More than a week ago, there was some industry gossip that Angelina Jolie’s Unbroken probably wouldn’t even be released in Japan. Japanese nationalists have made a big stink about the film’s alleged “anti-Japanese” agenda, and it looks like the studio is just going to sit out a Japanese release. But Unbroken was released in other Asian countries, including China. Anyway, Angelina sat down for an interview with a Japanese publication and it sounds like she’s doing a little bit of damage-control. She shouldn’t HAVE to do this because Unbroken speaks for itself, and it’s obviously based on one man’s (well-documented) experience, but I’m glad Angelina is taking on the “anti-Japanese” complaints head-on. You can read the full piece here (I can’t find a link to the original Japanese outlet, The Yomiuri Shimbun, that published this interview).
The film’s release coming out close to 70th anniversary of V-J Day: “The link is pure coincidence. It takes several years to make any film. My personal view is that we should mark these anniversaries in a way that brings people from different countries closer together. In the case of our two countries, we should celebrate 70 years of peace and progress, and a deep friendship that binds our two countries.”
Depicting Japanese soldiers: “I very much saw Corporal [who mistreats the main character] as an individual, not as someone who represented the Japanese people as a whole. Mr. Louie Zamperini told me stories about some Japanese soldiers who were kind to him during his detention, and of one man he credited with saving his life. It was very important to me to try to see the war from the Japanese perspective as well, and to respect that.
Portraying the Great Tokyo Air Raid: “Yes. My intention was never to give a one-sided account of the war. Civilians suffered on all sides, in Japan’s case including the bombing of Tokyo and the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But the film is art, it is not a documentary.”
Whether ‘Unbroken’ would stir anti-Japanese sentiment in China: “I would be very disappointed if anyone in any country tried to use the film as a pretext for any anti-Japanese sentiment. In any case, Japan’s achievements in the 70 years since the war speak for itself. You are an ally and a friend, a leading democracy, one of the strongest economies in the world, and you play a leading role in international peace and security. I have just returned from the Middle East, where Japan is providing over $2 billion to build stability and fight extremism — that is a contribution to be proud of.”
Explicit denial of anti-Japanese sentiment: “Unbroken is not a film about Japan, nor is it an anti-Japanese film. Louie Zamperini loved Japan. He described carrying the torch in the [Nagano Winter] Olympics as the proudest moment in his life. Those who have a chance to see the film will be able to judge for themselves.”
[From The Yomiuri Shimbun via the Chicago Tribune]
In her answer about anti-Japanese sentiment in China, Angelina sounded presidential. You know what I mean? She sounded like a seasoned diplomat calmly steadying the nerves of an ally.
As for the film and whether it could be taken as anti-Japanese in any way… as I said just after I saw Unbroken, I think Jolie could have carved out about 20 minutes of the torture scenes in the last half and added about 10-15 minutes of other stuff from the book. The book was able to provide more perspective, especially about some of the Japanese guards who properly looked after the POWs. Plus, there was more stuff with Louis and the other POWs that didn’t involve torture. I think if she had framed Louis’s torture differently… well, there still would have been cries that the film is anti-Japanese, but she would be able to say “No, I included some moments with the good guards too, look.”
Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet.
She made her film the way she wanted and the Studio. There are sensitive issues in the film. And Japan is no different than the US. We, as a nation, have a hard time facing some of the ugliness of our past and how it makes us look as well.
The film did well and she should be proud. The Zamperini family like the film and it was the way Louis wanted his story to be told. After all it is HIS story. NOT America’s Story or Japan’s story.
I halfway liked the movie. It was probably just from me having too high of expectations. I agree with this article on taking out many of the torture scenes and putting in more of the story. Especially with his forgiving those who tortured him post war. I took my dad to see it and we weren’t prepared for SO MUCH torture in the movie…a little surprised it wasn’t rated R.
