is rescued on the Mexican shore. The 227 days that Pi spends lost at sea are up for debate.
The Animal Story
In this version of Pi’s tale, the cargo ship sinks and, during the ensuing chaos, he is joined on the lifeboat by a ragtag group of zoo animals that also managed to escape: an orangutan, a spotted hyena, a zebra with a broken leg, and a Bengal Tiger (named Richard Parker). After some time, Pi watches helplessly as the hyena kills the zebra and then the orangutan before it is, subsequently, dispatched by Richard Parker. Pi then sets about conditioning the tiger through rewarding behavior (food and fresh water), so that the two can co-exist in the boat. Though Pi succeeds, the pair remain on the verge of starvation – until, after several months at sea, they wash ashore an uncharted island packed with fresh vegetation and a bountiful meerkat population. Pi and Richard Parker stuff themselves, but soon discover that the island is home to a carnivorous algae that, when the tide arrives, turns the ground to an acidic trap. Pi realizes that eventually the island will consume them – so he stocks the lifeboat with greens and meerkats and the pair sets sail again. When the lifeboat makes landfall along the Mexican coast, Pi and Richard Parker are once again malnourished – as Pi collapses on the beach, he watches the Bengal Tiger disappear into the jungle without even glancing back.
Pi is brought to a hospital – where he tells the animal story to the Japanese officials. However, when the agents do not believe his tale, the young survivor tells a different version of his journey.
The Human Story
In this version of Pi’s tale the cargo ship still sinks, but instead of the ragtag group of animals in the lifeboat, Pi claims that he was joined by his mother (Gita), the ship’s despicable cook, and an injured Japanese sailor. After some time, fearing for the limited supplies in the boat, the cook kills the weakened Japanese sailor, and later, Gita. Scarred from watching his mother die in front of his eyes, Pi kills the cook in a moment of self-preservation (and revenge).
Pi does not mention his other adventures at sea (the carnivorous island, etc) but it’d be easy to strip away some of the fantastical elements in favor of more grounded (albeit allegorical) situations. Maybe he found an island but realized that living is more than just eating and existing – deciding to take his chances at sea instead of wasting away in apathy on a beach eating meerkats all alone. Of course, that is purely speculation – since, again, Pi does not elaborate on the more grounded human story beyond the revelation that he was alone on the lifeboat.
Continue reading for our analysis and explanation of the Life of Pi ending…
‘Arrow’ Season 1 Finale Review 
J.J. Abrams Planned ‘Star Trek’ TV Show; Rights Issues Led to Jump to ‘Star Wars’? 
‘Assassin’s Creed’ Gets Memorial Day 2015 Release Date 
Ron Howard’s ‘The Dark Tower’ Adaptation Still Alive 
Taking on the interpretation that Pi represents his faith and the tiger as human survival instincts; during the storm Pi calls out to God which could represent how powerful his faith was at the time. For the first time we see how small and weak Richard Parker was as if Pi’s faith dominated over his primitive self. When the storm died down we see Pi make his way over to Richard Parker on the ‘red’ side of the boat. He states the obvious that they were dying, now having absolutely no food at all or utensils to catch fish with (after seeing all of it float away during the storm). Pi was able to touch Richard Parker, which he wanted to do since he was a child (remember that Richard Parker represents survival instincts). Pi has never had any reason to touch Richard Parker before, he was in civilisation where he had an abundance of food and water. This could represent Pi finally coming to terms with doing the unthinkable in order to survive. The island was in the shape of a human body, which Pi fed on.
I think what people are forgetting about is that the film is simply the Director’s interpretation of the book. And for those trying to elaborate on the film are simply doing onto the film as the Director had done to the book. Everyone has their own interpretations of meanings and symbols from the film. One cannot just say that the lamb and the tiger scene doesn’t have any other meanings and is just how it is; to show Pi how strong and dangerous the tiger is, because this in its self is one’s own interpretation of the scene.
A good point was raised earlier about how neither story tells how the ship actually sank. This could symbolise how neither religion or science has complete and actual proof of Creation or the Big Bang, hence why they are called theories. Pi did not say which story do you actually believe, the rational or the irrational? he says “Which do you prefer?.” You can believe in the rational story more but you could still have faith even if it is just a little bit, that the irrational story could be true.
I personally don’t think the film was to blatantly state ‘here is a story that could make you believe in God.’ Because how could one make someone else believe in such an ‘irrational’ being? I take that the film was to show how much faith one already has.
It is about choice… personal choice, not being right or wrong.. you can choose to go through life with a wonderful miraculous awe inspiring God (or gods)… or not. You will be loved no matter what you choose.. seek and heed wisdom.. be creative..
Cool effects boring ass movie. God is fake pie killed the cook…
Cool effects boring movie. God is fake Mr pi killed everyone.
It’s a story that made me believe in God. I can interpret this in 1000 ways but I don’t need to because it made me believe in God regardless.
I think it is a lot more simple of an ending. After getting both stories there was two ways one could think of it. The animals symbolizing people or the people symbolizing the animals. I think the point is when faced with both stories the one with the tiger gave meaning to why something happened. Gave hope and was vivid. It gave life and inspiration (to the listener/viewer/reader). The other was lackluster and painful. There was no reason, no hope, no inspiration. So the question then is do you have faith and choose a story that has meaning to life or a story that is cruel and pointless? In the same way do you have faith that something/God is out there and there is reason to your life, or do you believe everything you struggle and accomplish in life is for merely survival and nothing more?
I was left confused by the ending until I read this blog. I began to see how the choice of the movies ending was left up to the viewer to decide…how faith can help you interpret things. How when Pi began to tell the “human” version of the story, I first thought that his “tiger” story was his way of dealing with a very bad situation. But as I read on, I was amazed at how my interpretation was lead by my faith, how I wanted to believe in the “tiger” story. I think that this may be one of the most brilliantly portrayed stories that I have ever had the opportunity to watch. I leave this movie with a wonderful feeling or renewal in my faith. Thank you for explaining it the way that you did. I hope everyone gets it…
Not funny Renea. Better join a mental asylum. You sure belongs there.
The Life of Pi is a book that makes you think. The thinking part was totally lost on Renea lol
I’m still pondering on the goat which was fed to the tiger. He was outside the cage, then in the next shot, being carried away by the tiger. Was it dragged through the bars? If so, what did this represent?
Yes I was trying to figure that part out too…there’s no way that goat could fit between those bars…
I’m still pondering on the goat which was fed to the tiger. He was outside the cage, then in the next shot, being carried away by the tiger. Was it dragged through the bars? If so, what did this represent?
The impossible can be accomplished
Duh. Because a Tiger is strong/powerful enough to drag a goat through bars.
It think that is exactly what happened. It was meant to highlight how powerful the tiger was, and how unbiased nature is.
HAHA I was thinking the exact same thing during that part
I think the tiger represents God and thats why I couldn’t understand Pi’s relationship with the tiger in the film. I don’t think we’re meant to understand their relationship, just as we sometimes don’t understand our relationship with God. Especially when he doesn’t seem to be there when we need him most.
That’s how the goat was dragged through the bars, and impossible things seem possible with God in our life’s. he also works in mysterious ways, so we can’t understand why he lets certain things happen. Also Pi’s dad teaches him to fear the tiger in the goat scene, just as religious people are taught to fear and respect God, by not tempting his wrath with wrong doing.
There are many other references throughout the movie that may support the tiger representing God theory. Pi wants to communicate with the tiger so they can live together in peace. Just as believers communicate through prayer with their God. Pi then eventually communicates with God himself after this scene.
Pi sees the universe in the tigers eyes, all he has ever known in his life with wonder and awe. Its as if the tiger sees into his soul, like God sees into ours. He sees amazing things when the tiger is around, the beauty and majesty of Gods creation while on the boat. but only when things are quiet and the tiger and pi are at peace with each other. just as we experience amazing things when at peace with God, through meditation.
The tiger is always there, but not always visible. Pi says that God is always watching, the tiger is also always watching (when it finally acted to eat the hyena, when pi asks him what he’s staring at on the boat, when it watches the jungle before walking away at the end etc.)
The final scene is of the jungle where the tiger walked away, the unknown area where God dwells, but still thinks of Pi and is still watching. Pi’s laughing face comes up beside the tiger walking into the jungle. I think that this signifies that Richard Parker was thinking of Pi with love, even though Pi thought he had turned his back on him.
Pi was being looked after again by returning to civilisation, and not going through the traumatic experience on the boat, so God was no longer needed as much in his life. Though still around him and living on in him. Pi felt that God had deserted him and cried, just as some of the hardest times in life are when we feel alone and deserted by God. But it was just that he didn’t need Him anymore.
God is also feared and loved by his believers, just as the tiger is feared and loved by Pi. And it is the tiger that he says saves his life. The tiger also seems to appear in the film, when Pi gives up hope or has questions.
In the realistic story Pi tells the Japanese officials from his hospital bed, the tiger becomes Pi. I think this signifies a belief that men of little faith are their own God’s in a way. They don’t believe in something greater than themselves, so go their own way with self belief and determination.
Finally I’ve been pondering the significance of the odd name of Richard Parker for the tiger. Pi tells the story of the hunter at the start whom the tiger gets his name from. But a more meaningful interpretation is that, we should be open minded and accept all religions, regardless of what they call their God. God goes by many names, but is still God no matter how strange his name may seem to some.
I think that the tiger represents God. That’s how the goat was dragged through the bars, and impossible things seem possible with God in our life’s. He also works in mysterious ways, so we can’t understand why he lets certain things happen. Also Pi’s dad teaches him to fear the tiger in the goat scene, just as religious people are taught to fear and respect God, by not tempting his wrath with wrong doing.
There are many other references throughout the movie that may support the tiger representing God theory. I don’t think we’re meant to understand Pi’s relationship with Richard Parker, just as we don’t understand our relationship with God at times.
Finally I’ve been pondering why the tiger has such an unusual name. I think it signifies God going by many names but still being God regardless of what he is called.
I think that the tiger represents God. That’s how the goat was dragged through the bars, and impossible things seem possible with God in our life’s. He also works in mysterious ways, so we can’t understand why he lets certain things happen. Also Pi’s dad teaches him to fear the tiger in the goat scene, just as religious people are taught to fear and respect God, by not tempting his wrath with wrong doing.
There are many other references throughout the movie that may support the tiger representing God theory. I don’t think we’re meant to understand Pi’s relationship with Richard Parker, just as we don’t understand our relationship with God at times.
Finally I’ve been pondering why the tiger has such an unusual name. I think it signifies God going by many names but still being God regardless of what he is called.
The tiger represents God I think. All things are possible with God.
Father was trying to teach his son that yes, the 500 pound tiger could easily pull anything through those bars, even his son. It’s happened to humans before.
A tiger is more than powerful enough to do that haha
Tigers are extremely strong and powerful. My interpretation to this is that it must have broken the animal’s bones quite easily to have dragged it to the other side of the fence.
The goats bones were broken by the power of the tiger. That is how it fit thru the bars, when something has the will to survive it will survive.
that animals has no emotion
True, as long as one yanks hard enough.
True, if a racoon could pull an entire chicken through turkey wire then I’m sure a tiger could pull a goat through those bars.
I’ve seen a full grown domestic cat pull itself under a door with a 1.5 inch gap on the bottom of the door. Have you people not watched America’s Funniest Videos or youtube? Many things are possible you would not believe.
the father was teaching the son that the tiger within us, our primal self, can consume us if we let it, i.e., can take over our rational self. I think its an ID vs ego thing for you Freudians. The goat repesents Pi’s loss of innocense. it was foreshadowing for his subsequent struggle between his enlightened self (which is easy when there is not struggle; i.e. his vegetarian, loving, moral self) and his primal self (i.e., his fish killing/eating, savage self).
If you read the book, the father throws the goat to the tiger, to show the two boys how very dangerous these zoo animals can be. The mother is sickened, as are the boys, but the father responds to his wife “better the goat then Pi.”
^^^^ this comment perfectly demonstrates the flaws in some peoples analytical abilities when it comes to choosing your opinion on the film. You just over analyzed a simple scene in the movie that wasn’t even intended to be puzzled over or symbolized to anything else but the fact that the tiger obviously pulled it through the bars.. the message seems to be lost on most people for this film which is a shame, the animal story was true, Pi was annoyed with the reporters dis belief and so he gave them a more realistic story. This is clearly expressed in the book. The values and hardships that are portrayed in the animal version of Pi completely define what the author of the book was trying to get across. If people actually gave it 5 minutes thought before they jumped on their computers to spew their diluted opinions across they would realize that the human story cannot possibly match up.
A goat attacked by the brutal force of a ferociously hungry tiger would leave its bones crushed. The goat slumps into a lifeless and spineless mass of meat….not too difficult to pass through the metal grids now.
On the goat…
The father was pushing PI towards rationality over faith. (Dinner conversation)
Livestock (the lamb) is often used to describe/depict the faithful. Mindless, weak, dependent.
If you believe “the human” version of the story, then in some ways, the Tiger is rationality. Idealistically, you can be a vegetarian and peaceful, but at sea, survival allows for no ideals, only rational behavior.
The tiger (rationality) crushes the goat (the faithful) quickly & swiftly, in accordance with Pi’s father’s lessons.
This, above all else, is the lesson of PI’s father at contributed greatest to his survival.
I think the goat thru the bars was just what it was….His father was teaching Pi how powerful the tiger is and that it could have been Pi that was dragged thru those bars. Pi said, “After my fathers lesson, everything lost meaning”.
it represents a hungry tiger wanting to eat …
The tragic thing is that Pi did not embrace his tiger-self before the hyiena killed his mother. The tiger-self is absolutely necessary to survival and to achieving happiness. The challenge is knowing when it is appropriate to let the tiger-self come out and how to control it.
Yes the story itself is allegorical about emotions, fears and unconscious fantasies and feelings which are present in all of us. eg instinctive forces such as anger, hatred the desire of annihilate the other, the desire to live [ life force] . The is Jung’s term are anima , Freud unconscious drives and Klein objects/fantasies. The pleasant ones are ok and can be expressed in society [ love altruism etc] Most of our dark and unconscious fantasies and feelings are unacceptable in a civilised society and we often deny them and or/ are taught to repress them and lock them away [ hence the animals are in a zoo]. This is because the expression of such feelings is dangerous if not properly controlled/expressed [but they can of course save us too- as they did PI].
The zoo is therefore a metaphor for the unconscious [ire repressed or unknown] feelings. The ocean and storms area metaphor for both experiencing the unconscious ad how such fantasies can come to the fore when we are no longer ” in control ” of events or our own feelings/reactions. We may experience such feelings [ and later deny it ] or others who were not present and are less spiritually aware [ or more likely less in touch with the shadow side of their own personalities ] are unable to grasp or believe that dark feelings and motivations could exist in themselves or anyone else [ the Japanese investigators ]. It is this unconscious aspect [ splitting under extreme stress] which explains the possibility of PI being both human and tiger. The fact that such feelings ARE present in us all even if we aren’t aware also explains why some see the novel as a religious allegory with its obvious associations with Christ/Budda, good and evil , stillness v action, dreamlike/parable like qualities [ animal v human] and the struggle for life and meaning. The fact the the author suggests all religions have something in common rather suggests their source is within the universal human psyche. The unconscious in some ways is unknowable and eternal hence the association with PI [ never ending ] and the ocean deep and unknowable in its entirety. It is notable that they come closer to the unconscious [ the water] as the boat skims, is battered or is becalmed by the sea .PI also the see flashes of other life[ more animal feelings? eg dolphins, whales, flying fish , sharks ,Dorado - mostly but not all of which frightening or create fear in some ways .... he does not however see or know what is at right at the bottom of the ocean [ that remans mystery...perhaps to us all .... which only God or a highly enlightened being [ Christ or Budda or a psychologist? can know or guess at] . The tiger and other animals in the ocean could there fore be a projection of difficult or unacceptable feelings [ either to our selves as well as others who have taught us to repress them] …..
This makes more sense then other interpretations. Tiger is hidden and does not show up till things start becoming difficult. And the tiger leaves when Pi is found and rescued. Tiger represents the courage and untamed carnivorous raw survival instincts. While pi himself represents the faith in god and the good within and outside. When storm comes and even the tiger is scared, Pi rises, calls for gods mercy and miraculously survives.Lands on a carnivorous island with plenty to eat.Not surprisingly the island is shaped like Christ or Vishnu. We live with the tiger and the god, the courage and faith within. The tiger leaves but faith in god and good does not. We all face similar situations in life and same courage and faith sails us thorough it.
perfect. i agree.
I think Renea’s comment must have been deleted… so unfortunately I will never know what he said that was so dumb. I will just have to choose a scenario that I prefer to satisfy my curiosity…
There are some intriguing and thought-provoking analyses of the spiritual aspect/ animal allegory (if it in fact is symbolism)… and some good arguments on both sides of the panel.
It’s my bet that even if the author of the book/ director of the movie had to appear here on this forum (anonymously) and explain in detail his point of view in line with his preference, there will no doubt be people who would disagree with him and fight him tooth and nail.
The inbuilt duality of the book/ movie was fully intended. Choose what you want to believe. I personally think it is futile choosing one and then arguing its point. I have already chosen what I believe the real story to be… but am ready to contemplate both. Without the animals, the movie would have had a higher PG rating and would have been a flop. Let’s face it… whether the animals were real or not, we needed them to make the movie what it is visually.
On the other hand, without the human allegory, of course, there would be no symbolism or much related to spirituality and the human struggle to talk about. The book/ movie would be a more 2-dimensional face-value struggle for survival. It was the author’s intent and purpose to make it open-ended. He had that luxury since he created the story. As much of a masterpiece as the book is, and as may details were written to contemplate on in hindsight, I am also convinced that it is presented in such a way as to demand more analysis than the author himself could have intended, even after the last word was written.
If the story was intended to have one interpretation that trumps the other in a cut-and-dry fashion, it would never have made it to the bookstores. Not even the author had it all figured out. I am doubtful that, since the author (who is not Indian) was not Pi himself, did not practice Islam, Hinduism and Christianity simultaneously. It is a work of the imagination designed to appeal to as wide an audience as possible, and tries to be universally pleasing.
What I can tell you with certainty is that since the parallel stories were intended, and both were spelled out clearly, there ought to be no confusion on the matter. Even if you don’t choose which story was real, doesn’t mean that the entertainment was any less exciting. We already know that it is not based on a true story. The animal story entices us into an epic adventure and a visual treat. The human story lends itself to a little more introspection. The apparent disappointment and anticlimax at the end of the story might be seen as a bonus… something to think about and reflect back on the details of the movie that were not picked up until Pi gives the alternative/ real version.
Be honest… did anyone suspect that the animals MIGHT have been symbolic before the hammer drops? We do a double take as the movie comes to a quick close and takes on an unexpected connotation. So the movie is both entertaining and thought-provoking to a greater or lesser degree. BUT, it should not be confusing. All the details relating to symbolism are bundled together into one category… and you can go to town on the metaphoric meanings… there’s not too much to be said about the animal story without the human element, although in itself, I must admit was also satisfying until we were forced to consider a new perspective.
I’ve appreciated reading all of the interpretations of the human story (of which I have already given my 5-cent’s worth in other posts), which all have merit… and I also admire the few people on this thread who insist on the more unlikely of the two stories and just simply believe.
Lastly, I think it is erroneous to assume that one is taking a spiritual standpoint by choosing one story or the other. I don’t think either one is more spiritual. The human story does not necessarily hold the spiritual monopoly and vice-versa. Neither one, in my opinion, holds the scientific majority. It is impossible to tell the story without the intertwining of the two. We cannot separate things neatly. Either way there was a struggle to survive, either way God could be brought into the picture (since in the telling of the story Pi thanked God). The whole story – both his interpretations – were told by one and the same person… both give his perspective. There was only one storyteller, not two.
