Laura Hillenbrand’s 2010 “Unbroken” is my favorite non-fiction novelization.  Laura didn’t invent the story, but she did craft the context.  You begin Louis Zamperini’s story knowing it will be a war novel.  People will die. There will be pain and a glorification of brother in arms.  However, the novelization rides the swells of Louis’ life to become much more than a war story.  The message is more than, “War sucks,” but “Life sucks, and there is redemption.”  Also, Laura doesn’t frame the story as “these hardships prepared Louis for being a POW.” This focus-on-the-present biography was critical for me identifying with Louis.  I knew going into the novel that I would respect Louis for his story of survival, but Hillenbrand’s determination to tell each stage of Louis’ life as if it were the most important moment lets you grow up with Louis and root for him as a boy, as a teenager, as an Olympian, as bombardier, etc.

Angelina Jolie’s 2014 film “Unbroken” made me cry when it was supposed to and it masterfully disoriented me.  At first, I was upset that Jolie or the Coens decided to open the movie in a rickety B-24.  I asked myself, “Does everything have to be Tarantino-ed.”  I loved the novel because every aspect of Louis’ life mattered.  But, the choppy story telling grew on me because it stopped me from anticipating the novelization.  One of the most disappointing things for thriller or action dependent Book/Movies is that when you have heard the story once you keep waiting for the boogeyman.  You start the movie asking yourself, “How will they show Dumbledore’s death?” Jolie’s reorganized plot actually put me back in the story, and I went into the “beheading scene” terrified with the thought, “Wait, does Phil actually die?”  And yes, I cried at two points.  When Louis’ family listens to the broadcast of his record breaking lap and when his family hears POW Louis’ broadcast, I cried for my momma.  It is pretty awesome that the emotional effects of a non-visual medium affected me so much on film.  I was crying at a movie of people crying at the radio.

So, which is better?  Hillenbrand wins because she tells Louis’ story to the point of redemption.  Jolie had the story setup for a battle between Louis’ darkness and light.  The message is actually preached, but this theme is never picked back up.  The climax of the film is Louis persevering and defying the Bird.  It is an inspiring story, but Louis’ story is more than Braveheart.  I know Jolie and Hollywood won’t get as loose with Louis’ faith as Hillenbrand was, but Louis’ life can be secularly stated.  Louis’ discovers that perseverance keeps you alive through a war, but he learns that forgiveness and redemption makes you human on the other side.  I don’t want to be too hard on the film.  Movies are usually about one thing, one enemy.  I don’t know how I would have fit it in, but in a film filled with flash forwards and backs, some scene could have added emotional weight to what Louis experienced after the war.  The heartwarming scene of him running in Japan is cool, but it only adds to the “Most Interesting Man in The World” mystique.  Louis battled demons that are very relevant to a society stressed out by war.

Here’s my final take.  Louis’ story is so good in any medium.  It could be a coloring book and still be a great story.  The movie doesn’t give treatment to the whole character arc.  Do yourself a favor and read the rest of the story.