Movie Review: Unbroken

Unbroken (2014)

Three Stars out of Five

PG-13

Louis Zamperini: Jack O’Connell

Phil Lewis: Domhnall Gleeson

Cpl/Sgt Matsuhiro “Bird” Watanabe: Miyavi

Director: Angelina Jolie

Writers: Joel and Ethan Coen (re-write), Richard LaGravenese and William Nicholson (first draft); book: Laura Hillenbrand

Cinematography: Roger Deakins

As an adult male (and quite often as a youth), I must admit, I have fantasized seeing myself in any number of situations wherein I would prove as heroic as the real-life Louis Zamperini. Why this man is not more often held up to modern America as a hero; a hero anyone would want to emulate, is a small mystery to me. Here is a man who grew up with his Italian immigrant family in Torrance California during the depression. As a juvenile, he was frequently in trouble with the law; but via the intervention of his older brother, he soon found himself saved in a sense via his remarkable abilities as a runner; abilities that allowed him to excel at the 1936 Olympics in Nazi Germany. By WWII, Zamperini had become part of the American war effort by working as a B-24 bombardier in the Pacific. At one point in 1943 his plane was forced down due to mechanical problems; he then spent 47 days at sea on an open raft. His trials, as bad as they were on the raft, were only just beginning. He and his plane’s pilot Phil were found (rescued really seems the wrong term) by a Japanese warship. “Zamp” finished the war in three different POW camps subject to the extreme cruelty of his camp commandant. He survived and forgave his captors. Most can only dream of such heroics.

This compelling story was told in book-form (2010) by Laura Hillenbrand. In 2014, director Angelina Jolie brought an adaptation by Joel and Ethan Coen, Richard LaGravenese and William Nicholson to the silver screen. Zamperini’s story is indeed inspiring, but the movie is somewhat less so. There is little to no character development and almost zero emotional connection to the viewer during the last third of the movie. The movie’s final section (the time in the POW camps) seems almost like a detached documentary. The movie starts more promisingly with interior scenes depicting a cramped B-24 while it is under attack and then again later in the movie while Zamperini is adrift, lost at sea. I found the opening sequence of a fleet of American bombers coming towards the viewer out of a crystal blue sky to be inspiring, to create a sense of pride in what America and men like Zamperini did in WWII. Moments later when the plane is under attack by anti-aircraft guns from the Japanese-held island of Nauru and by its defending fleet of fighters, the viewer gets a visceral feeling of how tight the quarters were in such a bomber. And more to the point, a sense of just how close to death, each member of that plane’s flight crew was to death.

Similar reactions were felt by me during the 47 days Zamperini spent with Phil and Mac (who died after 33 days in the raft). Initially, Mac was held up as a problem, but as a result of their ordeals together and possibly through Zamperini’s positive influence, Mac becomes a real member of their little raft-crew. But like so many other aspects of this movie, when Mac does die, there is little emotion felt by the viewer. The scenes on the raft that do work though, work very well. There is again a sense like that felt on the plane, though in this case the almost agoraphobic sense of the ocean’s vastness versus the claustrophobic interior of the plane. And in these scenes, rather than the impersonal forces of death in the air coming from the flak and the enemy Zero’s, this time it is from the uncaring and dispassionate ocean. Zamperini and his fellows are shown gradually dying from the effects of exposure, hunger and dehydration. In these scenes, there can be little more emotion from the characters than those shown of exhaustion and the growing acceptance of their pending deaths. Jolie and her writers are indeed able to capture both the physical and emotional changes overtaking the three men on the raft. Like the early scenes in the B-24 under attack, the simple emotions related to survival and fear are well displayed.

The problems with the movie don’t occur until the final third of the movie when Zamperini reaches the first of two POW camps shown in the movie’s version of his trials. That Zamperini faces very real physical danger is amply shown. Upon arriving in the camp he quickly earns the antipathy of the Camp Commander, Cpl. Watanabe (aka The Bird). It is repeatedly shown that Watanabe is one of those staples of prison movies wherein the guard or warden is a psychopath. Why Watanabe is so fixated on Zamperini is largely unclear; is it due to Zamperini’s Olympic athlete status, is it due to Zamperini’s attitude towards Watanabe, or what – it is not clear. What is clear is that Watanabe will make Zamperini’s life miserable and that the latter will live on the edge of death for almost two years as Watanabe takes him right up to the point of execution before backing away. Physical danger, yes, but what is going on in Zamperini’s mind? Ably portrayed by up and coming Hollywood star Jack O’Connell, the viewer is simply not exposed to much in the way of the internal turmoil felt by Zamperini or of the emotions driving Watanabe. There are two scenes that give a hint for each: Zamperini’s reaction to making a radio broadcast from Tokyo aimed at his mother, and a late scene showing a photograph of a presumed childish Watanabe standing by his uniformed father. Was Watanabe trying and failing to impress his father as a prison warden, was he as an enlisted man (refused officer status in Japan’s army) trying to live up to his failed attempt to become a commissioned officer by beating Zamperini and the other prisoners – maybe, but it is far from clear. And was Zamperini suffering internally as he so briefly showed following the radio broadcast – again, it is not clear. It is close to impossible to believe that no matter how brave and resilient the real Zamperini was, that he was not facing his own feelings of failure and desperation. These ambiguities were the biggest flaw with the movie, and ultimately why it was not a critical success (it was largely a commercial success) in my opinion.

As Jolie’s second directorial effort it shows promise for her vision with respect to the physicality of events, but offers areas of improvement when it comes to visualizing the internal landscape of her characters.  She almost seems to rely too heavily on the artistic vision of her cinematographer, Roger Deakins. Consider again the opening scene of the American bombers coming out of the clouds and a setting sun; beautiful and inspiring, but did this vision (as great as an opening scene as it was) drive Jolie’s vision for the movie? Was she so caught up in creating a paean to Zamperini, a man she clearly admires, that she overlooked the importance of telling his story in such a manner that his moments of weakness and doubt were clearer; and in being more clear to the viewer, that much more compelling a vision of a hero?

The movie is worth seeing: the story is one for all Americans to know, the cinematography is beautiful and inspiring, and the acting is very professional. I do recommend it, however weakly due to the lack of emotional contact.