Wednesday, January 14, 2015

Life of Pi and the Problem with Relative Truth

Back at the end of 2012, I previewed Life of Pi via a sponsored post.  Part of the sponsorship was a free copy of the novel (movie tie-in paperback).  In summer of 2013 I got around to reading it and Summer 2014 I was able to view the film, on my parents' DVR.

The book is well written, with an good storytelling and interesting plot.  The film is just an abbreviated version of the film, with brilliant visuals.

I won't spoil any major plot points, but the themes and some of the logic of the main character Pi to me seems flawed.  The major theme of the story, solidified by the ending, is that you can choose your own truth and choose what to believe as truth.

For example, the story starts off with Pi as a Hindu, and very early on it progresses with him becoming Christian and Muslim, all while staying Hindu.  He sees no problems with being all three at once.  

I don't claim to be an expert on Hinduism or Islam, and I have a lot more to learn about and from my Christian God, but I do know that Jesus clearly says "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."  There is one and only one way to know God in heaven, and that is through Jesus.  Faith in what he has done: he lived the sinless life we could not live and he died the death we deserve.  Then he conquered death and the devil by coming back to life from the dead.

Pi's problem was that he was more interested in following rituals and being part of the different religious communities.  He cared more about how religion made him feel.  It enhanced his earthly life.  He really didn't get the eternal point of Christianity or accept the Truth.  Author Yann Martel doesn't get the point either.  The truth is without Jesus, mankind meets eternal suffering in hell.  With Jesus is paradise. You see,"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16)

I'm going to end with a quote from my lovely wife Alyssa.  I couldn't say it any better, so I'm going to just let her say it.
That’s the beauty and the pitfall of relative truth – sure you can decide what you want to believe and that’s all fine for the here and now, but what about later?  How can believing what you want in this life have any bearing or control over an eternity that you can’t be certain about?  Of course one might choose to believe there is no eternity and then just forget the whole thing- but I don’t really think that even someone who believes in relative truth would be really comfortable with that. “He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end.”(Ecclesiastes 3:11) We know innately that there has to be something more than this life, but I think people think they can ignore that inkling because they can’t control what happens in eternity. Ultimately, that’s folly. It’s foolish to believe whatever you want, to just be concerned about this life, because just because you believe in some arbitrary thing does not actually make it real (“what does it profit a man to gain the whole world but forfeit his soul…” or something like that).

Sunday, October 19, 2014

Appreciate the things we don't get anymore

Last week my company held its second annual User Group conference, where we invited all of our clients and to come to Milwaukee for sessions, networking, and to meet our team.  This year it was held at the Pfister Hotel, a luxury hotel built in 1893.

Being in such an old building and experiencing the awesome architecture reminded me of my time in Europe with my college choir, seeing cathedrals, opera houses, and old churches.

Sitting at lunch last Tuesday, talking with one of my coworkers and a couple clients, I commented on how cool the ceiling was in the Imperial Ballroom.  Interestingly, my coworker really didn't care about it at all.  I love the level of detail, the work involved, and the fact that most of it was likely hand-carved.  I appreciate it because this level of decor and detail is pretty much extinct.  Everything nowadays is more function over form, mostly because of cost.

I appreciate functionality as much as the next guy, but late 1800s architecture really is special.

The Imperial Ballroom at the Pfister Hotel, Milwaukee, WI

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

LOST is 10 years old...and I remember it like it was yesterday

I've read a bunch of articles about LOST, but The Verge posted a great one about how with all its flaws and craziness, the thing that keeps you watching is the characters and their relationships.  I'll buy that.

Maybe a binge of LOST is in order....

Also, what are your thoughts on the show?

Saturday, September 20, 2014

Raised by Penguins? Bat nipples? George Clooney?

I wasn't fan of its predecessor, but this sequel gets a couple of things right where Batman failed.  It certainly isn't a great film, and I'm rather impressed these films made enough money that they made four of them.  In any case, I think Batman Returns may be the best film in this series.

First things first, Tim Burton really toned down the "iconic shots" in this film and majorly increased the plot (i.e. it had a plot this time).  There are 2.5 villains: the Penguin...a monster played by Danny DeVito, Christopher Walken plays himself (actually he plays Max Shreck, a power monger business man), and waffling Catwoman...played with a lot of crazy by Michelle Pfeiffer.

Overall, I liked this one better than the first one, but the whole raised by penguins thing still bothers me. 7 ramheads out of 10.

The 3rd film, Batman Forever, has Val Kilmer, and he plays a weird, but not terrible Batman.  This has a very cartoon or video game feel, with a very enclosed world.  There are a handful of villains, all of them pretty boring.  3 ramheads out of 10.

The 4th film, Batman and Robin, is bad.  George Clooney is a terrible Batman.  He has no presence on the screen at all.  You don't care about him or even realize he's there most of the time.  This film has the worst, cheapest, feel to it.  There are a new handful of villains, including a pretty lame Bane. The only this that is interesting is the Batgirl story line, played strongly by Alicia Silverstone. 2 ramheads out of 10.

Interestingly, I liked the 2nd one best, but it is less memorable than the first one and the last one.  The 3rd is totally forgettable and also bad.

Here ends my blast from the past to the Batman films of my childhood.