RIP. Rishi Kapoor would die 24 hours after his death. DOUBLE RIP.

Legend🙏❤️

One of the key foreshadowing scenes is when he strokes Richard Parker (the tiger) and says “WE’RE dying”

William Stoner what would you say to anyone that is dying with you and next to you? The tiger eats the rat that Pi throws at him, right? The tiger swallows the rat. When the second story is told by Pi he starts explaining that the cook found a rat, killed it, dried it, and then eat it. The tiger IS the cook. So the hiena was added by Pi. PI NEVER KILLED THE COOK. The whole point of the movie is understanding the teachings learned by Pi during his journey. He says life is about letting go. So imagine the pain off not killing the cook, and surviving together. He definitely needed to add a laughing hiena to the story. He wants no one to know the true story. The cook, his mother killer, survived for months with Pi, so at the end after knowing what he had done before, he wasn’t able to look back at Pi. “He was a very bad man” But Pi’s human strength to forgive, live, and let go was the most important hidden aspect of the movie. So no food or water with another already forgived man in the same boat. I guess telling him “We are dying” is just his pure human side letting go everything else. All that and the Rat, the scene with the rat is the real foreshadowing scene. Without the rat I wouldn’t have connected the dots. The rat is key.

@@jorloco "PI NEVER KILLED THE COOK." Why would he not kill an evil man who killed his own mother?

@@jorloco a lot of what you are saying makes sense. however in the book it is explained in the last part of it that the zebra was the sailor that broke his leg, the orangutan was Pi’s mother who had 2 boys (pi and his brother) and that leaves the cook to be the hyena. now in the book the hyena chews off the zebras broken leg. in the third part it is explained that the cook cuts off the sailors leg meaning that the cook would be the hyena. That leaves Pi to be the Tiger (Richard Parker) who eventually kills the cook (hyena) who killed his mother. Now it took me a few times to read it to understand, but to me it seems that Pi tells his story using animals so that he doesn’t have to live with the thought that he had to kill someone and eat them, and so that the horrific things that happened to his mother actually happened to an orangutan in the story. Also only the tiger and the orangutan have names so that was another big clue. The orangutan was named Orange Juice, and turned out to be his mother. While the tiger named Richard Parker turned out to be him, and the animal that came out of him during his time out at sea.

so hes a cannibal

That is the best, and most apt explanation. Thanks mate.

Great interpretation man! I agree but slightly differently, if you only depend on god meaning spending your entire time dealing with spirituality and the universe you will forget about the physical world which will consume you due to the lack of balance. In life balance is key

The carnivorous island is not his mother but a metaphor of Vishnu sleeping in cosmic see..and one of his creation earth representing the inside of the island with meercats representing souls on earth (it's same initial scene with Festival celebration) and the night chemical representing the food chain.. He is representing a soul's journey which is solitary and not bound by materialistic realm like family! So he has to leave and reach the shore ( union with God) But before that he has to leave all attachments that is why he ties the thread given by Anandi to the roots of the trees ..

Cherry Blossoms so... the cook who was “a very resourceful man” would have permitted to drop the moms body from the boat? when we all know that the cook is a carnivorous man. So gods, and metaphors just manifested ? The scene before the island is Pi surrendering, so that means no water, no food, nothing else but the tiger and almost death. He surrenders. So then a woman shaped island appears? With food? (Mother Nature?... Mother?) And a paradise which make digestion by night? My conclusion: the cook obviously didn’t throw the moms body to the sea. For Pi the time came when the only food left was his mother’s body. He eats, he survives, he trips on the adrenalized meat, hallucinates, makes digestion, back to reality, he continues with life. If you don’t know that the tiger is the cook then go watch the whole film again, excellent movie. The tiger eats the only rat that appears on the movie. The tiger swallows the rat when Pi finds it and throws it at the tiger. And when the “real story“ is explained to the investigators he says the cook found a rat, killed it, dried it, and then eat it. The laughing hiena who NEVER eats a rat couldn’t be the cook. The laughing hiena is added by Pi, the trauma of the journey makes him do this. The hiena laughs. Even in distress. So, Pi survives, the cook survives. Of course he was never going to look back at Pi(he was a very bad man). But Pi the main character teaches us how letting go at every stage is what life is for him at least no matter what. Pi is the only one who knows exactly what happened. But go and watch the rat, rat is key.

