"Unbroken" (2014) - The Biography of Olympic Athlete and WWII Hero Louis Zamperini, Directed by Angelina Jolie

[DonRocks]

If you're offended by any discussion about religion - even when it's being discussed as a tangential issue - then please click out of this post now because this may offend you, and that is not my intent.

Minor **SPOILERS** will follow:

---

Last week, I finished reading the biography of the amazing Louis Zamperini, "Unbroken," written by Laura Hillenbrand - one of the best and most thoroughly researched biographies I've ever read. No, it's not perfect, and if you click on the title, you'll see we have the beginnings of a meaningful discussion about the book. This thread, and this post, is about the movie.

In the "Unbroken" book thread, I mention a recent discussion I had with a member about "In Cold Blood" (just click and read the first paragraph in Post #11). In essence, she was unable to enjoy the movie because she had read the book first.

I'm afraid that with "Unbroken," that may be the case with me: I was recently told that there was no mention of Billy Graham in the film. To my eyes, the book is structured as follows:

1) A medium-sized beginning (childhood, upbringing, college, Olympics)

2) A huge middle (the war)

3) A short ending (PTSD, recovery)

For there to be no mention of Zamperini's post-war biography is to essentially clip short his life in his mid-20s. Think about this for a moment: If Billy Graham did not exist, there would be no "Unbroken" because there would have been no Louis Zamperini to write about.

Zamperini's recovery (I'm purposefully not calling it a redemption) is such a major factor in his biography that its omission is a literary and journalistic sin.

What I can say here is very limited because I haven't seen the film, but based on what I heard, I would urge anyone who has seen the film, and who doesn't want to invest the substantial time involved in reading the entire 406-page book, to borrow a copy, and read only the 18-page Epilogue. At this point, the only reason I want to watch the film is so I can voice this opinion more forcefully, and with some credibility and authority; right now, I cannot.

---

For those interested in the enormous power that Billy Graham was able to convey, I encourage them to go to his website, and watch one or more of his "televised classics" (the old, black-and-white ones are directly relevant to the full biography of Zamperini, but even for those completely uninterested in Graham, there is still historical importance in the beautiful alto gospel of Ethel Waters at the 8:30 point in this video). I should also disclose that Graham was a major influence on, and source of enormous comfort to, my beloved mother - his occasional televised crusades were part of my childhood, as I watched my mother watch him, completely mesmerized by the unselfish sovereignty of his oration. I am hardly an evangelist, but have no problem in voicing my opinion that Billy Graham is one of the greatest and most important people ever to live, wielding immense power on a global scale, but never once abusing it for his own personal gain - his rightful place in history is side-by-side with Martin Luther King, Jr., the Dalai Lama, Pope Francis, Mahatma Gandhi, and David Ben-Gurion.

---

Louis Zamperini, Sports (DonRocks)
"Unbroken"          , Book   (DonRocks)

[darkstar965]

This is very interesting not only as related to Unbroken, but also to the unique and universal challenges inherent in adapting a substantive written work for the screen.

I saw the movie and am reading the book now. There is no doubt the book is much "better," in terms of it being a much more comprehensive and nuanced telling of an incredible story, than Jolie's film. But, if you consider the filmmaker's choices and compromises, I think the film respectable if not great. I agree with a comment I think someone may have made on the book thread about the movie doing a couple of things well mostly related to conveying the incessant and unyielding challenges, the exceptional resilience of Zamperini and even the monotony and passage of extended periods of time. But, yes, the movie does sell the book short; somewhat out of necessity but also in ways that prompt good debates and discussion imho.
 

[DIShGo]

**SPOILERS** will follow.

It has been five years since I read "Unbroken," so I can't remember everything in great detail. Two parts of the book that do stand out in my mind, however, are: when Louie awakens, with his hands around his pregnant wife's neck, following a nightmare where he is trying to kill The Bird; and when he attends the Billy Graham revival in the late '40s and leaves forever changed.

To me, the PTSD he suffered following the war is a critical part of the book. Strangling his wife was his rock bottom; the message Billy Graham delivered to him that day, his epiphany. So I was disappointed that neither of these scenes were depicted in the film.

Don't get me wrong. I think it was a fine, entertaining film. I took my daughter, who had not read the book, and she enjoyed it. She also came home and immediately asked me for my copy of the book so she could read it. I think the film brought attention about Louie's life and the book to people who otherwise might not have read it.

I agree with the notion that there was too much material in the book for one film, and Jolie had to pick and choose what to include. But I have to wonder if Hollywood bias and political correctness had anything to do with the glossing over of his Christian conversion.

Yes, he was raised a Catholic. And he made a promise to God on the lifeboat, which was included in the film. But it was Graham, and his powerful message of forgiveness, that turned Louie's life around. I was raised Catholic, and attended a Southern Baptist revival with a friend when I was in elementary school. These two types of worship are like night and day. No pun intended, but I felt like a fish out of water at that revival. Still, there was an undeniable energy in that room that was like nothing I had ever seen.

I think Jolie missed the chance to make a much better film by leaving these crucial elements out of her movie.

[DonRocks]

I think Jolie missed the chance to make a much better film by leaving these crucial elements out of her movie.

In doing some research for this post in the Architecture thread, I stumbled across this on a Google search (the top entry links to this) - they didn't take this omission lying down.

[i'm walking a fine line on religion and politics here, and I'm aware of it.]

[DonRocks]

This can be found here.