After this idea emerged, netizens were thrown into confusion...
No one could provide definite answers to the three questions raised by Long Yang.
Everyone's curiosity was piqued, and they continued to read on.
Indeed, after throwing out the three questions, Long Yang offered explanations in his subsequent film reviews:
"Let's start with the first question, why did the ferry meet with disaster?
Many people overlooked the scene where the father feeds the animals since animals can get seasick; therefore, the father hoped to calm them with tranquilizers during the voyage.
But the accident lay in the fact that...
Servants had always done these tasks; the father had never administered tranquilizers to the animals before, so he accidentally mixed the tranquilizers into the crew's food.
And due to the argument between the mother and the cook, the protagonist's family didn't eat during the day.
When the storm hit, everyone on the boat was knocked out by the tranquilizers, with no sailors awake to take timely and effective measures. That's why the ferry met with disaster, which is precisely why Pi continually avoided addressing the cause of the shipwreck.
Top filmmakers won't give you meaningless shots.
Those seemingly nonsensical scenes could be critical information hidden in the dark, easy to miss without careful thought. The fact that the protagonist's family didn't eat and the tranquilizers given to the animals are what I'm referring to as critical information!
Netizens' eyes widened!
No one had anticipated this issue beforehand!
Was it actually due to the father's blunder?
Some netizens wanted to object instinctively. How did the cook and the sailor manage to get into the lifeboat?
The interpretations of the following two questions provided explanations and shut the netizens up.
"Once the first question was answered, the answers to the second and third questions could directly refute the second story narrated by Pi.
Some of you might have already guessed.
There were actually no sailors or a cook!
All crew members were wiped out; it was the protagonist's family who boarded the boat!
The so-called zebra was not a sailor, but the protagonist's father; as for the hyena, it was the protagonist's brother; and the mouse was the protagonist's girlfriend, who also sneaked on board as a stowaway, which I believe many netizens have already guessed. After all, 'mouse' is a term used to describe stowaways.
This is the answer to the third question.
Why did the mother hit the cook, yet the cook didn't fight back?
Because the cook was the hyena, that is, the protagonist's brother.
It was perfectly normal for a brother not to retaliate after being hit by his mother.
The brother used the father's amputated leg as bait for fishing, which of course the mother couldn't bear, but the brother was a rational person. The thirty minutes of foreshadowing at the beginning were not for nothing; it was just that the father died due to the lack of effective treatment for his amputation, so the brother had to survive by eating his father's flesh.
Netizens were utterly dumbfounded!
No cook and no sailors?
It was actually the protagonist's family who boarded the ship?
This interpretation was infinitely more terrifying than the previous one, sending shivers down the spine!
"You all probably guessed what happened next, the mother and brother had a conflict, and the brother accidentally killed the mother.
The protagonist was completely enraged, and he killed his brother!
If the brother really were a cook, he would have fought back long ago, but he was actually the brother; thus, he did not retaliate because he knew he had done something wrong.
Then, only the protagonist and the brother were left on the ship.
The protagonist said he remembered every detail of the last day he spent with his girlfriend but couldn't recall how they parted. It's not that he didn't remember; they had not parted but the way they parted was too cruel for Pi to even attempt to fabricate.
Ending his exposition there, Long Yang summed up:
"My guess might not be completely accurate, but it's definitely closer to the truth than the second version. There are so many metaphors in this movie, like the acid that appears in the lake at the center of Cannibal Island at night, which is actually human stomach acid, and so on. But I can be sure that there are holes in the second version of the pie; the movie has given us hints, especially the debate about whether a banana can carry an orangutan, which is the biggest hint. And it had to be the protagonist's family on the boat—that's why the first thirty minutes of the movie kept showing the backstory of the protagonist's family!"
It's the same saying.
Clever filmmakers don't include meaningless shots. The seemingly useless foreshadowing in the first thirty minutes is actually about the cook and the sailor also being family. Once you understand this, you'll really grasp the horror of this movie.
The film critique ended.
After reading the critique, netizens were stunned!
Cannibalism itself is already terrifying, but nobody expected the real truth to be countless times more horrifying than the plot of the second version!
The people on the boat were a family!
This has completely changed the concept from the second version of the story!
"I want to argue, but I can't find a standpoint!"
"Holy shit, did the protagonist eat his girlfriend and mother in the end?"
"Ahhhh, bring back the first version!"
"The first version was so beautiful, and the third is just as dark!"
"So the tiger represents the protagonist's animal instincts, taming the tiger is the process of human nature taming its animal side!"
"This interpretation is absolutely brilliant!"
"I knew there was a reason the first thirty minutes were so boring, talking about a bunch of family stuff, and then after the ferry disaster, all the family members died except for the mom and the protagonist who got on the boat. It was all because of this!"
"Such a dark story, yet filmed so beautifully, my worldview has collapsed!"
"This is the movie with the most metaphors I've ever seen, what happened to the promised commercial film!"
"Xian Yu's ideas are really unbeatable!"
The interpretation reached a frantic climax!
In the comments, of course, there were some who refuted Long Yang, but it led to even more interpretations, and versions that could never be unified.
Some mentioned God and the power of religion and belief, which also made a lot of sense.
The movie didn't provide a standard answer, and the creators wouldn't offer one outside the movie either, which is exactly what makes art films so enchanting.
Just like in the stories of Journey to the West, they always interpret Sun Wukong from a myriad of bizarre perspectives...
Whether it's the facts or the retellings, they are destined to be shrouded in mystery!
The only certainty is that the story is far darker than anyone could have imagined!
After all the analyzing, netizens were almost going mad!
And Pi's actions sparked endless controversy!
Some thought Pi was heartless and insane.
Others felt Pi went from being lost to redemption and found liberation in his humanity.
This seems to return us to the question raised at the end of the movie:
Do you prefer the version with the tiger, or the version without?
When the second version came out, many people felt that the absence of the tiger was more thrilling; but when the interpretation of the third version emerged, everyone suddenly wanted to opt for the first version.
The movie itself conveys this message.
Whichever you prefer, just believe in that one.
So the question left by the movie becomes thought-provoking—
Which version do you prefer?
ps: This movie's mysteries are almost fully explored. I haven't decided what to film next. Could you please cast your monthly vote and suggest any good ideas you might have?