Universal Pictures
Takamasa Ishihara and Jack O'Connell in 'Unbroken'
Unbroken
A tale of triumph, but not the right one.
Rating: PG-13
Genre: Biopic
Directed By Angelina Jolie
Run Time: 2 hours 17 minutes
Cast: Jai Courtney, Garrett Hedlund, Domhnall Gleeson, Jack O'Connell
Theatre Release: December 25, 2014 by Universal Pictures
I need to start by acknowledging that Louie Zamperini—the man whose
story is told in Laura Hillenbrand's runaway bestselling biography Unbroken
and now in the film by the same name—is incredibly inspiring: first,
for his sheer grit, the likes of which I could never hope to exhibit;
and second, for his brave example of true belief and courage in
forgiving his captors.
I mean that.
Image: Universal Pictures
Jack O'Connell in 'Unbroken'
Also, if you're taking your family to the movies this Christmas, Unbroken
is probably a solid choice. Pretty much everyone will like it (though
not little kids—see the content warning below). It's the story of an
immigrant kid who overcomes his misbehaving childhood to become an
Olympic athlete, then a WWII bombardier. He survives being shot down
over the Pacific and spending 47 days in a raft—47 days in a raft—only
to be picked up by the Japanese, imprisoned, tortured, made the special
personal target of a sadistic commander in a Japanese concentration
camp, and beaten senseless over and over.
This is basically the perfect storm of inspirational movie tropes, and the kicker is that it's all true.
And if you've read the book (I haven't, but I consulted many who had
before I wrote this review), you know that the most amazing part of
Zamperini's story is he attended a Billy Graham crusade and became a
Christian, which prompted him to personally forgive his captors.
But I have problems with Unbroken, the film. They are problems
that I think are worth audiences considering—especially Christian
audiences. So please keep all that in mind as you read on.
The creative talent behind this film is formidable. Angelina Jolie directed it—and talked a lot about how her encounters with the real Zamperini changed her. It was shot by the eminent Roger Deakins (Skyfall, True Grit, Revolutionary Road, No Country for Old Men) and scored by the great Alexandre Desplat (Godzilla, The Grand Budapest Hotel, Philomena). And there are four screenplay credits of almost preposterous heft: William Nicholson (Gladiator, Les Miserables); Richard LaGravanese (Behind the Candelabra, The Bridges of Madison County)—and most confusingly, Joel and Ethan Coen.
Yet Unbroken feels a little like a studio movie calculated to
appeal to the widest number of audience members, which is exactly what
it is, except that the talent behind it are just a little too
idiosyncratic for most conventional studio films. Normally I wouldn't
complain about this, because any film that introduces a wide audience of
more casual moviegoers to some great cinematic talent is a good thing.
Image: Universal Pictures
'Unbroken'
But this seems like a case of too many cooks, or maybe, more
accurately, of what might happen if you got a lot of musicians with
great, distinctive styles in one room and asked them to make something
together: all the edges get blunted, and the result is underwhelming, a
little too paint-by-numbers.
Then again, worse movies come out every year. Worse movies come out every week.
And though I was confused while watching it about why it wasn't more
amazing, I wasn't upset when I left. It was, in a phrase, definitely an
okay movie.
But, here's the thing: this movie is being actively marketed to the
faith-based market. As is common now around “inspirational” movies
suitable for faith-based audiences, marketers are working overtime to
encourage ministry leaders to buy blocks of tickets and to participate
in the film by submitting their own stories of strength and resilience and to “live their lives unbroken.”
(A curious choice of words for an audience that is meant to believe
that all of us are broken beyond repair, and that we can't fix
ourselves, but that's sort of beside my point.)
The film's tagline—I just went and double-checked this—is “Survival.
Resilience. Redemption.” The survival piece is obvious, if a bit of a
spoiler. Resilience, it has in spades.
But what about the redemption?
Sarah Pulliam Bailey wrote about
some of the expected Christian backlash around the fact that the film
takes the final section of the book—which recounts Zamperini's
conversion and move to forgive his captors—and instead of dramatizing
it, writes about it in a lengthy, respectful series of the sorts of
title cards you typically see at the end of a “true story” film.
I'll confess that I rolled my eyes a little bit when I first read about
the expected controversy, because one of the most common criticisms
leveled against biopics of any sort is that they left something out—and
the thing about making a feature film out of any book-length work is
that you have to pick and choose what works best on screen, what makes
for a nicely-crafted story arc with a beginning, middle, and end. Plus,
it is my experience that some Christian moviegoers tend to assume that
any omission or alteration of explicit faith material is enacted as a
kind of calculated aggression against them and their faith, rather than
for various other reasons—craft, marketability, storytelling, simple
lack of knowledge, or whatever. And Unbroken displays no anti-faith bias.
But now that I've seen it, I agree: the film still suffers from this omission.
Image: Universal Pictures
Jack O'Connell in 'Unbroken'
It's being billed as an “inspirational” film, but the most important
scene—the image that's being used on movie posters—crystallizes what
gets Zamperini through his ordeal. It isn't faith—that comes later.
Rather, it's a sort of grit-your-teeth endurance borne out of hatred for
your enemy. It comes from being so determined to master your
enemy that you manage to perform great feats of will and strength and
outlast him. This is made explicit in comments from one of the film's
characters, and it goes unchallenged throughout the film.
