Movie Review: "Unbroken"

Unbroken

Directed by: Angelina Jolie

Starring: Jack O'Connell, Domhnall Gleeson, Garret Hedlund, Jai Courtney

Rated: PG-13 for war violence including intense sequences of brutality, and for brief language

Ever since I read Zamperini’s autobiography back in the early 2000s (I first heard his story back in 1998), I’ve dreamed of making his story into a film.  Over the years, I’ve done imaginary castings of the film, and, while in college, I even started (never finished) several drafts of the screenplay.  Thanks to Laura Hildenbrand’s book Unbroken, Zamperini’s story returned to the spotlight, and within a few years of it’s release, Angelina Jolie had turned the film into a highly anticipated motion picture.

On paper and on screen, Unbroken is good movie; newcomer Jack O’Connell is terrific, as is Garret Hedlund and Domhnall Gleeson.  Roger Deakin’s cinematography is, once again, beautiful, and Alexandre Desplat’s minimalist score also worked.  Jolie struggled a bit with the tone of the movie, having it come across too much like an inspirational Disney film, and it didn’t help that the screenplay (partially written by the Coen brothers) and editing was a bit sloppy at moments.  However, my biggest issue with the film was not in the components; it’s still a good film and the depictions were really spot on, yet something was missing; it’s the emotional core of Hildenbrand’s book and Louie’s story.

Many people have had incredible survival stories, like Dieter Dengler in Rescue Dawn or Wladyslaw Szpilman in The Pianist.  Survival stories are cinematic, but often can’t find the emotional connection to the audience.  Many critics are rightful saying the same about Unbroken; that it’s nothing more than two hours of Zamperini surviving brutality.  While interesting, it’s not a moving experience.  The reason Zamperini’s story and Hildenbrand’s book worked so well is because, after all that he went through, he came back and forgave those people who mistreated him.  This is the emotional center of the story.  This is what truly mystifies us.  We are moved because we go through far less and yet still hold on to our hate, only to be mesmerized that Zamperini hugged his former guards and told them he loved them.  The forgiveness that he and his guards experienced is what inspires us to live better each day.  This is why he went through what he went through.  This was the message of his story.

Some Christians are attacking the film for cutting out his post-war life, claiming Hollywood tried to cut out his Christianity.  I completely disagree; there is a lot about faith and God in the film.  And, to be fair, this is a difficult story to tell.  They cut out a lot of the story, beyond just his conversion: there was no Cynthia, or James Sasaki, or his meeting with Adolph Hitler.  Jolie and crew focused on Louie’s survival, which is the visually interesting part of his story.  If that is the full story, then it must end where it did.  If it were to focus on his forgiveness, than far more attention would have to go to post-war, and some of the details of pre-war and his time as a POW would have to fall by the wayside, and the entire tone and pace of the movie would be different.  It’s all in what the story is about; survival or forgiveness?

I’ve thought a lot about Louie’s story.  (Probably too much.)  And even some of what Louie went through has lost it’s affect on me over the years.  But, to this day, I still feel emotional when I hear Louie, in his letter to The Bird, tell him that “love replaced the hate that I had for you.”  This is what is inspirational about Zamperini and, unfortunately, that was the message the movie was lacking.