Quote:
Originally Posted by dankrsta
I really can't find many interpretations in it, nor did I find it especially open ended. |
Your take on the ending is only one possible interpretation. There are others which also make a lot of sense:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dankrsta
What I mean by literal is that handling of ideas (mathematical and philosophical), depiction of and metaphors for his madness are very obvious to the point of feeling literal. There are no scenes and symbols that subtly reveal many layers of meaning. I think that's important for this ambitious subject. That's one of the reasons why this film feels like a work of a student who wants to be artsy and bites more than he can chew. As for the raw and gritty look of the film, I actually liked that, but it also feels like a conscience choice and so it's part of the style. I can even call it stylish with some obvious nods to Lynch's Eraserhead and early surrealist films like Bunuel's Un Chien Andalou. Well, those are true open to interpretation movies.
EDIT: Now, I understand that this is not a surreal film, but a sci-fi/psychological thriller. But for a thriller it's too repetitive with no real build up and tension, not to mention that it needs a tighter story for that.
|
I think you're reading some things as metaphors that aren't necessarily meant as such (sometimes a drill is just a drill
).
As far as
Eraserhead and
Un Chien Andalou go, I suppose you could say they're open to interpretation, but only in the sense that one can attach whatever meaning one wants to random collections of things. Neither film is particularly deep, and while
Un Chien Andalou certainly deserves a lot of credit for it's place in early film history, I've always viewed
Eraserhead as sort of what you're describing
Pi as. It feels very much like a student film to me: random crap thrown together in a self-conscious effort to be edgy.