My Brief Thoughts about the “Unbroken” Movie

To understand my thoughts about the new movie Unbroken, you have to know a little bit about my expectations. They were low. Why? Because I loved the book and could not imagine a movie coming close to recreating Laura Hillenbrand’s wonderful narrative. For that reason, I didn’t expect much. So the film didn’t need to be great to exceed my expectations, and it did exceed them without being great. Still, I think you should see it. Here’s why.

First of all, let me just say that I am grateful that Angelina Jolie got a fire in her belly about making this movie. The story has been languishing in Hollywood for decades, and somehow she got it done. Zamperini’s story is so big and so important, and yet no one has been able to pull it off until now. No doubt, her relationship with Zamperini had something to do with this. All things considered, she did a fine job with the portion of the story that she decided to tell. But the difficulty is that it really is only a portion of the story. Hillenbrand’s narrative of Louie’s life divides into three major phases: pre-crash, crash-imprisonment, post-war. Jolie focuses almost entirely on the middle phase. In Hillenbrand’s book, the resolution occurs in the post-war phase. Because Jolie doesn’t include that, she has to create her own mini-resolution out of Zamperini’s release from prison. But anyone who knows the story knows that Zamperini’s war didn’t end there. I am grateful that Jolie at least told some of the story, but there really is something big missing at the end.

Second, I have low expectations for film adaptations of great books. Even the best ones usually fall short of the stories depicted in the books. This one was no exception. Because this movie focuses on Zamperini’s suffering during the war, you don’t get a sense of what Zamperini’s life was like before and after the war. You don’t see what Zamperini’s running career was really like, nor do you get a sense of his time at USC, his befriending a Japanese spy in California, his transition from athlete to soldier, or anything else from the 1936 Olympics until his time in the war after 1941. Even the parts of the book that the film does focus on is abbreviated. The film doesn’t take you to the depths of Louie’s suffering like the book does. Nor do you see just how sadistic “The Bird” was and just how much Louie was consumed with hatred for the man. But I do not view this as a shortcoming on Jolie’s part. It is a shortcoming of the medium. What she did, she did well. And I credit her for that.

Third, I have low expectations for non-Christians understanding and retelling a Christian story. Much has been made of the fact that Zamperini’s conversion after the war is not depicted in this movie. To be sure, it is a big gaping hole at the end, and I (like many other Christians) missed it. But is anyone really surprised by this? Why would we expect more? Before seeing the movie, I had heard that the conversion was missing. So again, my expectations were very low. I wish that Zamperini’s post-war life could have been given more time. But I also see that it would have been difficult to do that justice without making it into a four-hour movie. Instead, that aspect of Zamperini’s life was only depicted in seed form. I disagree with the decision to omit this part, but I get it. I really do.

Fourth, I thought the brief footage at the end about Zamperini’s post-war life was emotionally powerful. Again, I think it’s a big omission to leave out his evangelical commitment. Still, there was enough there to make the viewer curious. Anyone who does a Google search on Zamperini after seeing the movie will find out soon enough what his life was about. There was a gasp in the theater when they showed that Zamperini only passed away just this year. Clearly, many people in the theater did not know that he was alive until very recently. They know about him now, and that’s a good thing.

In sum, what the film covers, it covers well. But there is much left uncovered, and that is a shortcoming of the medium. For me, that means viewers need not blame Jolie for this. Rather, it means that viewers should read the book.

5 Responses to My Brief Thoughts about the “Unbroken” Movie

  1. John Bishop December 27, 2014 at 8:29 am #

    You totally nailed it. Reading the book was an emotional experience that I did not expect the movie to replicate for all the reasons you stated—and it didn’t. While the movie failed in some ways, I’m almost glad that Zamperini’s amazing story was not made into a cheesy Christian movie. As you suggested, this version may at least drive more interest in his life (ergo, exposure to the Gospel which changed his life), whereas a mediocre “Christian” version may have ended the discussion. Great review.

  2. jimwillingham December 27, 2014 at 6:02 pm #

    Unbroken is one of many human life dramas from World War II. Even though I do not expect much in the way of the Christian theme (Angelina Jolie pretty well spelled out the idea of the human spirit as her focus), I think her film will convey some of the angst and anguish of that traumatizing conflict and what it cost multitudes. There is another book, The Price of Freedom by Mamerta de los Reyes Block, which tells the story of a woman who was tortured for eight hours a day, seven days a week for two months and twenty-eight days, and after the war she won to Christ the Japanese Officer who supervised her torture. She would also win the author of Gone With The wind, Margaret Mitchell. Mrs. Block was the wife of one of my fellow students at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Dr. Isaac Block. They were close personal friends. She died in 2005, when her book was published, and Dr. Block died this past Spring. Who does not know many stories of terrible suffering, great sacrifices, and heroic service, if they known any of the participants in that terrible conflict. I do remember being inspired by Zamperini’s testimony in the Youth For Christ Magazine, when I was a teenager in St. Louis, Mo.

  3. Cindy December 27, 2014 at 11:13 pm #

    Interesting article by Luke Zamperini, saying that Unbroken was exactly as the Zamperini family, including Louis, wanted it to be. http://townhall.com/columnists/lukezamperini/2014/12/16/unbroken-film-gets-my-dads-faith-right-n1932559/page/full

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Unbroken – the movie | A disciple's study - December 27, 2014

    […] http://www.dennyburk.com/my-brief-thoughts-about-the-unbroken-movie/ […]

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes