Life of Pi question

I think it is all up to you to decide which story you want to believe. When I finished this book it made me crazy for days trying to look up which story is the actual truth. But I then realized that it is all up to you.

The choice you make however can mean a few things, it represents which one sounds better obviously, or it represents how to make choices in life.

Throughout the entire book it was all about the Tiger and Pi, this is what we were thought to believe for 98% of the book. Then all of a sudden a story that only lasts for a few pages comes up that makes us confused. Obviously we are more bias towards the one about the tiger because it "seemed" real, until he said it wasn't. But then again Pi did not give any indication of which one was the real one or not.

The presentation of how you make choices in life is simple, you can either be a realist or an optimist. Optimist is the story with the Tiger, its essentially a happier story than the other brutal story. But whoever believes the brutal story is a realist. This makes sense when choosing choices in life.

Will you make choices based on happiness or not?

His mind has come up with the tiger story to block out the reality. It is easier for him to live with this story, and it makes life more livable. The choice is an allegory about religion: which "reality" leads to a happier life? It doesn't matter what is "true", only what leads to greater happiness.

The reality of either story doesn't matter. Adult Pi was attempting to tell a story that would make you believe in God. The first story was full of amazing feats whilst the second story was full of horror. The most rewarding story is the first one whilst the most realistic one is the second. It's left to the reader to decide which one they prefer to believe not which one they think is true.

As the story said;

"Writer: So your story does have a happy ending.
Adult Pi Patel: Well, that's up to you. The story's yours now."

Which leads us to the main point of the story. We all have control of the story and we can either choose to believe in god (mystical animal story) or decide that he doesn't exist (horrifying human story). Two sides of the same coin/two versions of the same story.

However the deciding factor for us is faith. Do we have faith in Pi's story? Did it seem better even if it was far fetched and unbelievable? Did we end the film wanting the first story to be true even when confronted with the reality of the human story?

If the answer is yes to any of the questions above it leads us to question if god is real or not.

ie. if we can still believe in a mystical magical story when confronted with the horrors of the real world can't we also believe in a mystical magical God.

That's what faith is..... believing something you can feel in the heart even though your head says it can't be true.

Just as Pi's Mother said at the beginning;

"Gita Patel: Yes, that is true. Science is very good at teaching us what is out there...
Gita Patel: [puts her hand over her heart] But not what is in here."


So we believe in God because we want to not because we have to; just like we want to believe in the first story even if the second story is more believable.

Oh for Pete's sake. He saw his Mother murdered, eaten, and later engaged in cannibalism himself to stay alive. The tiger story was a psychic break his mind devised to protect itself. Google the tiger's name if it didn't ring a bell.

It cannot be a mere coincidence that the only time he meets another living human is when he is temporarily blinded.

Ironically, the lack of evidence makes me believe the first story.

However I don't see this as an error, I think this is what the author is trying to demonstrate intentionally. If you believe the story of 'without animals'... It is notably lacking in explaining everything encountered in the book.
If you perform a second read, a story without animals does not explain the following:
The seeming disconnect between Pi and Orange Juice. Although Pi mourns the loss of Orange Juice, there is no description of anything that would resemble a mother-son bond prior to her death (pgs 120-121)
Why Pi was so upset over his first kill- a fish.. This description would have been after the reported killing of the cook..as at this point there is no food on the boat pgs 182-183
Are we to assume all of the diary entries were mere ramblings pg 239.
Meerkat island some crazed concoction
The bones on the ship -rats, fresh bones from leftover rats after 277 days at sea?

Indeed Chapter 22 is key. Attempts to cling to random facts presented... no matter what... sometimes leads people to miss the better story.

Now there is nothing wrong with a factual story. I do believe in evoloution and the like. Majored in Biology. But I do understand how keeping your eyes open to the 'miracles' around us, not just the facts, can clue us in to an even bigger picture. Perhaps one that is not easily explained using only facts - but by something that is bigger than the body of knowledge that we know. Isnt presumptious of even the most hardened scientist to say they can explain EVERYTHING. Because all scientists know there is a limit to human knowledge. The scope of the universe, dark matter...etc.
For those who believe the Tiger story is all made up, One can likewise believe the story without animals is all made up....Why would one think just because a story does not involve animals, it is gory, makes it true? We see false confesssions from hardened criminals all the time. Criminals who have killed and raped...then make up a marvelous story to tell a cop about yet another victim.... complete with gory details. We rush to believe it. He is a killer! Listen to the detail of the gore. Everything seems to fit!... Only to discover - it really doesn't. Just a another made up story, because someone did not want to believe the impossible.

My practical self - oh so wanted to choose the story without animals. I even went back to read the book again to find some 'supporting evidence'.. But I couldn't. So thus I choose the story with the animals. It is the only thing that fits.

Great book

Does anyone remember the final episode of M*A*S*H, when Hawkeye had the breakdown? He told Sidney the psychiatrist the story about being on the bus and telling a woman to keep her chicken quiet so the enemy wouldn't overhear it. It ended up, he'd fabricated that version because he could not reconcile himself to what actually happened: the woman suffocated her infant because he demanded she shut it up.

The episode's plot synopsis is here: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodby...

As soon as I begin reading Pi's alternate story, I thought of that episode. I think the tiger story was a coping mechanism, but who knows?

The true story is the story with the humans. This is true. The thing is that he admits to being Richard Parker. I was talking to one of my friends about this the other day, and she asked a good question. If the story with the animals is the one that actually happened, then why would Richard Parker be named Richard Parker? At the beginning of the story, they tell how Richard Parker got his name. If Richard Parker was not real, then why put that in?
The answer is that the human story is true. When the boat sank, the "animals" were roaming the boat. This was not true, this was simply a reference to what Pi's father said in the beginning of the book. The most dangerous animal is looking at you in the mirror. Humans are the most dangerous animal, and I'm sorry to say that this book shows how true that may be. The cruelty shown in the book was so horrific, that Pi's own mind rejected the thought and instead showed images of the animals to Pi.
I hoped that this helped.

such a good movie :)
I prefer being with the first story... No matter what we do, what we are, God will always see us as like the tiger, zebra, orangutan, or the hyena...

I read the book and saw the movie; they were very much alike. I thought I would not like this story, but did. The dual ending left me intrigued and thoughtful. I recommend both.

I think some folks believe we're being forced to make a choice between which story was true, when they both were. His line of "So, you want me to tell you a story that doesn't contain anything you haven't seen before?" So he did, one which accommodated this restriction.

I don't think anyone here as even mentioned the most important line in the movie. It was fast and short at the end. After Pi told the writer both versions of the story he asked which story are you going to write about. And, the writer answered the one about the Tiger because it is the better story. And, Pi said, "And, so it is with God". That is, people believe in God because it is a better story than one without God, regardless of how true it is.

The author seems to be saying that to believe in Richard Parker is to believe in god and that necessity is the mother of both. The amount of pain and suffering is exactly the same in each scenario, but the Richard Parker version is less unpleasant to contemplate so Pi, the investigators, and the reader prefer it. A little cynical, but probably true. More interesting to me was the island metaphor which paints a particularly souless picture of a conformist consumption society.

This is what I think: what an incredibly clever & talented author, to give us the choice of what we, the reader, wish to believe. Life is not always nice - we have choices as to what becomes our story about our own life.

I think that the whole point is whether or not we have faith in Pi, the same way he had to have faith in the thought of being saved. If we have faith in him as a storyteller, then we believe in the animal story. If you don't and you think he's just dealing with PTSD, then you'd believe the human story. The author is testing our faith in the storyteller and asking us to believe in something greater and more profound than we can imagine.

That being said, I believe in the human story. Frankly there's no way he'd survive months on a boat with a tiger.

Regardless of which story is true it was obvious that the detectives and most people would never believe the first story.. In reality there would be evidence on that boat of the carnage that took place..

The island and the other survivor was the most confusing thing to me. All the rest matches up with the other story. But the stranger had a French accent and tried to eat him, much like the French cook tried to kill Pi in the second story.
But then Richard Parker killed the stranger, just like Pi killed the Cook. So, if we see Richard Parker as Pi's alter ego, then the stranger was the French cook.
Further evidence to prove that the cook and the stranger are the same: Pi and the cook were the last ones left after the others were killed. They both wanted companionship and offered each other a disstraction from their pain. But Pi could not trust the cook and so he had to kill him.
This is just like Pi and the stranger, when Pi felt threatened by the stranger Richard Parker (the killer in Pi) killed him

A major point is ignored:
BOTH versions of the story are horrible!
There are brutal murder, oppression, and suffering just as much in the Tiger version, and we overlook this fact because:
1) Here, the characters are animals which makes us distant (well less terrified than we are about the second story anyway).
2) Pi's feelings are more optimistic in the animal version; he loves the tiger, perhaps worships him in some sense. This even led me to explore how the tiger was God.
You see, It's all about how eloquent the story is. Religion does not hide atrocities; it embellishes them.
It makes us accept and embrace these horrors.

Both stories are true. You decide which one YOU believe in.

The line from the narrator, I think, holds the key. When he asks the writer interviewing him which story he prefers, the writer says the one with the Tiger. The narrators response is.
"And so it is with God."
In so saying, he says believing in religion is a non-truth. It is a fantasy to protect us from the horror of death and the possibility of no afterlife. Just as the Tiger story is a creation to shield people from the reality of the story. So I guess I am saying the human story is real and the animal story is fantasy.

“Every person must choose how much truth he can stand.”
― Irvin D. Yalom, When Nietzsche Wept

WARNING READ UNTIL THE END OR ELSE YOU WILL THINK I AM CRAZY. i saw an explanation of it the orangutang was pi's mom the zebra was the Chinese that said "gravy is not meat, is taste" the hyena was the chef that threatened to beat up pi's mom in the cafeteria in the big boat. Pi was the tiger. what happened was the Chinese man made the chef mad for some reason and he killed him. then the chef said they needed fishing bait so he killed the mom. then pi killed the chef finally. but pi was afraid of himself. his instincts kicked in before he got off the big boat. see he said we need to go get those animals and save them but if you think about it would you go back for humans or animals. his mind told him they were animals so he could save himself and get off the boat. when he was on the small boat he was seeing everyone kill each other but some people would rather see animals kill animals then humans killing humans. he didn't want to think he was killing a human so he saw it as killing an animal and its easier to blame an animal for killing instead of blaming yourself that's my theory.but WARNING i am quoting from the movie so i am sorry and if there is anything at all that i got wrong please comment and tell me. I am currently listening to the book on audible so ill know soon.

Personally, I think the human version is true. I believe that the experience was so traumatic for him that turning all the humans into animals was his way of coping.
I think this particular subject is up to the reader. I think you've got to decide what was rue and what you want to believe.

I think the keyword or key-sentence in the film was: "in his eyes(of tiger) you see your own reflection". So the tiger, which can be understood like a metaphor of belief, religion and god, appears like a mirror of your own inside world, of your soul. So which story we belief depends on how we are, and what we want to belief in!

I think there is a point that everybody has overlooked as far as I can tell. PI survived because he was already on deck and a very able swimmer. It does seem strange however that the only other survivors from a cargo ship full of able seaman was a middle-aged woman (not being sexist, just realistic), a severely injured sailor and a fat out-of-shape chef. I think the animals would have been stronger swimmers and more likely to have made it to the boat. Just making a point, probably just something to do with a religious metaphor.

I have just watched this movie for the first time, because of the sad death of Irrfan Khan. I think the human story is true. The hyena/cook kills first the zebra sailor then the orang utan mother and Pi, out of control, is about to kill the hyena when the tiger leaps out and does the job for him. Despite the dying zebra on the boat, Richard Parker is unseen until that moment of crisis and, after this, helps Pi survive. But the tiger has to leave at the end of their traumatic journey so Pi can reintegrate both into himself and normal life. Is the tiger his own dark self or an angel who ultimately delivers him to safety? Perhaps this is the part of the story that your own beliefs will determine - but I think there's a clue in the adult Pi's tears.

I don't think that author intended us to choose a story to believe. I think both are true to some extent. Pi was (in some ways) on a boat with a "tiger" either way. I think that the story was supposed to represent how the tiger was his own fragile mentality, and maybe the tale was supposed to help us understand how relations with oneself's subconsciousness are similar to relations with an animal that we don't know much about. Much like many religious tales, sometimes the frills and fluff of a story don't have anything to do with the core beliefs. Anyway, it's been a few months since I've read it so correct me if I've made a mistake in remembering it.

"People believe what they want to believe."

Been wondering for a couple of days after I've read the book. It was amazing and frustrating mixed up together. I don't like it when authors leave the ending to the readers. People could come up to a ton of different endings depending on their mood and I'm not a fan of that. All I know is Pi survived - and that's what matters the most. Animals or not, that's one helluva experience.

You know what? The animal story seems very believable.

If Pi made up the first story to make himself feel better, why would he bother telling it to the Japanese insurance men?

Fact: Pi's family was transporting zoo animals on the ship, which had escaped onto the deck during the storm.

Fact: All of Pi's family was in their bedroom, asleep or not, during the storm. None of them were seen getting out of bed to follow Pi, nor seen on the deck interacting with the crew.

Now, which events seem more likely?

That an assortment of scared animals on the deck, panicking and mistakenly taking refuge below the tarp of a lifeboat, would stay hidden during the storm while Pi was tossed on and off again, and not coming out until the next morning.

At the core of the entire story is a boy and a tiger surviving in a life raft in the Pacific Ocean. The whole time the story is being told, Richard Parker is treated in the realistic, cautious way a regular carnivorous zoo tiger would.

Pi remembers advice from his father, survival books and school about how to deal with a real tiger, and he uses the skills assertively with the results being how a real tiger would react. He goes out of his way to recognize that the tiger is an entirely separate being, a different species with different skills that Pi wouldn't have been able to do. He even saved Richard Parker by using real materials to help him get back in the boat. Pi also started training him to fear sticks, harsh whistles and shouts, and to go where the stick tapped to expect meat.

Second, the story with the tiger is said to represent an "idealized" version, but it's really not. The murder and cannibalism of humans in the second story is supposed to be what makes it so horrifying and unpleasant, yet, the murder of a human happens in the first story too, with the Frenchman.

Third, the first story is written in a way that is as believable as it could get with the elements given. Why would Pi go so far out of his way to make the story believable? It's already pretty fantastic story and he knows people won't believe it, so why not just go all the way? Pi goes out of his way to establish the tiger as a separate entity. If the tiger was just a part of himself, why would he need to train it or do anything else? If the tiger is supposed to be his pragmatic, animal instincts that help him survive, that doesn't make sense either. Early on in his journey, Pi accepts his willingness to kill and eat meat to survive. So why would he need to continue to be careful around Richard Parker and avoid him?

Also, the meerkat bones in the boat. The Japanese insurance men suggested that they were just rat bones, but that wouldn't make any sense. Where would they come from? Even if they came off the Tsimtsum, why would Pi leave them there during the whole trip?

It's highly likely that he really did reach an island and stay there for a while but ate some hallucinogenic plants that distorted things and made him believe that the rats on the island were meerkats and that the island was carnivorous.

There's 2 clues I got from the book, one is that bananas sink in fresh water and float in salt water. The other is that the more "realistic" version of his story gets interpreted in relation to the animals in the other story. The cook is the hyena and Pi is the tiger. So if it is true that the animals are stand-ins for the people on the lifeboat who died. Then it doesn't make sense to re-insert the cook into the story after the death of the hyena. When Pi is blind and meets the cook in another lifeboat only to have the tiger kill the cook. That would've already happened when the lion killed the hyena in the beginning. This leads me to believe the tiger story is the real one because having the cook come back again would make no sense. Moreover, everybody forgets about the rat at the beginning too, if the animals are representations of people then who was the rat supposed to symbolize? It's directly stated in the first story that Richard Parker ate the rat, but the rat isn't brought up in the second story, and mind you, they did find the bones of an animal in the boat...

In the novel, the Japanese people keep grilling him about the validity of the story which he continues to swear is fact. They don't believe him. Eventually he gets pissed at them. He is tired and annoyed so he tells the story about him and the cook in an angry, defiant way just so they will leave him alone. The thing is, it’s the first story retold, but in the most generic way possible. We’ve heard the story before, dozens of times before.

There's a sense in which the first story is the truer story. For one, Martel/Pi spends a hundred and fifty pages on it—it's hardly a summary. It's the real deal fleshed out and made whole. It's worth mentioning that while the second story seems more "realistic", as one would say, it is ultimately the first story that is used in the insurance deal. This indicates that it is far more likely that the first story is the real one, especially considering that the second story seems rather... generic in terms of a survival story, we've heard a similar story to it dozens of times, and its likely that Pi made the second one up just to give the Japanese businessmen what they wanted to hear.

How did the animals escape from their cages? Apart from that and the bizarre island, I feel the animal story is more realistic. The human story, why did only one boat escape? and with a very motley crew. Pi was young and an excellent swimmer; I just cannot see the only other three making it off the boat alive being a middle aged woman, an injured man and an overweight/unhealthy man. Not considering the amount of young, fit men on board and the sudden turn of events. I am sure it was the only boat to leave the ship as it was not full. The animals though if they could have escaped from their cages would have known what was happening a lot sooner and been stronger contestants for survival. Saying that, to come up with a story declaring a man he didn't know as evil is very harsh. If coming up with a story he could have just said he was alone on the boat.

In my opinion the ending acts as an introspective question; which story do you believe, the one with animals or the one with the cook or in other words, are you the type of person who believes in narratives based on faith or reason?

I believe that Richard Parker is his mind (thoughts and fears). When something unimaginable happens, our biggest enemy is our own mind. During this whole ordeal, he watched his mind. When he eventually tamed his mind, it helped him survive. By the time he reached the shore, he had complete freedom from his thoughts and fears. Therefore, at the end there was no relationship between him (the real self) and his mind. And it's evident when the tiger doesn't look back while leaving him.

I think the book is trying to tell us is reality is an interpretation. There is no right/wrong answer. The book gives us an opportunity to introspect. The tiger is really just a manifestation of one's inner fear and doubts. Moreover, the struggle of Pi is our struggle against everyday odds and challenges. Thus, I believe the book is about hope. It reassures us that despite all the trials and tribulations of life, one can survive on slightest of hope. We just need not give in and hang in there.

Some very interesting concepts brought up here, some that I had not thought of or thought deeply enough about. Seems you could go on debating issues/things that happened in this book forever! I personally concluded after reading the book that the idea was not which story you decided was true but understanding if pi had made the story up about the animals, why he had chosen to do so and what they and what had happened represented. Having read at least half the comments i would say that the story about his family is true. That is the one we would logically believe. Now I understand the animals were about God and faith it makes me feel better and understand more as we are all mammals, we all have the same needs to survive which involve needing to eat, other animals sometimes and the predatory instinct and the fact that we like to have our own territory. And he couldn't have told all the story involving the animals without bringing these concepts up. Yes, it was brought up in the first chapter when the animals were kept in the zoo but it would have been just a story and just an idea that you would more easily forget about if it wasnt followed up in the second and third sections.
I also wouldn't want to believe that the 'human' story is true because it is brutal (I guess this also shows our nature though... Our greed and survival instincts). Also because so much of the animal story was focused on! But I did not believe the animal story at all because as others have said it is unlikely and irrational.

I think you can get out of this book what you want to and interpret it how you want. Or just enjoy the story.

Are we saying that without God life is a horrific mess? I think that's a point that can be made from this story. (Not whether I believe that, just that it's another facet to consider that the writer may have put forward.)

The entire analogy between survival with animals and survival with humans was there to prove to the guest-writer that we tend to believe our own, metaphorical reality, which suits our world perception better. Thus, if such "reality" exists for the guest, existence of God should be proven in his subconsciousness as well.
Unfortunately, "the reality" is the one with the cook. There's a reason author highlighted cook's despicable characteristics before the ship sank. Otherwise, it would've been an insignificant conflict, unworthy mentioning.

It's funny which story you believe seems to represent whether you believe in religion or not and like real life, I'm stuck in between.

I choose to think that he really did go through those experiences as first described, and the story he tells at the end is only because he knows he can never convince people of the truth.

It could be a way for him to deal with his traumatic experience, shutting out what really happened in the other story such as his mother getting murdered and him killing the other guy like when people have traumatic amnesia of whatever its called when you just block out what happened and physically can't remember what happened (read Whale Song by Cheryl Kaye Tardif for story about that). I don't know if this is true as I am just making it up but personally I would like to believe it is true.

I personally want to believe the tiger one but I know it can't be all real..... however, I kind of think that both stories are false. I can't believe the second story at all, even less than I can believe the tiger one. I think both stories are unbelievable.

I read it as the story with the animals was the true one. But just as people don't like to believe religion because it seems impossible, they won't want to believe that story because it seemed impossible. So he made up a second story that was "possible" to satisfy the requirements of humanity. And in the end, the question to you is, do you believe what seems impossible or do you only believe what you've seen? Or what you KNOW could be?

I agree with Allie that it's a matter of faith. By choosing to accept the story with the animals you are embracing faith. You are realizing that there are in fact miracles. By posing the second story, doubt is created which tests your faith. Overcoming the doubt makes you closer to your beliefs. So, do you believe in miracles or not?

I thought the point was purely about the difference between religeons or atheism v religeon. At the start of the book Pi is following three different religeons, he is told that he can only follow one because only one can be right. He tells his elaborate story and then tells an alternative. I forget where it is but he says that the facts are....he was shipwrecked and his family died and then he washed ashore. He said the facts were the same and only known things no matter what the interpretation in the middle was, so we are free to choose our favourite story. People are here and so on. The bit in between creation and destruction can never be known for sure (ie whether God created or any other God or evolution) is the bit where we can chose religeon or not as it doesn't alter the know facts. The story about the humans is the real and painful one, the story about animals is the religeous/fabricated one. The point is that most of us read the animal one with some disbelief and then had our hearts broken as we realised that actually he watched his mother murdered and so on. So we are happier to believe the animal/religeon version. And Pi was Richard Parker. He became a violent person in order to save himself. That's why Richard vanished when Pi washed ashore. Reinforced by Pi's dad telling him at the start that the most dangerous animal in the zoo was the human.
It's a story about religeous co-existence. Well that's what I got from it anyhow.

I don't care, I just liked the story. I laughed when he told the story with people.

I was talking to my friend about the movie, and I think their theory was the best. It's very interesting...
The second story is true. BUT Pi's thoughts and feelings and emotions after the shipwreck is the tiger.
He sees his own mother brutally murdered by the cook, through anger and revenge, Pi kills the cook.
This was such a traumatic experience for Pi, that instead of living with the guilt of killing a man, and because killing is a sin, Pi thought, "Oh.. I'll just blame it on the tiger. The tiger killed him. Not me."
However, Pi's mind believes that there is an actual tiger on the boat. It's not actually there, but Pi sees it, and his mind becomes so obsessed with idea of it, that he really believes there's tiger on the journey with him. He evens touches it and feels it as if it was there.

The tiger is all his thoughts and emotions.
His emotions were so fierce and terrifying. Like a tiger.

The actual Richard Parker that we see at the beginning with the lamb is dead with all the other animals in the shipwreck.



Now what I really liked about her theory is this:
Once he lands on the Mexican coast. Everything is okay. He's on land. He's rescued.
The thoughts and emotions he felt through this 227 day voyage left and never came back.
The tiger left and never back.
His trauma and awful memories left into the jungle, the memories left, he seems them leave in the form of the tiger.

I think both stories are true.

I would like to think that the story with the Tiger was actually true. This is very difficult however,as he had seen many great bizarre sites and experienced so many shocking events that it would seem to all be a hallucination. He was able to survive at the ocean for 220~ days however, so I would find it almost believable that he experienced all of this. Years later his mind still seems sane as well, so he didn't break down mentally.

I had no idea what to think about the ending at first. Then I re-read the part where he asked the Japanese guy of what story he prefers, and the guy chooses the one with the Tiger. I think Pi's trying to say that it's the same way God will judge us... God will always look at the brighter side of our being.

It's obvious the author wants us to think about this pretty deeply. I haven't read all your comments, but has anyone touched on the meerkat bones? Those bones could be authenticated if given to an expert. Furthermore, it could be ascertained relatively easily whether the Zoo ever had any meerkats as Pi claimed they didn't. It is enough to give us that hint of doubt if we are inclined to the "reality" interpretation.

I am inclined to one based in faith with Pi's raft as a symbol of faith. He is trapped with a ferocious tiger and so the forces that would shake our faith are also ferocious. I disagree with those of you who said it doesn't matter. It does matter. Both stories are true. And both are not true.

Steven wrote: "I want to know what you think, is the story he told true or is it his mind tricking him????"

its good to read the various interpretations of this amazing book. Thanks for putting up this intriguing question... i too had it in my mind when i completed the book. now I know, there can never be one correct answer to the ques "which story is true". it all depends on the individual reading the book.

The author truly deserved the "Booker" prize.

I read the book, Life of Pi, some years ago and just saw the movie. The controversy about the ending is fascinating to me. The author has left us with an intriguing mystery, a metaphor for life itself which is the most intriguing mystery of all. This film, with its amazing visual effects and magic will stay with me forever.