@Wrong….I do remember hearing or reading somewhere that, in the book, Pi did become annoyed at Japanese guys not believing him. I myself have not read the book but I do know that more often than not, a director will take a lot of liberties when making a movie based on a novel. So I guess what I’m saying is, don’t be so quick to criticize people’s analytical abilities or anyone “over-analyzing” any intended meanings of the movie. I would ask you to give it 5 minutes thought before jumping on to criticize any posters and take into consideration that not everybody reads the book before seeing the movie. It’s pretty obvious that what ‘throws’ most people is, in the final scene, when the Japanese guys ask Pi for a different story, he tells the human story extremely emotionally, with tears streaming down his face. So the question becomes, was he acting it up for his audience or is the human story indeed the real story? It should be easy to see how this now creates a conflict/debate for any viewer of the movie that has not read the book.
I’ve just been wondering: how did all those animals get out of their cages?
Totally agree. This really had nothing to do with the story except to point out tigers are dangerous which every reader/movie-goer knows already!
I couldn’t agree more
I agree with your passionate response, maybe there wasn’t much to be analyzed there, but at the same time, it’s true that a sacrificial animal represents innocence in much of literature (i.e. lamb, or even, DUN DUN DUN, the Lamb of God Jesus). Also, Pi himself symbolizes himself as that very tiger at the end of the story, so reading into some kind of interpretation in the tiger-killing-goat scene might not be too far-fetched.
The point is, in something as symbolic and allegorical as this story, everything is up for interpretation. Why limit yourself to a cut-and-dry interpretation? The more layers of interpretations the better. If your interpretation was the only viable/correct one, then this would be a pretty crappy story compared to other pieces of literature. The more layers of truth one can dig out the more literary a piece of art is. Think INTERPRECEPTION.
I love the way that Pi explained his name in math class, that Pi is the relationship of the circumference, (what goes on around us) to the diameter ( what is in us). That relationship is infinite, the equation goes on forever.
When Pis dad proved to him that there was no friendship in Richard Parker’s eyes by sacrificing the goat to illustrate animal instinct. Pi held the belief that there was something more in the tigers eyes than just a mirror of Pi’s emotions. His dads advice kept him alive, yet he didn’t let go of his belief.
Interesting also to refer to the uninhabited island as carnivorous -that isolation can eat you alive.
The movie was great and I am still thinking about it. I am enjoying seeing what others think about it too.
Actually I thought about that too……when Pi was telling the human story, I was saying…”here goes the made-up story”. But when real tears fell, I thought….”Wait a minute,…..” The human story must be the unvarnished hard-to-tell story while the animal story the embellished inspirational one. That….. or he is a very good actor playing up for the Japanese interviewers.
This movie is a classic, a true masterpeice by Ang Lee. I could of watched another 2hr plus. This was the best movie for the year
His Tiger self and Pi self come physically closer and closer together during the movie until the end, Pi has learned to embrace (literally) his tiger self, and the (symbolic) tiger can leave because Pi is in a sense whole.
I enjoyed reading your post, Debbie. I like how you think. Tell us more. Why would there be more in a Bengal tiger’s eyes than just the glance of a wild animal? Did you read my reply to Francisco about “THIRSTY”?
Pi = the relationship between that which surrounds and that which lies within. And that relationship is infinite…
MIND BLOWN.
Thank you for sharing this idea! I always wondered why the author chose to name the character Pi and never would have thought of this symbolism myself.
To add to your interpretation: Pi’s father (and Richard Parker by extension) symbolized the rational, as illustrated by the incident w the goat. This rational tiger was necessary for Pi to survive and to negotiate the world. Yet Pi himself is named after an IRRATIONAL number, symbolizing an aspiration to accept that which cannot be understood w reason alone. It is his faith in the irrational that also makes life worth living. Without this he would have just stayed on the island, eking out a survival but ceasing to truly live. He never would have returned to civilization, never told his story (or stories), never ended up married w two beautiful children….
What a wonderful sentiment. “Pi” is the interplay between reason and faith, which do not necessarily contradict each other, but rather complement each other like the ying and the yang forever swirling around each other. And I can appreciate this even as a staunch atheist who does not believe in faith.
Great points, Debbie—except that I don’t think isolation was the issue–but that if he stayed on the island–he would have given up on his real journey—the “apparent” safety of the island vs the danger being adrift on the sea again, and the real possibility that he might fail (die). It is what can happen to us if we settle half way toward our life’s goal
Really great reply, Debbie; best yet.
Olga, I think Pi was never able to reconcile his animal part (Richard Parker) with his spiritual part (Pi himself). That is why, when the tiger leaves him without seeing back, Pi feels heartbroken, because he realizes that the animal part will always worry about satisfying his primary needs in order to survive , and nothing else matters to it, while his spiritual self will always look for a higher explanation to life than the elementary needs of a body. In order to think of higher things as God, your primary needs must be satisfied first, when you are thirsty or hungry you think first about how to survive. Remember Aristotle, for example. He was rich and had time enough to think and to be a philosopher, but his slaves couldn´t do the same cause they were too concerned about their chores to spend their time on thinking.
I think Pi needed to be like the Tiger to survive and to kill. He needed his faith as well. In the end he did not need the Tiger any more. The killing anamalistic part of him left him as quickly as it came over him. I wonder if someone tried to hurt Pi’s family now if he would become the Tiger again.
Matt, my higher self is telling me not to dignify your post with a response, but I cannot resist. I doubt that Hector cares what you think of him, but why hurl what you consider to be insults at someone who has offered intelligent, enlightening analysis and insight of a wonderful work of art?
You obviously have passionate feelings about Life of Pi, as Hector, Francisco, myself, and a multitude of others do, so why not give us your take on the story? It is possible that your viewpoint might offer a fresh perspective and new food for thought.
I CHALLENGE you to tell us what you think about Life of Pi.
Matt not cool he has a opinion to the book and movie just like me and you
I can think of only one reply to your comments Matt. It is John 18:23 in The Bible, New International Version, 2011.
“If I said something wrong,” Jesus replied, “testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?”
The truth is obviously the human story. The animal story is how he deals with it all. He never got to say good by to his family. The tiger walks into the jungle not looking back to say good by.
When the ship was sinking, one of the sailors yelled something about letting the animals out of their cages.
They were released, they say so in the boat. Im quite sure.
The fence was opened a little downbellow, the tiger didn’t pull the goat through the bars but underneath.And the real story was with the humans
Nah.
1st point – this movie put my 3d animation skills to shame (that tiger is not fair.) 2nd point – I thought the author (or director) was making a point when he explains that neither story tells us what caused the boat to sink. I thought he (or she) was saying “choose whatever story (or religion) you want….none of them can tell us what really happened to create all of this (life.) I don’t really think it’s an anti-religious statement just an honest observation. It’s too bad someone could not have questioned the tiger. Maybe he has all the answers.
A tiger mostly certainly could get a small goat between those bars. That’s why we don’t let people too close to the tiger cages. It could easily get a human through those bars too.
The hyena was a jerk.
@Jacinta: “just as religious people are taught to fear and respect God, by not tempting his wrath with wrong doing.”
Why must a LOVING and COMPASSIONATE god be FEARED? And why is he wrathful? What has he got to be wrathful about? He is ALL things, the Beginning and the End. Nothing can exist outside of him. He is GOD. Wrath and fear and temptation are HUMAN traits. OMINIPOTENCE should count for something.
I’m NOT knocking your faith, just wondering aloud.
Wow. I really love you’re take on the tiger representing god! I completely agree. It fits in with the goat part too. Many religions make sacrifices to God, goats tend to be commonly associated with this. That’s the first thing I thought of as I watched the goat tied in front of the tiger, even before I came to the conclusion that the tiger represented God!
It fits in with the goat part too. Many religions make sacrifices to God, goats tend to be commonly associated with this. That’s the first thing I thought of as I watched the goat tied in front of the tiger, even before I came to the conclusion that the tiger represented God!
Wil… perfect synopsis…”The hyena was a jerk” made me laugh… thanks
This is also what I think, nothing more. The tiger is not supposed to represent God or show that all things are possible. The goat was simply meant to be an example. The father was trying to show that the tiger could easier pull through a smaller animal through the bars and eat it. Which could have happened if the boy tried to feed it.