Film: Pi

Director - Darren Aronofsky

The battle to claim the late Kubrick's crown, in terms of innovation, intelligence, timelessness and sheer beauty in film-making, has been tensely fought of late between the Brit, Christopher Nolan, and the New Yorker, Darren Aronofsky. Both have produced consistently phenomenal and challenging movies over the last 5 years (albeit relatively early in their careers) - in 2001, whilst Nolan wowed the critics with his back-to-front tale of amnesia and deceit ("Memento"), Aronofsky turned out an equally impressive and powerful tale of addiction, obsession and loss ("Requiem for a Dream").

However both directors had preceded these releases with underrated, low-key films which have every right to be considered modern classics. Interestingly, both were filmed in black and white. Nolan created a twisted view of the world from inside the paranoid mind of a London-based writer ("Following") and... err... Aronofsky created a twisted account of the world from inside the paranoid mind of a New York-based mathematician, the film about which this review is based, "Pi".

It is useful to know, before watching the film, that the viewer is not in for the orthodox, at all, here. Instead preparation for a challenging, quirky and, at times, powerful experience (conversely, those who have seen "Requiem for a Dream", may find the film somewhat tamer, or more tasteful).

Pi revolves around looped ideas and dialogue, mirroring the main ideas of the mathematician's philosophy - which in itself echoes those of Leonardo Da Vinci, Fibbonachi, Pythagoras and Archimedes - that the world is made of spirals and patterns, thus future events are predictable by looking at the past. He aims to prove this by finding a pattern in the economic world's "organism" - the stock market, using a network of old computers and various other outdated machines. Elsewhere, knowledge is spreading of this mathematical genius, with both a Jewish faction and a Wall Street firm chasing him for their own endeavours.

If the details of the story are analysed, it is clear that some are fairly unbelievable (especially one involving a special chip), but it's not the details that are important here, it's the feel, the atmosphere. The film genuinely places you firmly into the mind of an obsessive, yet without making you feel that this man is a cliché of all thinks geek. This man is split between two desires, that of the desire to continue his mathematical probings and that of his reluctance to continue his search for an understanding of life - in short, to lead a normal life, like that of his neighbour. For a film with very little extraneous dialogue, other than that to advance the film, the characterisation is excellent - somehow it manages to make you empathise with a man who shows no real caring for or understanding of anyone other than himself (his obsessions ultimately lead to his mentor's fatal stroke).

Elsewhere the unnerving atmosphere is maintained by an exceptional showcase of 90s British electronica music (notably Autechre, Orbital and Massive Attack) and Aronofsky's regular composer and electronic music afficianado in his own right, Clint Mansell. Aronofsky employed some of his trademark cinematographical techniques - particularly the "SnorriCam", use of a shot which seems to show a non-moving character from the front, with the background moving instead.

It feels very much like a "Taxi Driver" for the modern age (probably helped by the choice of location), with the same timeless feel of Scorcese's 70s masterpiece. Its impossible to put a date or time to any of the events, except that its taking place at some point between 1980 and the present. It acts more as an illustration of the forces which drive a person to pursue something of great importance to them and (although they are unaware of it), humanity.

For all these reasons, it should be considered a hugely influential feature, although it probably wont be realised for another 10 or so years. Whether it is better than "Requiem for a Dream" is impossible to comment on - they're both highlights of modern cinema, and so they shall remain. Anyone who has an interest in philosophy (whether or not they agree with the theories professed in this film), conspiracy or humanity should consider this film a must-see.

As for the Aronofsky vs Nolan debate, my votes currently with Aronofsky, but we'll have to wait for Nolan's "Batman Zero" and Aronofsky's "Flicker" to confirm.

inc0gnit0