Replies

There are some (including some in this forum) who think her direction of this film and the resulting product is a crime against humanity.

I doubt that it strays so far from the actual story that is unrecognizable, as some say.

Without having seen it yet, I am going to grant up front that the focus of various points in the movie may be more or less than what actually happened in reality or what was relayed in the book. But I would be willing to bet money it isn’t “unrecognizable trash”. It is just a fact of life that a movie can never, ever convey the richness of a book. It just cannot, in my opinion, if the book is well written.

For a good example of a travesty, waste of time, waste of money, and total conversion of a great book into an offensive, unrecognizable, unmitigated trash as a movie, refer to “The Monument Men”.

What was an interesting, great (and true story) was bastardized and Hollywoodized to the point it was indeed unrecognizable. That was a story that should have been told, because most people simply don’t know about it.

And “Unbroken” should be told to a wider audience as well. Most Americans are unaware of this man’s experiences, and I take my hat off to the author who wrote the book, and Angelina Jolie who spent a good deal of time and money to tell the story on film. But I will say that, even though I have not yet seen the movie, I will be astonished beyond words if it is “unrecognizable”.

It is a story of redemption that should be told, even if it isn’t told perfectly to everyone’s liking. I personally think that part of the book dealing with his postwar experiences is the most powerful part of the story, but given how much of the book is actually devoted to them, I don’t expect it to be the full focus, because his story lacks power without the context of the hardships he encountered.

I appreciate your thoughtful comments, and I agree with you.

I disagree with those who suggest it strays from the overall story. It doesn’t stray from the key facts or the timeline.

A few of the details used, such as the focus on gnocchi as his prime motivation, were trivial and misleading regarding their ocean ordeal. And, his experience depicted duringJapanese captivity were equally abridged.

No movie, unless 11 hours long, could capture the richness of the book, his heroic will to survive, his disintegration after returning home, the consequent failure of his marriage, then his eventual healing by faith.

So, while the movie is recognizable, much of the story doesn’t fit the Hollywood progressive world-view, and most of us are quite accustomed to that.

His story really does lack power without the context that was ignored, but perhaps our discussion here will raise interest in those reading to seek the book, so they can discover “the rest of the story”, as Paul Harvey used to say.

I have respect for the Coen brothers. I did not like all of their movies, but a few were excellent, and most were well-constructed. I think they did a good job of “constructing” this one so it would pass muster in tinsel-town.

Those of you who have seen the movie should really get your hands on the book. It is a serious read, and one that I hope eventually is widely read.

My uncle was the second wave to hit the beach at Iwo Jima when he was 17 years old. Think about that.

He never recovered, and like Zamperini, even though married to a wonderful and supportive wife, with two little boys, failed at jobs, drank, brooded, and eventually committed suicide.

My mother could never talk about it or explain it to us, and thanks to Unbroken, I now understand a bit of why so many young men came home broken.