clientsfromhell:

Client: Do you put stuff on the seat of benches?

Me: You mean apply decals to them?

Client: Yeah, you know - print stuff on the seat of the bench.

Me: I would have to check to make sure. What kind of an ad were you looking for?

Client: Well, it’s not an ad, exactly.

Me: What is it?

Client: A picture of my ex-wife’s face.

Me: …

Client: So every time I sit down, she can kiss my ass.

Lolololol

The Life of Pi

I am feeling a certain emotion and state of mind having watched The Life of Pi by Lee An. It is a mesmerizing film that took me on a beautiful ride, the experience was breath taking, and I was all sold. Then came the ending that threw me out of that ark. Few hours post life of Pi, I have evolved from being feeling absolutely cheated to now’s incontrollable need for answers. But it is also now that I will say this - Life of Pi’s letdown shouldn’t hurt its magnificence. And thought I will be thinking about what went wrong for me for days to come, and whether or not I do arrive at something, this is a brilliant movie. Painful, but beautiful.

I am particularly disturbed by its ending. Pi, who chooses to tell the ‘alternative’ story, seems to have long found a resolution to his tragedy. This is THE story, the one in which we all signed up for, with no indication that it would be otherwise, or even contested. “So, I told them another story”. says Pi as he narrates to the insurance agents of the shipping company. And with that he presents with the writer 2 options. But why does he do that? Does that mean he has come to terms with his tragedy by accepting an alternative story, but believing in god? If so, is Pi some sort of a messenger to guide the writer towards his faith? But for what? He is of no significance to the story. And, if it is that Pi has indeed chosen to believe in god by indulging in a story that never took place (if it matters, and there is a clearly defined reality), what does it mean for the writer to believe in god via this route? Is it wrong? What does this say about religion? and faith? Does the writer actually know which was the the ‘true’ story? does he care? “so you are… the tiger” He seems clear about the situation. But then, he also seems cheery about it, “the one with the tiger seems like a more interesting story”. I feel a sense of void here, a moral void, a lack of construct. That’s my problem. But when I try to rationalize this way, it reminds me of how I feel whenever I think, or talk about religion. What do I seek? Should I? Is faith blind?

On a more embarrassing note, the part that confused me was catching the fucking twist. What did it mean that the report acknowledged the tiger story over the ‘actual’ tragic story? That even the insurance corporation, who couldn’t take an unbelievable story for a report (symbolizing human, who seek materials, physical proof and believable rationalized evidence in search of an answer that never mattered), couldn’t pen down the tragedy, and opts to a fable? I felt that was too much to guess. It could have been clearer, in place of many other stuff that was perhaps made a little too clear.