Capturing the unfilmable | Cathal Dennehy

Cathal Dennehy praises Ang Lee's Life of Pi.

If there was ever an unfilmable novel, Yann Martel’s Life of Pi is a story for which the phrase seems to have been made. The bulk of the novel focuses on a teenage boy and a tiger afloat on a life raft in the middle of the Pacific ocean as the boy reflects on religion, survival and life in general – it hardly seems ripe for a film adaptation. So like many people, I was very sceptical when I heard that Ang Lee would attempt to bring Life of Pi to the silver screen. However, any reservations I had were thoroughly put to rest upon finally viewing the finished product.One of the most important points to note about Life of Pi is the fact that Ang Lee and screenwriter David Magee have done a terrific job in making such a complex and, in many ways, very strange story work into a coherent and hugely entertaining film. The book is very much dominated by Pi’s internal monologue and narration, and as a result, huge sections can become quite dense. The film condenses such sections into far more manageable sizes. For example the book’s first forty or fifty pages describe in some detail Pi’s experiences of growing up in the Pondicherry zoo, which is turned into the film’s opening credit montage. While there are some minor changes to the source, such as a fairly inconsequential side plot involving Pi’s girlfriend, the film remains diligently faithful while still managing to trim certain sections to fit the film’s narrative.The film is really anchored by the dual performances of Suraj Sharma and Irrfan Khan, who play younger and older Pi respectively. It is particularly impressive that Sharma managed to give such an engaging and confident performance given that, not only does he spend most of the film surrounded by blue screens, interacting only with a CGI tiger, but this is also his first film. Khan also makes the most of his narrator role which could have very easily been nothing more than dealing out plot exposition in lesser hands.Prior to the film’s release, there was considerable interest in the film’s use of visual effects and 3D. It is these features which help make the film work so well, especially the main section set in the middle of the ocean. The effects are incredible but it’s not just that they’re photo-realistic (many of them are) but rather that they add so much to the scene. It really is a case of a picture telling a thousand words, a prime example of visual imagery. In fact, there is around forty minutes in the middle of the film in which it becomes virtually speechless, with only the performances, music and visuals telling the story as opposed to dialogue. As well as this, the 3D, for once, actually adds to the viewing experience. It is clear that many of the sequences have actually been thought through with 3D very much in mind (the flying fish sequence probably being the best example). This is certainly the best use of 3D since Avatar and is one of the few times where it has been used as a legitimate filmmaking technique as opposed to a money making gimmick.Life of Pi is not only a very successful adaptation but it actually manages to create something more from the novel. This is a great example of a film as a piece of art. There are various layers to it and can be accesssed in different ways. I see this as the type of film Terrence Malick wants to make – very emotional stories with visuals and also the question of faith playing prominent roles. Where as Malick’s films, in my opinion, tend to be cryptic and often inaccessible, Life of Pi is anything but. It seems that 2012 was saving one of its best films for last.