@@jorloco I don't buy anything that you are making up! you are confusing metaphor with real scenes! The island was no woman! It is of MAN, clearly mentioned in movie... watch movie properly! Yes I do think may be this all was in his dreams .. the island appeared in his dreams/hallucinations while he gave up but he somehow reached the shore! And the island was very much resembling the scene of temple shown when he was a child..every scene that occurs before the ship sinks is shown as metaphoric events in his lone journey! His entire family was dead at the sea! They were all in deep sleep! And they clearly couldn't make it! There is a far long journey with only 2 of them ( tiger and him) i.e., survival instincts and the confused Pi and no one around! There was no survivor than him on boat! All animals were mataphor of his faiths and feelings... 1. Tiger - his father's lessons (survival) 2. Orangutan- mother's love who taught him about faith in God 3.zebra- his love (for Anandi) 4.hyena- the event of ship sinking which took away all his good feelings and wordly attachment and that drove him crazy and laughed in pain He is alone fighting between faiths and survival that's all! He is alone and is letting go of all he learnt as a child! He eats nonveg (fishes) while letting go of his beliefs - That's what the tiger really represents (like his father said) .. he believed in science for him to be alive and not in faith of religion/god..So even though Pi fights against odds for his survival letting go of all that he practiced ONLY faith has kept him alive till half of his journey and he is alive ONLY because of faith that he will reach shore!!!!! Don't mix things. There were no animals at all ! they were locked at the basement seasick and drugged!! and they can't escape magically from the locked cage! So all animals representative of his beliefs and feelings! And yes he was in shock and hallucinating with metaphors! All alone! His anger and hunger keeps coming out in the form of TIGER which finished all his previous faiths of sanity (representing docile animals) and he ate fishes after he lost all bananas and biscuits from boat and then finally he will let go of this man who he never imagined of himself..he might have eaten rat with a disgust or it could be meaning fishes that he dried in the boat! This is the real meaning of the movie! A journey between Faith in god and survival instincts... It's an open movie and I firmly believe in this theory and not yours! If your Theory was true the crooked cook would have eaten pi as well when he had nothing left.. he can't magically have feelings for pi like it's shown cos he is an evil man and it was pi that was controlling Richard Parker not otherwise.. he can't jump in water when he wants to kill him often and return when he is sleeping these kind of details rule out the possiblity of another big fat man on boat! So Richard Parker is neither a real tiger or a crooked man! It's his ugly side of anger and hunger feelings which troubled his previous belief system!

Rest in peace

@@willanthoniozeppeli7913 The dead wishing the dead.

@@friedsugar2701 good to know you know

“He isn’t necessarily the greatest visual” what an incredibly weird way of saying someone isn’t attractive

I think he’s cute

May be in deepest level.. but I feel he represents urge of survival, anger and hunger even though he has lost everything... He still doesn't give up! Continues his journey while having faith in God.. actually his faith never dies even while giving up ... He talks to God..

No. It is clear as day that the tiger was him and that the second story was the true story. This was not a mystery ending. The last scene even confirmed it but it was already clear before then.

Such a good point!! Great add on

He is the tiger

I think so too ,on a deeper level,I got that that out of it,and the tiger caught a fish ,but also a Fisher of men with pi,maybe,

Or he had to deal with a tiger …

U r genius! 4 days ago

@@rockybalboa1929 No bro, I am not genius or anything. It's just that I am Indian and it's one of the most underrated and tabooed question of India.

@@martianhowl true 💯

It kind of gives you the choice but also the movie made clear the second story was the true story, so there's no mystery.

what do you mean faith or fact? what is fact in the question of god

Seems spot on

The island represents his mom's body. With a lot of maggots. Pi is lying when he said he threw his mom's body into the sea. In fact he kept it so that's how the island arc happened; he ate his own mother's flesh for survive.

@@ayubestica1564 I really need to watch this movie again 🤗😍

I watched it over and over and i love how it become darker and darker the more I watch it

@@ayubestica1564 The carnivorous island is not his mother but a metaphor of Vishnu sleeping in cosmic see..and one of his creation earth representing the inside of the island with meercats representing souls on earth (it's same initial scene with Festival celebration with hundreds of floating oil lamps/diyas) and the night chemical representing the food chain.. He is representing a soul's journey which is solitary and not bound by materialistic realm like family! So he has to leave and reach the shore ( union with God) But before that he has to leave all attachments that is why he ties the thread given by Anandi to the roots of the trees ..

I think that was all pretty spelled out on first watch

This is Amazing!❤️

Are you dead?

Hope you are doing well ❤️

Thanks because I thought the same.

Karthik Hegde no it was literally in the movie, I never watched a video of it on KZfaq

yeah i watched him say that the real story was the one he told the journalists and i was like what lol, no the real one is the 1st one

The metaphores don't even matter because everything about the adventure on the seas was fiction and the second story was true

I found it very disturbing..

I absolutely got fascinated with this. I rewatched it and my emotions came out in the most vivid and rich sense. It is hard to explain in words but it is like this movie scrapes at your heart and it starts to bleed. But it feels good at the same time. Is there even a word for this feeling? Your taste in movies seems like it would resonate with me. Could you please recommend me other movies in your collection?

Maybe or maybe not why did he found a tooth over the holy island then?

@@NeerajChodankar it's not holy island but the earth itsel- one of the Lord Vishnu's creation not Lord himself physically! Remember Krishna opens his mouth to show that he contains entire universe ( I believe the sea is metaphor for universe) and the island for earth! where the soul reaches and becomes materialistic and has to survive the against all odds.. and will be dragged into food chain (HUMAN TOOTH) which is the rule of this earth! So he leaves all his attachments on island and continues his journey as it's not his Goal to stay there! God is omnipresent there is no holy or unholy! This is a open movie .. we can interpret the way we want .. u can agree or not agree! My point is the island shows many details which can't be justified by just calling it his mothers dead body ...

@@NeerajChodankar Pi - a soul, body confused to find his true faith ( his mothers view's) Richard Parker tiger - Survival instincts ( a facts - views of father of pi) Life of Pi - life oscillates between FAITH and FACTS Sea - universe animation scene (Krishna scene) Island - earth ( Vishnu floating scene) Shore - union of soul with God (All are Based on what they have shown)

the tiger was pi (confirmed in the movie) and the tiger ate the dead animals sooo

Oh cmon, the tiger itself named Richard Parker, the legendary canibal.

@@ellymackenzie7714 where was it confirmed? I thought it was intentionally ambiguous?

@@ellymackenzie7714 where was it confirmed? I thought it was intentionally ambiguous?

@@Dravianpn02 at the end where he is in a hospital bed... I think also when he is a grown up he is questioned and answers well it's up to you which story you take... something to that effect

Bro the tiger represents the pi himself. Hyena was the cook, orangutan was his mother, zebra was the man...

@lucifer jad That is your opinion

the true story was the 1st story. The real ending shows the article of the Bengal tiger on the coastline of Mexico with people wondering how it got there from India. He only told the second story so the journalists had something realistic to take back with them 👍

The first story is true because that's what we read and saw. If the second story were true then the writers are just assholes and it was a useless book to read and a movie to watch when all of the things only happened metaphorically. And the book and the movie still leave open the choice that maybe the first story really happened even though the second story made more sense, so i choose the first one because that is what i saw happen.

@@epicon6 I mean honestly I still like the twist ending I think it's a fascinating metaphor for religion and I think it made the book way more interesting I don't think it makes the writer an asshole,,,

@@trashbin5382 To me my theory makes more sense and i also hate movies and books where right at the end they tell 'by the way none of that happened'

There's no lost here. The second story was the right one and the first one he made up.

@@epicon6 False the true story was the 1st story. The real ending shows the article of the Bengal tiger on the coastline of Mexico with people wondering how it got there from India. He only told the second story so the journalists had something realistic to take back with them 👍

@@felixkfriju2649 You are right. He just wanted to mess with the journalist lol

@@epicon6 Bro I'm too lost. I don't know which is true .The above comment was copied. I copy it because you are too sure about your side.

@@felixkfriju2649 Here's the thing and why i will always side with the tiger story to be true.. If there was no tiger and the whole incredible story isn't true that means that the guy is just making up fairy tales and the whole movie was useless to even watch because none of it happened. Like if we could enable writer & directors commentary over the movie they could just say oh yeah, you can fast forward 95% of this movie because none of these things happened. So because i liked the movie i don't want it to be useless. And here's also evidence that can't be disputed: we saw the events happen so they must have happened. It would be impossible to describe every single detail that we saw so perfectly. So we saw the events and not a story. It would take maybe 3 years to describe a story with enough detail to fill in every single thing we saw on screen, like every detail of how the waves were that day or every detail of how the ship went down. And we saw events even he could have not seen like what was behind a corner he didn't look behind but what we saw because we saw the events.

Sorry for the late reply but it’s the people trying to comfort him.

the true story was the 1st story. The real ending shows the article of the Bengal tiger on the coastline of Mexico with people wondering how it got there from India. He only told the second story so the journalists had something realistic to take back with them 👍

@@TomTheCurator How are you so sure about that?

I interpreted it as the insurance people didn´t really belive the story, but still, just like the writer chose the animal story over the other because it was the better story.

@@baigonrice6703 if you are the assurance people, you will be so cruel if you put the 2nd story. That's how

No there are no meercats bones.. fish bones were there!

About what aspects of the film?

Oh okay, like you could do a better job explaining it and making a video? Please feel free to post your link for your review which is much better 🥱