PI
A movie review by Joe Barlow
(c) Copyright 1998
STARRING: Sean Gullette, Mark Margolis, Ben Shenkman, Pamela Hart DIRECTOR: Darren Aronofsky WRITERS: Darren Aronofsky, Sean Gullette, Eric Watson RATED/YEAR: R/1998
RATING: *** (out of a possible *****)
"Pi," the highly-touted debut film from writer/director Darren Aronofsky, is the second movie in as many months to draw me into its embrace, dazzle me with flashes of brilliance, then fumble the ball so badly in the final act that many of my positive vibes were squashed. ("Snake Eyes" was the other, for those of you keeping score.)
Max Cohen (Sean Gullette) is a mathematician driven almost to the point of madness by his passion for science. He firmly believes that the entire universe is governed by the laws of math, and that these laws leave traces of their presence in every aspect of reality; as such, if one can decipher the code, one would then be able to predict anything and everything: the way creamer will swirl around in your coffee cup, the shape of snowflakes, the price of stocks, the secrets of creation... even the true name of God.
With assistance from his friend and mentor Sol (Mark Margolis), Max is attempting to find and decipher this code. One afternoon, while processing Max's latest mathematical theory, his computer crashes and blinks a 216-digit number on the screen. Max is aghast at the loss of his data, but as he begins to examine the strange numerals generated by the crash, other possibilities occur to him. The fact that this number has exactly 216 digits is especially interesting, since his friend Lenny (Ben Shenkman), another mathematician, firmly believes that the true name of God is a 216-character string, numerically embedded in the Torah.
The first half of the film, dealing with the construction of the plot, is fascinating. I'm not a stupid person, but my knowledge of mathematics does not extend beyond some basic trig; as such, I found the simple, concise way in which the script explains complex math theory to be exceptionally well-done. The details were JUST complicated enough that I had to concentrate, but never so difficult that I got left behind. A film that actually made me THINK! What a pleasant surprise!
Unfortunately, writer/director Aronofsky is unable to sustain the sparks of brilliance he shows in the first part of the story. After setting up such an intellectual premise, he unfortunately allows the second half of his film to generate into "Conspiracy Theory." Max gets chased a lot (See Max. Run, Max, run), and a lot of evil people slap him around for a bit inbetween the sprinting sessions. Then Max is confronted by Rabbi Cohen (Stephen Pearlman), who begs Max to give him the number, explaining that "his people" need it to find the sacred chest which was initially used to carry around the original Ten Commandments. Huh? Is this "Pi" or "Raiders of the Lost Ark?" Why not throw in the Holy Grail or Atlantis while we're at it?
In addition, the final quarter of the film is basically a re- telling of Arthur C. Clarke's famous short-story "The Nine Billion Names of God," in which (surprise!) a mathematician helps a religious organization decipher an ancient text to unearth the true name of the One Deity. The last scenes of "Pi" seem like such an obvious rip-off of Clarke's story that I can't believe (1) there has not been a lawsuit over it, and (2) no one else has noticed it, considering that the tale is one of Clarke's most famous short works.
But the first half of "Pi" is so intelligent and believeable that I'm willing to cut it some slack. Aronofsky has injected some excellent touches into the movie. First of all, the film is shot in black and white, which, although done for budgetary reasons, gives a certain dramatic flair to the production that color could not have generated. The acting is consistent and quite strong. Max is clearly a man obsessed: apart from a single chair, there are no pieces of furniture in his apartment. Every niche is filled with scribbled calculations and computer equipment; in fact, during one scene I noted that Max's home resembles nothing so much as the interior of H.A.L., as seen in "2001: A Space Odyssey" (another Clarke reference, incidentally). The music (primarily techno) fits the mood well, and Matthew Libatique's cinematography is truly groundbreaking.
The film also teases the entire sci-fi genre; whereas most directors would've filled Max's apartment with high-tech computer equipment that would be outdated six months after the film came out, Aronofsky has chosen a "retro" appearance for the production. Look closely: Max's Supercomputer Interface looks suspiciously like a Commodore PET, with parts from other equally obsolete systems tossed in for good measure. It's a nice jab at contemporary sci-fi.
Aronofsky has crafted a remarkable film for cinematic pocket change (the entire movie cost around $100,000... or 1/2000th the budget for "Titanic"). Had the tone remained cerebral, we may well have had one of the year's best films; as it stands, this slice of "Pi" is occasionally tasty, but not particularly filling.
E-Mail: jbarlow@earthling.net Joe Barlow on Film: http://www.ipass.net/~jbarlow/film.htm
If you'd like to receive new film reviews by e-mail, please write to the above address and ask to be put on my mailing list.
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews