‘Pi: 25th Anniversary Re-Release’ Review: Insanity or Genius?

“Pi: 25th Anniversary Re-Release” probably should not exist. Without A24’s recent dominance of the independent film market and an offhand deal made by director Darren Aronofsky a quarter of a century ago, this remastered version of “Pi” would live only in the heads of the most die-hard cinephiles. Following “mad genius” Maximilian Cohen in his relentless search for mathematical patterns in the world around him, “Pi” was a mostly forgotten black sheep of the 1998 Sundance Film Festival.

That is, until Aronofsky’s most recent effort, “The Whale,” catapulted both himself and actor Brendan Fraser, who won “Best Actor” at the 2023 Oscars, into the Hollywood limelight. So, when the rights to “Pi” serendipitously reverted back to Aronofsky this year, it only made sense for A24, the production company behind “The Whale,” to re-release Aronofsky’s mathematics-obsessed debut on Pi Day at IMAX theaters across the country.

At AMC Assembly Row 12 in Boston, this led to a packed audience of pop culture fanatics. Before the screening, theatergoers mingled about all manner of hipster media, from David Foster Wallace’s 1996 mammoth novel “Infinite Jest” to the Wachowskis’ 2006 blockbuster “Speed Racer.”

Following a montage of saturated “Pi” still frames set to Clint Mansell’s electronica backing track, a large, red countdown timer abruptly flashed on the IMAX screen. After the timer hit zero, the TCL Chinese Theatres broadcast a live Q and A featuring Aronofsky, actor Sean Gullette, and various other members of the “Pi” cast and crew to theaters nationwide.

Aside from a few hiccups, including 89-year-old actor Stanley B. Herman forgetting how to use a microphone, the conversation was engaging and insightful. Aronofsky and his cohorts touched on the more complicated aspects of the film shoot, which required many locations that, to the young filmmakers, were only to be accessed through extralegal means.“We put on NYU sweaters and pretended we were film students,” producer Eric Watson commented.

After nearly 40 minutes of discussion, the panelists walked offstage to join a rapturous crowd. Mathematical figures and symbols exploded across the massive IMAX screen, overlaid by the names of the figures just seen in the live Q and A. Disorienting and labyrinthine, this opening sequence immediately sucks the audience into the vast and complicated mindscape of Max, the film’s eccentric protagonist.

Shot on cheap black-and-white reversal film stock, “Pi” begins with a shot of Max in high contrast. He wakes up, makes a trip to the bathroom, and takes a handful of prescription pills. Through the visual and nonvisual, Aronofsky highlights Max’s obsessiveness and paranoia. Before exiting his apartment, Max stares through his door’s peephole and unlatches lock after lock. Meanwhile, the narration relays a childhood trauma in which he stared at the sun too long and almost blinded himself. Every shot, action, and line of dialogue are meaningfully choreographed to convey Max’s inescapable neuroses.

At times heavy-handed, Aronofsky’s “Pi” does not shy away from the relationships between mythological, religious, mathematical, economic, and human concepts. Max is Icarus. The golden ratio exists in everything. Hebrew, the stock market, and God are all intertwined by one number. These “patterns,” as Max puts them, generally serve to elevate the film and its characters.

However, “Pi” sometimes feels like a young screenwriter trying to prove his worth to a panel of smug Sundance critics. Indeed, Aronofsky pokes fun at this in one of the best written sequences of the film, wherein Sol, Max’s mentor, gives advice through the lens of Archimedes of Syracuse. Max interprets Archimedes’s story as signaling, “A breakthrough will come.” But Sol reveals what it really means, “Listen to your wife.” This scene attests that allegories do not always beget profound, complex messages. Sometimes meaning lies right on the surface.

A review of “Pi” would be incomplete without commending the unconventional cinematography and sound design that contribute to the film’s indie charm. During the live Q and A, cinematographer Matthew Libatique revealed that the film would not look “nearly as cool” if he had fully known what he was doing. Lights and darks, interpreted by grainy black-and-white film stock, dominate the high contrast look of “Pi.” One scene might be blaring white, obscuring character features through harsh light, while another is shrouded in jet black, revealing only the most distinct aspects of a scene.

In an IMAX setting, this look is amplified. Beneath a 59 by 79 foot screen, a packed audience is fully subjected to the constant wax and wane of the film’s intense lighting. Add to this Mansell’s pulse-pounding score on JBL surround sound, and the audience is fully immersed in the deranged mindscape of Max.

Like “Pi,” Aronofsky’s later films revolve around addictive characters forced to confront their self-destructive vices. “Requiem for a Dream,” his sophomore feature, uses math as a tool to convey addiction (unlike “Pi,” which uses math as an addiction). The shots of “Requiem” are spliced in such a way that they become shorter and shorter, until reaching a fever pitch culminating in an extreme climax in which characters engage in harmful behavior.

What separates “Pi” from its offspring, however, is its imperfection. Without the big budget (e.g., “Noah”) or big actors (e.g., “Black Swan”) a young director could only dream for, Darren Aronofsky is boiled down to his rawest form. Like Max, Charlie, Nina, or any number of the director’s famed protagonists, “Pi” has its flaws. Yet, from these flaws bursts an offbeat and thought-provoking filmgoing experience, made all the better by top-of-the-line film restoration and IMAX technology.