It always proves a
challenge to critique a true story. The writers for such movies often choose to
stay truthful at the cost of “creative liberties” that might work better
cinematically. How can I hold such honestly against those writers?
Unbroken covers the horrific, real life
horrors that befell an American POW (Louis Zamperini, played by Jack
O’Connell), while imprisoned in a Japanese camp.
This movie also
concerns itself with the religious faith that delivered Zamperini through the
ordeal.
How do I write
about which of those horrors worked or didn’t onscreen?
However, I sit
before my MacBook today as a critic of stories, not a professor of history. I
must set aside these concerns. So I ask you, dear readers, to indulge a
stipulation for this movie review:
We must pretend
that Unbroken does not serve as a
true story, that the actors who suffer in it do not represent real people.
Otherwise, I cannot force myself to objectively view this movie’s merits and
mistakes. Deal?
Fortunately, few
mistakes exist. Let’s get those out of the way first.
This movie’s
dialogue, for the first thirty minutes or so, seemed far too “on the nose.”
Painfully so, at some points.
Worse, none of
that dialogue proved necessary. The first thirty minutes of this movie would’ve
worked just fine without a single word spoken. Watch those minutes on mute. See
for yourself.
A stricter pace
could’ve coaxed a better movie from this story. While this movie didn’t drag
its feet (looking at you, Exodus), the
movie would’ve moved a lot faster if the writers trimmed a little fat here and
there. The fat never
bored me, but it caused redundancies.
Every scene of our protagonist adrift on
a raft; or in a tiny, prison cell; or in a larger prison cell; or in a coal
mine-slash-prison cell effectively commanded an emotional response from its
audience.
However, several
of those scenes failed to offer anything different from their predecessors. The
scenes worked, but they worked the first time. Trim out those redundancies
(we’re talking maybe sixty seconds per series of related scenes), and you
create a movie that runs smoother and perhaps twenty minutes quicker.
The writers
should’ve spread out the flashback scenes, rather than toss them all at the
audience at once and so early on.
And (deep breath)
here I arrive where I really hate to
go with a true story. Again, I choose to examine this movie’s cinematic qualities.
SPOILER ALERT! Skip
the entire, next six paragraphs if
you wish to avoid this movie’s conclusion, which I shall now share.
1) The American military
arrives, at the end of this story, to rescue our hero and his fellow prisoners
from their Japanese captors. Our hero does nothing
to save himself.
2) I hate this
sort of ending. We didn’t want to see the authorities discover that Andy, from The Shawshank Redemption, didn’t kill
his wife and afterwards set him free from prison. We wanted Andy to either
prove it, himself, or escape.
3) Likewise, I
didn’t want to see our hero rescued. Yes, you can argue that the Zamperini saved himself spiritually and
mentally, but that only goes so far.
4) I understand
that our hero didn’t escape from the
prison in real life. I understand (or at least reasonably suspect) that the
writers wanted to stay true to the actual story. I respect that, but I can’t deny
that this sort of ending leaves me unsatisfied.
5) I know how cold I sound when I express disappointment with
Zamerini’s onscreen rescue. I wouldn’t prefer that the military never rescued Zamperini. I’m happy for the real person, but disappointed with the
character on the screen.
6) "Martha wants a
new car. Someone buys her one." A nice event for real life, but it serves as a
poor story.
Now, we move to
the good news.
Jack
O’Connell performance amazed me.
Takamasa Ishihara
seems born for his role of the Japanese soldier who terrorizes Zamerini.
The hair and make
up departments ought to expect an Oscar for their part in this picture.
Did Connell
actually lose all that weight to appear starved? If so, wow! My hat goes off to
him. If the special effect people managed to make him look that skeletal . . .
also wow.
The opening scene
instantly sucks the audience into the movie.
Angelina Jolie
makes countless, clever moves. A lot of consideration went into every shot, the
position of every camera.
This movie says a
lot about racism, and I feel pleased to report that it reached deeper than the
usual, “Racism is ignorant." This movie allows its audience to view racists as victims of their environment.
An early scene
shows Olympic athletes from different parts of the world while they treat each
other with mutual respect. We also see American children split hairs amongst themselves
as to who stands a “real” American and who “needs to go back home.”
Unbroken proves a fascinating, emotional
story. It’s worth your time, but the director and writers could’ve made more
efficient choices.
I would recommend it under normal circumstances, but in light of how many promising movies
hit theaters this Christmas . . . I doubt Unbroken will stand at the top of the heap.
I publish my blogs as follows:
Tuesdays: A look at the politics of
the entertainment world at EntertainmentMicroscope.blogspot.com.
Wednesdays: An inside look at my
novels (such as Daughters of Darkwana, which you can now find on Kindle) at
Darkwana.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment