0:00-2:30 – Introduction; the show is early this week
2:30-12:00 – “Rise of the Guardians” review
12:00-20:40 – “Life of Pi” review
20:40-30:30 – “Silver Linings Playbook” review
30:30-33:50 – Bayer’s mustache
33:50-44:10 – “Red Dawn” review, with a tangent about holiday movies
44:10-51:50 – Pitch Me (Paul Giamatti, Jodie Foster, noir musical)
51:50-1:00:10 – QOTW (make up a new mythical character to be turned into a movie)
1:00:1:01:30 – Premature wrap-up
1:01:30-1:02:43 – Oh right, next week’s QOTW; goodbye
QOTW: Hypothetically remake and recast a Hitchcock movie.
I think you guys are taking the interpretation of Life of Pi too literal. I think that it has more to do with the power of storytelling and myth making. It is more of an existential film. The film posits that, for many people, faith and lack off has more to do with personal experience than rational arguments. For example, the report the white guy reads falls between the two accounts provided by Pi.
I also think that the film could not have been more gruesome, since it is a family film. If it was gruesome, than it would no longer be family film. It still a very edgy family film. How many PG films has a cannibal subplot and visible, animal deaths?
I do wonder though, is the grown up Pi a believer or a nonbeliever? If he is believer, one can argue that he is being delusional with the evidence/story presented by the film. However, he does mention to the Canadian that he is going to tell a tale that is going to make him believe in God. Is he being genuine, or he is just being a provocateur? Hmm…
Ultimately, I think that the film cites more with the Atheist/Agnostic camp.