Ever
since the smash success of Laura Hillenbrand’s Unbroken, people have
awaited the film treatment of the story of Louis Zamperini. Zamperini’s story was not discovered by
Hillenbrand. He was famous enough for
Hollywood to have considered a movie about him as early as the 1950s. Tony Curtis was to star. The movie did not get made until the book reacquainted
the public with Zamperini and Angelina Jolie took on the production and
direction. Joel and Ethan Coen were
brought in to rework the script and the movie was made in Australia. It has become a big hit.
The
movie begins with Zamperini (Jack O’Connell) on a B-24 bombing mission in the
Pacific in 1943. He is the bombardier. The bomber has to withstand flak and attack
from Zeros. Bullets whistle through the
interior and several crew members are injured.
The bomber has to make a very hairy landing. During the flight back, we flash back to
Louie’s childhood. He is a juvenile
delinquent who smokes, drinks, and steals.
His parents are at their wit’s end.
His life changes when his brother Pete convinces him to go out for track
and he is soon setting records including the high school record for the mile at
4:21. Pete introduces him to the
philosophy “if you can take it, you can make it.” This will become prophetic. In another flash back , the “Torrance Tornado”
attends the 1936 Munich Olympics and does very well for a rookie. He will be a favorite in the 1940 Tokyo Olympics,
unless something intervenes. That
something is World War II.
Louie is still
training for a future Olympics when his crew is sent on a routine search and
rescue mission. Unfortunately, there new
bomber is a rust bucket and ends up losing both
left engines. “Prepare to crash” Capt.
Phillips (Domhnall Gleeson) stoically warns.
The ditching leaves only Louie, Phil, and tail gunner Mac (Finn
Wittrock) alive and floating in life rafts.
One of them will not survive the sharks, lack of food and water, and a
strafing by a Japanese plane. Louie gets
picked up by a Japanese war ship after breaking Eddie Rickenbacker’s record for
being in a life boat in the Pacific Ocean. A succession of prison camps ensues. Louie meets his bête noire in a camp outside
Tokyo. Cpl. Watanabe (Miyavi) is
nicknamed “The Bird” and is infamous for his sadism. He takes a particular interest in the famous
American track star. His philosophy is
to treat all prisoners as the enemy, but he focuses on Louie. His wooden staff is employed often on
him. This builds to an especially vicious
beating after Louie’s refusal to be used for propaganda purposes. The POWs know the war is approaching its
close, but who will still be alive to sweat out the Japanese threat to
eliminate survivors?
“Unbroken” is the
type of war movie where I sat watching and kept wondering why I was not engaged
with it. I have heard people I respect
comment how powerful it is and how inspiring, but it was just a meh experience
for me. I think it is the kind of war
movie that entertains the general public more than war movie fans like myself. If you have seen as many prisoner of war
movies as I have, you want a significant modern release to be spectacular. There is nothing spectacular about this
film.
The acting is not
special. O’Connell is sincere, but
nothing separates his performance from an average biopic. Talk of an Academy Award nomination is
unwarranted. The casting of a Japanese
pop star as Watanabe has been done before (Ryuichi Sakamoto as Yonai in “Merry
Christmas, Mr. Lawrence”) and it just smacks of stunt casting. He does not get the schizophrenic madness of
the real Watanabe down. The rest of the
cast is given little to do. There is no
character development other than Zamperini.
All we get is camp scuttlebutt about why “The Bird” is the way he is. All that time on the life rafts is not enough
to tell us anything about Phil and Mac.
For a movie
written by the Coen brothers, it is curiously flat. They avoid most of the usual prisoner of war clichés,
but do not break any new ground. We do
get the “inmates do a play” trope (“Cinderella”), but no clandestine radio and
no escape attempt (or any talk of one for that matter). The Coens are less cliché averse when it
comes to the life raft scenes. Someone
eats more than their share. There is a
storm. There are sharks. Someone finds religion. Curiously, the script introduces some themes
and then lets them lie. Zamperini’s
post-war religious conversion is foreshadowed tepidly, but it appears Jolie
wanted the audience to connect the dots without being shoved. This is curious considering Hollywood’s
recent trend toward religiousity. Much
more ably developed is the “if you can take it, you can make it” theme. The abuse Louie undergoes comes off more as “if
he can take it” because he is
singled out for a huge percentage of the brutal treatment. The movie gives off the impression that it
really sucked to be Louis Zamperini, but if you were not him it was not so bad.
The big scenes
are a mixed bag. The opening combat
scene is average CGI with superior sound effects. Cutting away to the flashback before
returning for the crash landing is a nice touch and falsely signaled a
different type of war movie. The movie
actually turns out to be quite standard.
This is especially evident in the score which is satisfactory, but
sounds exactly as you would expect a war epic to sound. The only outstanding
scene is the strafing scene. Combining
bullets with sharks is tres cool. The
big showdown between Louie and Watanabe involving holding up the beam has Oscar
bait written all over it. It allows
Louie to establish his moral dominance over the villain and allows the villain
to administer one more beating to cement his position in the Villain Hall of Fame. It also provided a link to the Crucifix that
the young Louie gazed at in church.
The biggest
weakness of the movie is no one’s fault.
Zamperini’s story cannot be fit into a 2 ½ hour movie. It deserves a mini-series. The book can be divided into four parts. His rise to track star. The time in the rafts. The prisoner of war experience. The nightmare-ridden post-war years leading
up to being born-again. The movie ends
up hitting the high spots of the first three so it does summarize the book
fairly well, but it does not go more than ankle deep. More distressing is the movie’s lack of balls
in depicting how badly Allied prisoners were treated by the Japanese. It is a soft PG-13. The violence is muted and there is no soldier
language. (No one says what they really
think of “The Bird”.) It is laughable
that some Japanese are upset with the movie.
They should be sending a thank you card to Jolie. You leave the theater thinking that one of the guards was sadistic. However,
realities like malnutrition, chronic diarrhea, and the brutalizing of prisoners
who were not famous track stars is glossed over. Even Zamperini’s treatment is substantially
ameliorated. For example, there is no
mention of his being injected in several
medical experiments. The fact is that
over 25% of American captives died in Japanese captivity. This movie does not make this clear.
The strength of
the film is its faithfulness to the book.
It is like a Cliff Notes version.
Jolie did not “enhance” the story much.
Kudos to her for that. Many
directors would have insisted on crowd-pleasing vengeance on the hissable
villain. The liberties that are taken
with the book are all acceptable. The
movie pairs up well with the book and although people who have read the book
already (like me) may be disappointed, people who have not will be rewarded
with the details and the dot-fillings.
GRADE = C
HISTORICAL ACCURACY:
Zamperini
was a wild child. He started smoking at
age 5 and drinking at age 8. He got in
lots of fights and was heading in the wrong direction when his brother Pete
intervened. Pete pushed Louie into the
discipline of track and Louie went cold turkey on smoking and drinking. The movie accurately summarizes his success
which included the high school mile record and the Olympics 5,000 meters
race. He did set a record for the last
lap. What the movie leaves out is his encounter
with Hitler because der Fuhrer wanted to meet “the boy with the fast finish”.
The last mission
was realistically depicted. “The Green
Hornet” had a history of mechanical problems and did lose two engines. The 47 days at sea are toned down quite a
bit. Mac was a much bigger problem, for
instance. They were actually captured
after coming ashore on a Japanese-held island.
They had floated over 2,000 miles.
Louie and Phil were treated fairly well until transferred to “Execution
Island” in the Kwajalein atoll. The
threatened beheadings are alluded to in the movie. The movie also calls the Japanese out for the
murder of Marines captured on Makin Island, but the mistreatment is tame in
comparison to what the two went through.
No water-boarding is depicted. In
fact, the one interrogation segment is lame.
The
stint at Omori prison camp is also downplayed.
Watanabe was deranged, but the movie does not portray his extreme mood
swings well. He would beat the hell out
of a prisoner (not just Louie), shower them with presents in remorse, then
return to beating them. Much of the
violence was for sexual release. Louie
was forced to race three times. The
scene at Radio Tokyo is almost exactly as depicted in the book including his
message to his parents. He did refuse to
be used for propaganda, but that was not the cause of the punching
incident. In reality, Watanabe was
punishing several officers (including Zamperini) for a theft. Prisoners were forced to punch the
officers.
Louie
was transferred to Naoetsu (the worst prison camp in Japan) due to his refusal
to do more radio broadcasts.
Surprisingly, Watanabe had earlier been posted there. The camp was a hard labor camp as shown in
the movie, but it was worse. The lifting
the beam scene is in the book. However,
after holding it up for 37 minutes (the movie implies it was much longer), Watanabe
cracked and punched Louie in the stomach.
The beam fell, knocking him unconscious so the movie beating did not
occur. Louie lifting the beam above his
head in defiance is pure Hollywood.
Curiously, the movie skips the plot to kill “The Bird”. The post scripts are all true, but the movie
conveniently does not mention Louie’s post traumatic stress problems that led
to a serious drinking problem. It took
him years to fulfill his promise to dedicate his life to God.
This is a great and detailed review. I haven't read the book and have absoluetely no intention to read it. It's not my cup of tea. Not sure why. I might watch the movie though but it's not one I have to see asap.
ReplyDeleteThanks. I do not think you would like the movie. The book was good, but this may be a case where it was impossible to match the literature. In this case, mainly due to length constraints.
ReplyDeleteI also appreciate the thoughtful review. A few of my thoughts on the movie:
ReplyDelete1. I appreciated the attention that went into sets and casting. The bomber looked and felt like a 1940s-era aircraft. If there were inaccuracies they were not blatant to this casual viewer. The actors were thin and maybe even underweight, which allowed them to appear as close to "emaciated" as one could realistically expect. The Japanese also looked and acted as though they were from an earlier era, although a surprising number of them spoke very good English (though for all I know that may have been accurate for the time or the place).
2. Thank you for confirming that the actual brutality exercised against the prisoners was greater and more widespread than is depicted in the movie, where at worst most prisoners are portrayed as hungry, cold, and frightened due to misunderstanding Japanese intentions. The end credits note that Zamperini met with and forgave the guards who would meet with him, but a film viewer might wonder what most guards were being forgiven for.
3. I would have liked to have seen the role of religion developed more and I think it would have explained much, but I suspect if it had been given its proper weight the movie would have been pigeonholed by many as a "christian movie" and avoided.
4. On balance I'm glad that the 1950s movie was not made. That way, when Zamperini returned to Japan toward the end of his life he could do so as himself rather than as a stand-in for Tony Curtis.
Excellent points! I especially like the last line of #2.
Delete