On top of that, when it comes to this story, the game is rigged: the title is Unbroken,
the story is widely known, and plus, we know who wins this war. So the
whole time you're rooting for the character, and the country, while
knowing he'll win in the end and his captors will be disgraced, and it's
hard to suppress schadenfreude-by-proxy when the unmitigatedly bad guy
comes to a bad end and is disgraced.
So what I fear is that audiences will watch the film and walk away
saying to one another, “Wasn't that inspiring?”—without asking, what did
it inspire you to?
The story of resilience and outlasting and will and determination is
scored and shot, acted and directed and sometimes visually striking, and
what it inspires you to do is hate your enemies so hard that you can
prove you're better by them by making it past the finish line. Again,
the image used in much of the marketing (including what's currently a
banner ad on IMDb) is drawn from a scene that specifically illustrates
this.
Sometimes I get the uneasy feeling that this is how we Christians conceive of what Jesus inspires us to do, which is to suffer and die, only to be resurrected on the third day and yell a cosmic Ha, you lose at
the forces of evil. Instead of things like do what is crazy, pick up
your cross, sacrifice for others, consider others better than yourself,
give, give, give and love with no expectation of return.
Sometimes the swagger in our voices when we talk about the gospel, or
talk about "those people" and how they are plotting our ruin, sounds
less about sacrifice and letting go of what we think we deserve, and
more about winning the game and proving we're the best.
Here is what Jesus said that actually changed Zamperini's life and inspired him, as translated by Eugene Peterson:
Here’s another old saying that deserves a second look: “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth.” Is that going to get us anywhere? Here’s what I propose: “Don’t hit back at all.” If someone strikes you, stand there and take it. If someone drags you into court and sues for the shirt off your back, giftwrap your best coat and make a present of it. And if someone takes unfair advantage of you, use the occasion to practice the servant life. No more tit-for-tat stuff. Live generously.
You’re familiar with the old written law, “Love your friend,” and its unwritten companion, “Hate your enemy.” I’m challenging that. I’m telling you to love your enemies. Let them bring out the best in you, not the worst. When someone gives you a hard time, respond with the energies of prayer, for then you are working out of your true selves, your God-created selves. This is what God does. He gives his best—the sun to warm and the rain to nourish—to everyone, regardless: the good and bad, the nice and nasty. If all you do is love the lovable, do you expect a bonus? Anybody can do that. If you simply say hello to those who greet you, do you expect a medal? Any run-of-the-mill sinner does that.
The titles that run after the visual story ends contradict the
impression given by most of the movie's two-hour runtime—but text, I
fear, cannot stand up to the lushly shot, orchestrally scored images. So
what is actually most inspiring about Zamperini's story—not that he won
through the force of his own will, but that he then turned around and
reciprocated with love—should happen in the third act. But what sticks
with you is the images.
Image: Universal Pictures
Jack O'Connell in 'Unbroken'
(In this area I disagree with Zamperini's son Luke, who reads the film differently. I respect his take, but suspect being so close to the story may change the way he watches it.)
So in the end, I'm mostly frustrated that once again a movie is getting
marketed at Christians, and will make a ton of money from them, that is
probably going to be an exercise in missing the point. And my point
here is not that “the Christian part” was removed because of some kind
of rumored bias against it (it is not), but that it hollowed out the
revolutionary story and left a much more boring inspiration in its
place, some more about the indomitable human spirit and so on, which
we've seen before.
Here is what I'd suggest: If you want to, go see Unbroken. Be
inspired. Zamperini was an incredible man. But when you leave, talk to
the people you went to the movie with. Talk about what it inspired you
to do. Let that be what Zamperini's life (and Jesus' words) are
really about: not winning, not defiance, not coming out on top at the
end of the day, but the humble revolution of living generously and
loving your enemies, especially when nobody notices and it makes no
sense.
Our world, and our churches, could use a lot more of that right now.
Caveat Spectator
So obviously, if you know the plot, you're aware that this is probably
not a great film for children, owing to the torture and the internment
camps and the starvation and pain. But for a film with all those
elements, it was clearly created in such a way that most audiences, even
sensitive ones, could watch it. Somehow you get the sense of the great
physical violence inflicted on Zamperini without seeing most of it
happen; the film leans on the aftereffects. You get lots of wounds and
bruises and scabs and scars without seeing them happen, though you'll
flinch from anticipation. Also, a lot of the film happens in a
concentration camp, and with a truly sadistic commander causing the
harm, which is not pleasant at all.
Other things to note: as a child, Zamperini was kind of a bad seed, so
we get a few scenes of a kid drinking alcohol and smoking and getting in
fights. We also see him try to peek up women's skirts from underneath
bleacher seating (he doesn't really succeed, and we see nothing).
Soldiers speak in very general ways about subjects soldiers often talk
about, like women, but nothing graphic. There are a handful of
profanities—enough to keep the story realistic—but not nearly as many as
most war movies. While surviving on the raft, characters have to both
eat raw fish (kinda gross) and battle actual sharks. And in one scene,
two POWs, who are skinny and dirty after mind-altering days in
confinement, are forced to strip down entirely and stand before their
captors. One shot from afar therefore shows rear male nudity, but in the
absolute least sexual of ways.
Alissa Wilkinson is Christianity Today's chief film critic and
assistant professor of English and humanities at The King's College in
New York City. She writes the “Watch This Way” blog and tweets @alissamarie.
No comments:
Post a Comment