Life of Pi is a movie which has certainly caught the attention of every movie goer in India. For literature enthusiasts like me, it is always interesting to see how a good work of fiction is translated on screen. I was largely skeptical and people who have read the novel might understand why. So here at Distracted Students, I decided to share with you all, my Life of Pi review.
Startlingly, adaptation of Life of Pi did something that no film adaptation had ever really done before. It interpreted and brilliantly adapted the unfolding of Pi Patel‘s story. And when I say brilliant, I mean literally brilliant. The 3D effects were utterly dazzling, and at some points of time, stunning. I mean that scene with the whale lunging out of sparkling water was something none of us would forget in a hurry.
But all these aside, the beauty of the movie Life of Pi and the story lies in the sheer ambiguity that it creates. It questions the very structures on which faith and belief is based. And more importantly, it questions our perception of what is reality. Sample this, there are two stories in the Life of Pi. One with the zebra, the orangutang, the hyena and of course, Richard Parker, the tiger, stranded on a lifeboat amidst the vast ocean. The other, which is said to be the more ‘believable’ one features the gruff cook, the timid sailor, the protective mother and Pi.
Equating the two stories in Life of Pi, we get the cook as the hyena, the sailor as the zebra, the mother is the orang-utang and there is Pi. The question that resounds is, WHO THEN IS RICHARD PARKER?
Before I go into an explanation, let us focus on the quote that the story begins with:
A story that will make you believe in God.
We have been already been introduced to Pi’s religious devotion and his true love in the Almighty, in whatever form he might exist. Alright now as to the question about who Richard Parker was in Life of Pi, let us refer to some significant lines. About the cook, Pi says, ‘What was worse, he brought out the evil in me’. The hyena (the cook) committed acts of savagery in the other tale. His savagery, in fact, brought the tiger out from the closet. And with a roar, he pounced on him and killed it.
It is safe to argue that there are certainly two Pis here. The religious devout worshipper Pi, for whom such an act of violence was never possible. And the other Pi, who takes a desperate step in a desperate condition and does not hesitate to do so.
Richard Parker in Life of Pi is the embodiment of the primitive animal instincts that lurks deep somewhere within every human being and which are kept in leash by civilization and religion. When provoked, when teased, it could emerge in even the timidest, the most civilized and the most pious of men. It was the ‘evil’ that Pi refer to.
Now, everything starts to fall in place. And now, one realizes that while declaring beforehand that this indeed is a story that would make one believe in God, it serves to do the very opposite. Beneath layers and layers of allegory, the author makes a veiled attack on religion, civilization and faith.
Startling isn’t it! Well now let us fit all pieces together now that we know who Richard Parker really is.
Pi clearly says that it was Richard Parker who made him survive those days in the vast ruthless ocean. It was for him that he took to fishing. Had he retained his religiosity he could not have killed even a fish. It was his animal instincts (Richard Parker) that helped him survive. There was no way he could overcome adversity otherwise. His praying on being successful in catching a fish evoked laughter from the audience. Did the author/director of Life of Pi intend the audience’s laughter? Was it then a ridicule of religious belief? Well it does seem to be so but the tone prevents us from saying it with certainty.
In the middle of the Life of Pi, there is a breathtaking episode of the floating island. This is particularly interesting. Praying ardently to God for survival, he came across a floating island full of prosperity. Meerkats, a pool of fresh water, green succulent vegetation, truly an island of wonders! And yet, and yet.
There is a very striking line in Pi’s description of the island. I misquote:
What the island gave him by day, it took away in the night.
What faith promised Pi, in the beginning of his life, it took it all away. What God promised him, love, prosperity, all was reversed in extreme adversity.
The island in Life of Pi too promised prosperity and well being. But it took away something more. A believer, deluded by the promises that faith gives to us, could end up the same as the human tooth in the fruit. Pi had the option to remain in wishful delusion and faith. But he did not. It is very noteworthy that he decided to leave the island, and that he reunited with Richard Parker before he left. He couldn’t rely on God while facing the ocean, he had to depend on his survival instincts.
When Pi Patel eventually reached the shore in Life of Pi, when he came back to civilization, Richard Parker left him. And that too, unceremoniously.
At the end of the Life of Pi, we have two stories. We could choose to believe in either. On being asked ‘Which story do you prefer?’, the writer replies, ‘The one with the tiger’ to which Pi retorts, “Same is with God”.
We CHOOSE TO BELIEVE in God. For faith provides us with false promises of future happiness. Sometimes, it is better to believe, for the grim reality of the world is sometimes too savage to be faced. It feels good to think that someone up there is in control.
The final report of the Japanese ship company published the story of the tiger, the zebra, the hyena and the orang-utang. The utter savagery and brutality of reality was perhaps too much. They, CHOSE to believe. It did not necessarily prove that the story was real.
Same is with God.
Now, does Life of Pi make you a believer? Well it depends, on what you choose. It could work both ways.
The author blogs at http://www.ourtrivialtales.wordpress.com


This movie was a ray of hope n a help to me wen i was surrounded by uncertainity…sorrow…it helped me choose one out of the two options…a mind blowing work u hav done…thanks for making people like me aware of reality…
Hope this helps people see the movie the way it should be seen. Very well written.!!!
Ricus, expecting some more discussion on it…:)
I am BOUND to believe in God….i think most of us are. We are told that how can we do anything without his blessings…nothing is possible if he’s not there with u…but then at the same time they say that to gain his blessings you have to work hard…so isnt it our hard work that matters ultimately??
Vandana well this is a question that you must ask yourself and not me. I just tried to see the movie in a certain light. However it is noteworthy that you say you are ‘told’ certain things about ‘God’. Why would you not question it. Of course hard work matters ultimately. Do we then need to believe in the existence of God to be motivated to work hard. Perhaps. But that does not prove that God really exists. This however is on a different plane altogether and we shall discuss this on another day. I have written a whole article on faith and religion which shall be published soon. Maybe we can carry our discussion there.:)
Like we all know, Faith & Tradition are the two most dominant support pillars of religion. Now if we see carefully,
Faith simply says, you should believe in something because you believe that you should believe in it. Can anybody explain that to me.??? This is lame.
Tradition, on the other hand says, you should believe in something because your ancestors did. How can someone who lived a few hundred years ago, without any source of external knowledge, know more than me.??? I mean I can give you the name of the place with lowest population density of females aged between 16 yrs & 22 yrs within a minute of requesting. That person living a few hundred years ago probably didn’t even know the name of any place other than his own hometown.
Thanks to Richard Dawkins for the arguments.
Yes Richard Dawkins is indeed a great freethinker that this age sorely needs today…Regards..And the arguments are of course invincible..
Pingback: Life of Pi (3D) « TheFilmLounge·
You made a good point. When I watched the movie first, I also decided to go with the story with the animals.. It was less brutal. Reality is always harsher than our imagination. We often create our safe house using our imaginations to shy away from the reality. And about the primitive animal instincts in human being, I firmly believe that we all have two types of characteristics. Our evil ones come out when our good ones can’t face the reality. U put that into words beautifully!
Thanks for the review! it was enlightening in many ways..
I am extremely impressed together with your writing skills
as smartly as with the layout on your blog. Is that this
a paid topic or did you modify it your self? Either way keep up the excellent high
quality writing, it’s uncommon to look a great weblog like this one these days..
Thank you for your feedback!
Pingback: Life of Pi « Ruined for Life: Phoenix Edition·
Pingback: » The Life Of Pi·
I read your review of “Life of Pi” with great interest. However, having read the book and seen the film, I think your thesis is mistaken. As an atheist, I am naturally inclined to agree with your analysis that the story calls into question the truth of Faith and the existence of God, but that is not what the story is about.
In fact, it is about the opposite. A more accurate thesis is this: The story of Pi Patel is the story of God at work in our lives; it is the story of how God (whether you are Hindu, Christian or Muslim) exists within each of us, in real, authentic and supernatural ways.
In making this argument, I have to point out one factual error contains in your review. You claim that the Japanese shipping company chooses to believe the “animal” story. That is not accurate. The shipping company representatives REFUSE to believe the “animal” story, believe the “people” story, but do not report it because of its horrific canniblism elements.
After accurately equating the sailor to the zebra, the mother to the orang-utan, and the cook to the hyena, you ask who is Richard Parker. In the animal story, Richard Parker is Pi. And in the animal story, Pi is God.
Prior the the shipwreck, Pi is analogous to God in a number of ways: like Hindu religion, the entirety of the universe is seen inside Pi, like in Christianity, God is all about love, and like in Islam, God makes humans capable of making the things they touch holy. Pi name is analogous to God. “Pi” is an infinite and irrational (a mathematical term of art) number, just as God is infinite and irrational.
Throughout the animal story, Richard Parker, like all mankind, receives everything from Pi, he is “trainable” but not tamable, and in the end, is self-absorbed and unthanking.
Richard Parker is allegorical of all mankind, and Pi is allegorical of God.
After reading your interpretation, I am really more inclined to go with it. That is very enlightening indeed. Thank You!
In fact it just goes on to show how layered the novel really is. But how then is the island episode explained. The island itself resembles in shape to a humanoid body. And if Pi is God who is indeed protecting Richard Parker, why is he shown to be vulnerable..??
Also, how can Pi’s actions be called irrational..? If anything, his pragmatism was to a large extent responsible for his survival in the ocean…