Pi (1998)

Directed by: Darren Aronofsky
Starring: Sean Gullette

**1/2

There are three ways too look at Darren Aronofsky's Pi. By breaking my critique up this way it kind of makes it difficult to decide how much I liked the movie. There are aspects that I found interesting, others that I found somewhat confusing and thus not nearly as interesting and then finally an aspect that I simply found telling.

As a narrative, Pi tells the story of a man's search for a number and the obstacles he encounters along the way. Max Cohen (Sean Gullette) is such a brilliant mathmatician that he can multiply 753 and 291 correctly in seconds. He looks for numerical patterns everywhere but does so alone with the exception of the little time he spends with Sol Robinson (Mark Margolis) who suffered a stroke as a result of a similar search. When approached by Lenny Meyer (Ben Shenkman), Max is his usual off-putting self until Lenny introduces a numerical pattern in the Tora, a number consistent with Max's previous findings. Max is also harrassed by a mysterious woman, desperate to speak with him. Everyone's search for the number that controls the universe leads them to Max, who apparently has that number in his head. Its not Pi though, which is kind of confusing. Its a 216 digit number that doesn't begin with 3.14.

This idea that there is a number out there that can describe and connect all the patterns of the universe was interesting enough for me to think maybe I should like math more. Its not so far fetched either that it doesn't work. Even I recognize how often math plays a factor in what goes on, whether its simple or more complicated math than I care to understand. So this through line worked for me. Aided by the filmmaking style, I could have considered this movie great, but I believe it was held back by the aspect that dominated overall.

Ultimately, Pi is a character study and one that I didn't particularly understand. Gullette turned in a great performance and made Max's obsession and paranoia real but his actions didn't seem to make much sense to me. I understand the obsession that can come with a goal, especially one that may well be unattainable as Sol explains. Take any number and you'll find it anywhere if you want to. A similar idea was used in the Jim Carey piece of crap, The Number 23. This much I understand. What Max saw, what was real and what was imagined. Why he chose to drill a hole in his head were all aspects that I didn't grasp or embrace thus leaving me ultimately disappointed in so much of what was happening. The bulk of this movie is the study of a character. Said character's search for a number is only consequence of who he is. Had it been the other way around, had Max's search made him who he was, I may have felt differently about this film, if only because I may have understood it more.

Pi is the third of Aronofsky's four films that I've seen. When watching Requiem for a Dream and The Wrestler, you'd be hard pressed to suggest that it was the same director based on the style of each film. Pi on the other had is simply prologue to Requiem. From a filmmaking standpoint, Aronofsky used many of the same techniques he used shooting and editing the two films. The quick pill-popping cuts I once thought were introduced in Requiem and made famous by film students was actually introduced in Pi and made famous in Requiem. I like Aronofsky's style in these two films because its obvious without being too self-aware. He keeps his style consistent with the pacing of his film. That's what film students fail to realize when mimicking such a style. Just because you shoot on a Bolex, doesn't mean quick cuts completely mask your over or under exposed shot. It needs to work within the context of the film. That's what Aronofsky does so well even when using a Bolex.

I'm certain I'll continue to check out Aronofsky's work in the future and I certainly plan to take a look at The Fountain if only for its controversial reviews. However, he's a filmmaker who's yet to make a film that I love. Requiem for a Dream is far and away his best movie as far as I'm concerned, but even that film I only reviewed as a 3 star film in an older post. I though aside from Mickey Rourke's performance, The Wrestler was a huge disappointment. While I'm clearly in a minority with my opinion of his films, I stand by the fact that I appreciate Aronofsky far more than I like his films.