9.10.2013
1.02.2013
Very Bunny: Honest Brands
12.16.2012
Bunny Movies: Life of Pi
Life of Pi caught my attention once it was shown in theaters. Even when I had no idea what the movie was about, I was determined to watch it anyways simply because a.) the trailer looks great (which means it does its job) b.) the movie is directed by Ang Lee c.) Life of Pi is said to be an 'unfilmable' book.
My eyes were starved for stunningly beautiful images and I was about to feed them as I gave my ticket to the cinema usher. During the 127 minutes I sat in front of the screen, my eyes were widened by the breathtaking scenes of the sky and the calm sea.
The first ten minutes of the movie showing animals in nature were the magic the post-production team made to create a peaceful virtual landscape within a screen. The 3D images were spectacular indeed, but don't expect to see a lot of them. In fact, there were a lot of close-ups throughout the movie emphasizing the emotions shown on the characters' faces, which didn't look so 3D. But the movie after all isn't a superficial one showing animals coming out of nowhere. It is a narrative about narration itself.
 |
| Is it just me or the tiger cried? |
My bunny (the book hater) described the whole movie with one word - Indian. He was obviously joking but you know what? He made a point. The setting, the music and the scenes of nature do add a scent of exoticism which is fancied by everyone. I am sure a hundred and twenty-seven minute escape from reality is worth more than a hundred dollars.
As I was watching the movie, I couldn't help thinking about how surprisingly similar Life of Pi is to The Little Prince. Both of them portray the story of a young boy. Both of the protagonists tell an unbelievable and surreal journey. Right at the moment Pi told the Japanese investigators how he survived the shipwreck, I knew the movie wasn't just a story anymore, it was a story of how a story was told.
I guess it is impossible to neglect the element of religions in the movie (e.g. the pray, the church, the Ark). The fact that Pi believes in three religions either tells you he is very religious or very irreligious. I can't really decide upon that. Let's just say he has a heart full of faith. Having said that, he never says no to doubt. Here's the conversation between Pi and the writer:
Pi: Faith is a house with many rooms.
Writer: But no room for doubt?
Pi: Oh plenty, on every floor. Doubt is useful, it keeps faith a living thing. After all, you cannot know the strength of your faith until it is tested.
Of course he didn't. I mean he survived, right? If it was the sole reason he kept his faith, the whole surreal journey with the tiger, the hyena, the zebra and the orangutan would be meaningless. Remember I said the movie is a narrative about narration itself? Here it goes.
Pi told the author two stories about what happened after the shipwreck. One was ludicrous, the other one was brutal. One was about how the little boy lived with the four animals during the cast away. The other one was about how a cold-blooded cook relentlessly murdered a sailor and Pi's mother and Pi's revenge. While both narratives were equally unreliable, they left the listeners to decide what they wanted to believe. It turned out that the Japanese investigators, as well as the writer, chose to believe in the ludicrous one. Pi laughed. He said "and so it goes with God."
The lack of an authentic grand narrative tells us the ultimate truth - that there is no authentic narrative. We believe in what we want to believe, and the particular choice in believing reflects our values. In Life of Pi, the choice of believing in the animal story reflects the characters' faith in God and humanity. I was astonished by the art of narrative in the movie, and the great message brought out by the unauthentic narrative.
My bunny asked me if the two stories are parallel ones and the tiger represents Pi, why would Pi live with the tiger, implying that they co-exist in a universe? He is such a man of positivism. As for myself, if I was to write an academic essay on the movie, I would definitely write an analysis on Pi's id and super ego. But as a common audience, I am willing to just leave the uncanny part unexplained and choose what I want to believe. At least, I left the cinema with a smile on my face, and satisfaction in my heart.
11.12.2012
Bunny Brain: Reading
It might be a coincidence that I am into reading again all of a sudden. It might be a coincidence that the author of Fight Club Chuck Palahniuk explains the difference between writing a book and writing a movie in the afterword in Haunted. It might be a coincidence that I was reading Chuck Palahniuk's Haunted. It might be a coincidence that a bunny of mine discussed why I love reading so much and why he hates it. But all of them motivate me to write the first Bunny Brain entry on Reading.
Palahniuk tells his readers how 73 people fainted when one of the short stories named "Guts" was read during the book tour. It became The 'Guts' Effect, which happens to be the title of the afterword in Haunted. In The 'Guts' Effect, Palahniuk precisely portrays the magic of books:
Because only books have that power.
A motion picture, or music, or television, they have to maintain a certain decorum in order to be broadcast to a vast of audience. Other forms of mass media cost too much to produce to risk reaching only a limited audience. Only one person. But a book...A book is as private and consensual as sex...No one really gives a damn about books.
But with that disregard comes the freedom that only books have...But, if you want the freedom to go anywhere, talk about anything, then write books.
And 'Guts' is by no means the darkest or funniest or most upsetting story from the novel Haunted. Some, I didn't dare read in public.
These are the places that only books can go.
This is the advantage that books still have. This is why I write.
A reading experience, to me, is not only an attempt to re-create the reality in the author's mind. Instead, it is a mutual effort to create a virtual reality. With author's words, readers input their own imaginations, memories and emotions to build up a story that they can relate, connect and hence feel. With the same text, thousands of stories could be born. All are different, unique and personal. Besides, there are feelings so intense that no matter how you express them, it is always an understatement. Through reading, you read the feelings that you are never capable of expressing. Gradually you share the feelings with the author. It is amazing how you fall in love with Luke Brandon just like Becky Bloomwood does. It is incredible how you feel pain when the narrator in Fight Club hurts himself. That's why sometimes you nod so hard when you read. That's why you laugh so hard when you read. That's why you cry so hard when you read.
My bunny said that reading is a waste of time because he doesn't like to imagine a 'reality' which may or may not be the truth. Ironically, it is exactly the reason I prefer reading. I am not saying I don't like watching movies. In fact, I love it. I like the instant excitement. That being said, when you watch a movie, it is frustrating how you like the character but hate the actor so much, like how I like Tyler Durden as a character, but don't like the fact that Brad Pitt plays the role. Most of the time we bookworms say we like the book more than the movie, like Watchmen, and Fight Club, and God knows, maybe Fifty Shades of Grey! Once images are created, thousands of stories, of which there is one only belongs to me and me only, vanish in thin air but only one left - the director's. Only if you could realize how limiting your vision is, you'd let your mind run wild.
"I never loved to read. One does not love breathing." - To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee.
9.30.2012
9.22.2012
Bunny Movies: Into the Wild
Into the Wild (2007) may be a little boring to some people, including me. The fact that the 148 minute long movie is based on a true story might make the movie more meaningful, but it doesn't make the movie itself more interesting. Depicting how a university graduate abandons all his possessions and even his identity as Christoper Johnson McCandless in order to "walk into the wild" and embrace nature, the protagonist learns an important lesson, so important that it costs his life.
One thing I like about the movie has to be the scenery. The director Sean Penn continuously takes long shot of the protagonist in nature, emphasizing his solitude. I especially love the shots of the back of Alex and the beautiful nature in front of him. Penn likes to plays with light too. There are many scenes that I am stunned by the perfect amount of sunlight taken in that makes the scenes almost magical.
At first, I liked the idea of abandoning the old identity (Christopher Johnson McCandless) and the birth of the new self (Alexander Supertramp). A very nihilistic theme lies under the words of our hero. Giving up his career, his wealth and even his family ties makes him a carefree voyager. On the way, he meets people and befriends them. But as the bonding is built, he has to leave them. Alex tells one of the friends he meets during his journey, an old one, Ron Franz that "you are wrong if you think that the joy of life comes principally from the joy of human relationships". He enjoys the excitement brought by new experiences that blinds his ability to see the truth (which is revealed in the end of the movie).
The reason Alex wants to leave this "sick society" is mainly, from my understanding, his unhappy family. I guess the always-arguing parents give him a false impression on human relationship that "every fucking person is so bad to each other so fucking often". However, as Alex goes on the adventure, the people he meets are all deeply attached to him. It broke my heart to see the separations as I was watching the movie. Little does he notice that once judgement and power struggle are put aside, bonding can easily be built even if they are merely wandering strangers. And so he leaves, he makes it to the destination, Alaska, which also brings him to the ultimate destination, death.
.jpg)
Right before his death, his epiphany, the truth, comes to him. He writes on a book, "Happiness only real when shared". There, the sub-text of the movie suddenly turns from a post-modern notion of human relationships to a humanistic one. The images flashes in his mind are the faces of the people he meets and him running into his parents' arms. He finally realizes that the excitement brought to him during the new experiences won't even exist if there is no one to share with. He finally realizes that it is his friends who make the journey enjoyable all along. I guess Chris in the real life would love to share his experiences with his family if he could leave Alaska alive.
To me, the ending of Chris' life or the movie is a tragic one. It takes him everything, even his life, to find out what he looks for is always with him, but he fails to recognize it. However, in the movie, Christopher dies with a smile on his face, with "God's light shining through him" (as told by Ron). What the director intends to portray is the ultimate victory of our hero, the answer of the truth, which is the true meaning of love.
I guess the reason I find the movie rather boring is the lack of development and tension. While watching the movie, I kept questioning Chris' irresponsibility and selfishness to leave his family and make them suffer from the loss. Like I said, it broke my heart to see Chris leave the people who are emotionally attached to him. The fact is, I never undervalue the importance of human relationships. So spending 148 minutes of my life to tell me what I already know seems to be a waste of time. But I won't put it that way because well, it is a true story, and there are a lot of people out there who fail to recognize the beauty of human relationships.
9.20.2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)