Its not an anti-japanese film but she keeps changing what the film is about to cater to different audiences. She first claimed it was a movie about forgiveness, then to cater to the religious folks, she claimed it was about religion. Yeah, not really a smart thing to do. The movie was just a torture fest. It barely talked about Louis religion at all. Which is a shame since it was very important to him. I hope a better film version of Unbroken eventually comes out. I feel like she did not do him justice.
The japanese nationalists still believe that the war is not lost and aren’t able to allow criticism about that dark period. The problem is that these nationalists really have a lot of influence and are preventing every critical essays or journalism. I mean, if Germany in these present days would act like this then every german had been offended by ‘Inglourious Basterds’ and any other numerous war/anti-war movies. Dealing with history is pure responsibility
these are the same nationalists that whitewash japanese warcrimes in educational textbooks. they are dangerous, deluded, right wing crackpots.
Pretty sure every country does that. What is truly taught about slavery in America? Nothing! It’s a small footnote. Which isn’t accurate to america’s history at all.
European countries frame their actions different too. No one wants to admit horrivle history which is sad.
You’re right that people tend to whitewash their histories. But when I was in school umpteen million years ago we did learn a lot about slavery and the atrocities committed by the US against native Americans, how we didn’t honor treaties, smallpox blankets. I guess it’s where you go to school?
When I was in school we learned a lot about the atrocities of slavery and how native Americans were treated, as well. We also learned about the civil rights movement and the horrible way protestors were treated and having a lesson on the My Lai massacre. I guess it does depend on where you go to school, but I will say the Pennsylvania public school system seemed to have pretty balanced lessons in American history.
Um, did you go to school in America? Our history with slavery and the civil rights movement is absolutely taught in school! I went to public school in Texas.
It’s easier for a country to be honest with its atrocities when they are in the distant past. Do they teach in American schools more recent offenses. Like CIA assassinations of elected leaders around the world. Or forced economic programs that destroyed entire economies to protect their own exports and create food markets for surplus American produce. Or propping up oppressive dictatorships and helping despots catch dissidents in exile. Do they even teach the modern day racist events, the Rodney King incident that triggered the riots for example? It’s easy to accept slavery if you can also whisper to yourselves that ” that was another time” and “I don’t own slaves, I bear no personal guilt for that”.
The civil rights movement was being taught when I was in school in the 80’s. That was hardly the distant past. We discussed Jim Crow laws, MLK Jr’s assasination and the KKK. Some of the examples you give won’t likely be discussed in classrooms for a long time because it’s relatively classified. Big difference.
She had to walk a fine line with this movie.
Also: she’s pretty forthright. If she wanted criticize Japan, she would. She doesn’t strike me as the sort to make passive-aggressive criticism. And–she’s a smart woman. She wouldn’t antagonize a whole country out of ignorance or the desire to drum up controversy.
So sure, it probably is no kind of fun for Japan to revisit the uglier parts of their prison camps, but she handled herself well in this interview and her reputation otherwise, too, should be reassuring.
“Also: she’s pretty forthright. If she wanted criticize Japan, she would. She doesn’t strike me as the sort to make passive-aggressive criticism. And–she’s a smart woman. She wouldn’t antagonize a whole country out of ignorance or the desire to drum up controversy”.
Well said! She speaks eloquently…
I found the emphasis on the torture scenes quite odd. I’m not opposed to that being depicted on film, in fact there are some very fine films that pretty much solely depict wartime torture, but in this case the lengthy scenes didn’t seem to add anything to the narrative. A minute or two would have been enough to get across the horror of it, but after that it was just more of the same, to the point where the monotony of it was almost desensitizing. In a different type of film that could be an interesting approach, but I don’t think it’s what they were going for with Unbroken.
I can sort of see why Japan wouldn’t be thrilled by it. Louis Zamperini’s actual story is much more measured and inspiring, but the film itself is a pretty standard American war film, there’s not a whole lot of nuance or shades of grey in there. To be fair to Japan, American’s (generally, obviously) can just about deal with negative portrayals of their wartime actions when the films are made by American’s, but I’m not sure how they’d take say, a French film about American troops raping the women in the villages they passed through, or a Vietnamese film that depicts American’s as the murderous invaders. Not many countries deal well with outside criticism. Germany’s the exception as their recent past is so terrible they just have to suck it up.
Its not even a well done American war film, it just isn’t that good to be honest. I don’t agree this movie is anti-japanese, but the movie is basically a torture fest. The book was amazing and Angelina had such good material to work with, but she didn’t do a good job of directing it into film sorry. I don’t blame the actors or anyone, its the director’s fault really.
Ok we get it. You thought the movie was crap. But thanks anyway for contributing to the 100m box office. And no doubt you will also be in line for when BTS and Africa comes out.
Why are you getting so offended? I did not like the movie and I have right to my opinion. I have read the book and am actually familiar with Louis Zampernin’s story. Have you even read the book?
So what if it made over 100 million? American Sniper already is at 300 million and is a better made movie with major Oscar noms. Even though there is a huge controversy about Chris Kyle about him being called a hero and all, I thought the movie was pretty good. Bradley was great.
Oh I didn’t know that I came across as offended. I was actually going for a more sarcastic feel.
Anyhow. Haven’t read the book, saw the film and thought it was very powerful and moving. I actually thought it was important to show the extent of the torture that he went through just to show what an amazing man that he was that he could forgive those who put him through the humiliation and denigration that he went through.
@Soulsister
+1
Don’t worry, Soulsister. I think you nailed it.
No film is “anti Japan”, “anti Iraq”, “anti Vietnam”, “anti Afghanistan”, etc. They all make films with American perspective and a US soldier’s personal experience just like if other country makes a movie about themselves, they make their soldiers heros and winners. AJ did her best, Clint Eastwood did his best, can never replicate these solder’s real experiences in movies really. Just look at Senator John McCain, does he need a film made about himself to see what he went through? It’s very visible, he is a very brave soldier and a hero.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_and_military_career_of_John_McCain
It bugs me that she actually has to explain what should be so obvious. Everyone is so touchy these days; I feel like people actually go out of their way to find something to be offended by. This was a story about one man and his experience. In some make-believe world that doesn’t (and never will) exist, everybody is good and moral and always does the right thing. We don’t live in that world. Sometimes people do cruel things. Sometimes they do it out of their own volition. Sometimes they do it out of fear because they are just following orders. Sometimes it’s a combination of both. What one human being does is not – and should never be – an indictment on every other person that shares something in common with him. We all choose. I thought it was a beautifully made film that told the story of a man who had a very interesting life. Life is messy and you can’t survive it.
^^^^THIS!^^^^
Life is messy, and one receives great collateral damage. The make-believe wishes that are thrown at us after a film, sets one up to expect from life, what can never be a given – justice.
I think that is the point of make-believing in an “after-life” (justice, that is).
I suppose that it is satisfying to go home after watching a film where all the pieces fit – unlike life for real.
While I don’t agree about the film being anti-japanese, the movie was depicting an hour and a half of nothing but Japanese prison camp torture rather than the ENTIRE life of the man it was based on……yeah, I can see their point sorta. She skipped 2/3 of that man’s life and dove right into the torture. I think she might be upset that she won’t make money in the Japanese markets. Huge profits could be made there.
Where exactly is she whining, pissing and moaning.. I guess I missed all of that
I was about to ask the same thing as well.
I think she might be upset at the fact it might not get released into Japan, which is a huge profit market. But lets be reasonable, even though its not an anti-Japanese movie, she showed did sorta show them in a bad light and mostly focused on the torture part of the story, which is not what Unbroken is all about.
’cause she’s always been all about the profit?
To truly appreciate “Unbroken”, one has to already be familiar with the life story of Louis Zamperini. Angelina Jolie was, plus she had the added benefit of knowing the man personally. But in truth, there is no way to tell the life story of a 97 year-old man in a 90 minute film. In looking at the totality of his life – who he was as a young man, who he became as an old man – she was looking for that one pivotal moment in this life that changed everything. As it turned out, it was the torture. He became a beloved Christian speaker in his later year, but that was entirely borne out of the experiences he had at the hands of the Japanese. She chose, wisely in my opinion, to focus on that pivotal moment – but again, much of it is lost if you don’t know the man’s full story (which most people don’t). And I am sure that Angelina felt somewhat stifled by the natural time constraints of film making. It wasn’t about showing how cruel some of the Japanese were at the time (they were, but it has to be taken in context and not as some kind of indictment)….the point was to show that rock bottom, soul crushing moment that changes a person’s trajectory and thinking. Many people here make fun of someone like John McCain – but we can not imagine (thank God) for a moment what living in a hole (literally) and tortured does to a person’s psyche. It can wreck them. It can inspire them. In Zamperini’s case, proverbial hell brought him to proverbial heaven. I think that’s what Angelina was trying to portray and I think she did it well.
Actually I have read the book and am pretty familiar with Louis Zampernini’s story thank you very much. She didn’t do a good job in my opinion and was given gold material to work with. The story is not all about torture but how he overcame his struggles and what he went through. That is the true Unbroken.
1 and a half hour of the movie is just torture, 1 hour and half hour. She could have cut alot of it down and put in more important parts in the movie. It doesn’t take long for a person to know how bad torture is when watching the movie.
@Renee: have you ever met Louis? His family? Well Angelina not only met Louis but became a close friend.
Louis, his family and even Laura H all had a say in the movie and THEY wanted the movie to be focused on the time spent as POW.
If Louis has seen the movie and was happy with it then why are YOU having such an issue with it?
@Renee: no one is rude here except you and other readers can see that by simple read your comments.
You state your opinions (rudely) and some of us are just questioning that with some very valid questions.
And by the way – did you know anything about Louis before the book? No I thought not and yet you attack Angelina for finding out about him after the book (like millions of people did).
Secondly do yourself a favour and stop calling Louis, his family and Laura liars just because you don’t want to accept what they are saying about the movie and Angelina.
PS: I read the book several times and also watched the movie. Book is better as it tells the whole story of Louis but the movie is also pretty amazing. Some things should or shouldn’t be shown but in the end the movie turned out the way Louis wanted.
What also factors in was it was someone else’s script (Coen brothers) and the final cut was the studio’s version, not hers. You can say it is all the director’s fault, but she was a piece (albeit a big one) but not the only piece of the puzzle.
Renee – I do agree with you. And I am glad that you, like me, are familiar with Zamperini’s life story. As you know, there is so much good stuff there. Yes – she micro-focused on just one particular aspect hoping it would explain the rest…but I do agree it was somewhat lacking (if you know the whole story, as we do). I just think that given the time constraints and what “Hollywood” would think is bankable – that’s what she worked with. I agree it could have been much more.
Its nice to know atleast someone here agrees with me. How many of Jolie’s fans blindly defending her have even heard of the man before she directed the movie? One person above started mocking me just because I said I did not like the movie, yet this person themselves hasn’t even read the book and are defending this mediocre film. Come on, it wasn’t a masterpiece and it could have been way better. The book itself is very good. She was given golden material and didn’t know how to utilize it into a movie I think.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.Some people didn’t like the movie.Some people didn’t like the book.Some people didn’t like the script written by the Cohens.
Actually I am glad that people are holding Angie responsible for her directing choices rather than denying she was really the director.Nothing is more disrespectful than saying she had a “ghost” director.Lastly
Laura and Louis’ family seem to like the movie.I’m sure those are the most important opinions to Angie.
I am looking forward to seeing to By The Sea later this year and seeing Angie continue to grow and improve as a director.Unbroken was her second film .
I think she benefits from having a devoted fan base that happily takes up her side. This film was a simplistic one sided that adds nothing to the discourse about war or even to the war film genre in general. It should have focused on showing that even in war, people are just people. That The Bird was a sadistic dbag in any circumstance. That the pressures of that environment broke both prisoner and imprisoner. That all these people were victims of a situation created by others, far wealthier and powerful than themselves. And of course the fact that civilians paid a far greater price than these POWs. I have a similar problem with the American Sniper. I’m sure these American war propaganda films do very well at the box office with their great white heros and one dimensional villains from other races but for me they underscore the fact human beings learn nothing. War will always be reduced to good guy vs bad guy.
War seems to me to be about penis’s, guns (in the form of a powerful penis), and rape. War is about men, and their ideas about macho.
I’m wondering how women in a society might be able to manage men, more effectively than they do in their boy’s clubs. Women are often demeaned in these all male groups (they are afraid of us). Do women have the capacity to teach their sons not to go to war – – or concerning the fallacy of brutality? Men seem to need to prove themselves in this terrible way. Can we change the trajectory of male thinking?
Male macho aggression is very useful to the powers that be; yet it has very little value to the individual man in his private life – that is, real life.
I think women absolutely can teach men not to be brutal and not to go to war. I think our culture just makes it very difficult to raise good men. Because our culture is all about men needing to one up each other, needing to brutalize each other in order to … in many ways, I think… survive. Men in many ways just cannot afford to look weak. I think that’s changing, but it’s happening so slowly…
Wrt Unbroken, AJ and Japan: AJ will always have her devoted fans, and probably rightly so. But I think she’s getting into some really bad territory with her recent movies. Unbroken, the Cleopatra project she wanted to do, Africa. Despite all her UN work, she’s starting to show her naivete and emotional immaturity. Unbroken even from the trailers smacked of propaganda. I don’t think it’s all her fault, but I wish she’d see where her limitations are and just stay away from what she does not understand. By the Sea sounds good, since it’s a small drama about a couple. She should do that, or do a look inside Hollywood kind of comedy. Stick with what she knows and leave the historical epics to people with a broader view.
I believe her in that I don’t think that she intended to create an anti-Japan film. The Bird really was like that and did those things (and the book emphasized that even many Japanese guards found him to be psychotic and terrible).
The only issue I had with the film was that it was very much about all the things that happened TO Louis, as opposed to the period in his life when he finally was able to make his own decisions and chose to forgive his captors. The most inspirational stuff about him was the stuff that happened AFTER the war. Louis did struggle a great deal with PTSD, depression, anger issues, etc. after he came home, it almost broke up his marriage, and he openly credited Billy Graham with helping him get past it.
In a way, I get why the decision was made to not get into the stuff after the war. I think the overt religiousness that Louis embraced after the war would have turned off some audiences (and made the film into an expressly faith-based movie). I think the movie made an attempt to try to be as inclusive as possible – which sounds great in theory – but I’m not sure how well it actually worked. The movie became about what Louis had to endure, rather than how amazing he was for overcoming it.
It would be interesting to see a mini series.
But I don’t know–I think that the idea of including that ending clip of Louis at age 80 running a race in Japan was meant to show that he was “unbroken”…..and I loved it because he was such a cute old man. I do think that she talked with him about the movie, and that’s how they ended up where they ended up–in terms of what part of the story they told. I’m just thinking of the part where Louis said that he didn’t want to turn anyone off, but wanted to have faith universally shown. Can’t really do that, in terms of showing him suffering from PTSD and then find healing at a Billy Graham revival. But those are just my thoughts…..
I really enjoyed the movie on its own merits. I’m sure if I had read the book before, then I’d be upset. I just didn’t understand the criticisms. I understand the criticism of not getting certain things that you felt were important into the movie…..but the stuff about it being a terrible movie, it leaving you cold…..nope. My airhead sister went with us to see the movie. She thought she was seeing a romantic movie (for SOME reason)…and when it ended, she was crying…..
that clip of him running was to show that he had made peace not only with the country but where he had been interned. i think it was remarkable for him to be so forgiving because i dont think i would either forgive or even step foot in a place where i was imprisoned imo. he had that generosity that not many pple nowadays have imo and somehow just saying he was a cute old man is not 100% accurate either. he went through a lot after the war and truly was unbroken not only in himself but in his faith
Geez her face looks wonky and injected. I mistook her for Lana del Ray.
Glad I’m not the only one to have noticed how very odd her face appears to be.
I haven’t seen the movie. But I read the book and it seemed like the majority of the book was the torture. I didn’t enjoy the book because I didn’t enjoy the brutality.
but the point is that the brutality was there and louis z and the others faced it every single day. we are lucky because we dont have that experience that louis had and this film is a way of always remembering that others from the ww2 generation didnt have that luxury. we need to remember what happened – that is all
I get it. I just didn’t enjoy it. I think as a whole we feel like we have to suffer to experience something.
There is not a rule that says you cannot be entertained by a hard story.
Remember I Love Lucy, how Lucy and Desi slept in twin beds? I understood that somehow someone made it into the other bed, I mean she did have a baby, I did not have to see it to understand what happened.
Say what you want about the movie, but as far as this interview goes, Angie’s pimp hand stays strong.
AJ gave a beautifully diplomatic reply, but I hope that’s all it was. I’d truly be saddened if she became a politician. I just feel she’s so much more effective and free on the outside.
lisa2 you are right. People like to whitewash everything, but there are horrible, cruel people in every country and war brings that out even more. All countries have ugliness in their past, they just don’t like to look at it, and tend to get angry at anyone who exposes that reality.
I think Angie sounds very well spoken and intelligent in this interview.
What happened to Louis Zamperini is historical fact. He was held and tortured by the Japanese. Not the Japanese civilian people, but by soldiers. And I am also sure that not all of the Japanese soldiers were okay with the torture of the prisoners. There are psychopaths of every nation, color and time who have used war as a cover to indulge in their sick, violent urges. I believe that AJ told the story the way Zamperini told it to her.
I’m going to agree with Renee upthread. Personally I don’t think she did justice to the man at all. Laura H spent years getting to know Louis and was able to capture the essence of the man and what he endured. That’s why the book was so good! Angie missed the mark completely imo and the movie came off as a torturefest and HW moneygrab. I was really disappointed in the movie but not surprised as movies rarely come off as good as the book. There was too much material for a movie and perhaps that’s why it sat on a shelf for fifty years. Should have been a TV miniseries.
i think i would disagree with you. for a second time director to do a war movie and have it succeed even more at the box office and make more money than the other bp nominees is a good hint that she did a good job. as she has said 1 movie will not be enough for louis z life to be told but the film is pretty good too – and your point about another director would have told the story well why didnt any other director pick up the project – it had been on the open list for years and years and universal had the rights from 1956 onwards so why didnt other directors pick it up then? the fact is angelina saw that it was available and she did it – blaming her for choosing to film unbroken was her choice. and the studio gave her a chance to go ahead. nitpicking as to why other directors didnt do the film is not her fault at all.
It was not a well made movie, no matter what her fans say . She always seems insecure when she gets criticized for something. Get over it Angelina, you didn’t direct the greatest movie ever. I agree with Renne, this movie was nothing but torture pornography and the acting was so bad. Who in their right mind thought that garbage was good?
I think Angelina did an amazing job with this movie for not having much experience directing.
She took the life story of an exceptional man and turned it into a cheesy movie. I think she thought she had the Oscar in the bag.
Well a lot of people thought they had a lot of things in the Bag..
Angie didn’t write the script she is the Director. Her film is doing well and a lot of people liked it. But glad you once again spent money on a film of a person you don’t like.
funny how the people that don’t like her continue to do that over and over and over.. but then you wouldn’t be able to post something negative over and over and over..
how was it cheesy ? the story happened to louis z and this film was all about what happened in one part of his life – when pple were saying it was moving and inspiring – and that they needed to read the book etc for more info – it is a pity if people are prejudiced just because it was directed by angelina jolie . I think we sd give her the credit and courage to go ahead and do something out of a typical film maker’s comfort zone
Apropos of nothing, has anybody read this yet?
http://msmagazine.com/blog/2015/02/06/in-the-latest-issue-of-ms-angelina-jolie-fights-child-marriage/