A longer look at the problems of ‘Unbroken’


Special To The Japan Times

Why can’t “Unbroken” — Angelina Jolie’s hit World War II drama — catch a break in Japan? There are presently no plans to release the film here in theaters, on DVD or online, even though it has a strong Japan focus as well as a major role for popular local rock musician Miyavi (whose real name is Takamasa Ishihara).

That focus, however, is on the tortures Miyavi’s character — a sadistic internment camp guard — inflicts on the captured Louis Zamperini, a real-life U.S. bombardier hero played by Jack O’Connell. Based on Zamperini’s war experiences — related in Laura Hillenbrand’s best-selling 2010 book of the same name — “Unbroken” has been fiercely attacked by Japanese rightists. Hiromichi Moteki, secretary general of a group called the Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact, told Britain’s Telegraph newspaper that the film “has no credibility and is immoral.”

All of this, however, is business as usual. Local rightists have been complaining about movies they consider anti-Japanese for decades. But several of those films had something “Unbroken” doesn’t: a Japanese release date.

The 1990 WWII drama “Blood Oath” (also released as “Prisoners of the Sun”) graphically depicted Japanese abuse of Allied POWs on the Indonesian island of Ambon. Directed by Australian Stephen Wallace and featuring a young Russell Crowe, the film was distributed locally by Toei — a major film production and distribution company — but opened in only one Tokyo theater. Toshi Shioya, who played a Miyavi-like role as a merciless Japanese prison guard, told the Chicago Tribune in 1991 that “Blood Oath” was the “first film ever shown here that actually portrays ordinary Japanese soldiers as accomplices in war crimes. We were lucky to find a distributor willing to show the film because for many Japanese, this is a shocking motion picture.”

More recently, “Yasukuni” — Chinese filmmaker Li Ying’s 2007 documentary about the titular controversial shrine, where war criminals are honored in addition to millions of war dead — angered not only local flag-wavers for its references to Japanese atrocities, but also shrine officials, who claimed Li filmed without permission. Sword maker Naoji Kariya, a central figure in the film, asked Li to cut the footage of him being interviewed. Despite death threats that forced Li to temporarily leave the country, distributor Argo Pictures opened an uncut version of “Yasukuni” in May 2008 with tight police security and it became an indie hit, with nearly 130,000 admissions.

There is also “The Cove” — Louie Psihoyos’ 2009 documentary about the dolphin hunts in the port of Taiji, Wakayama Prefecture — which drew fire from rightists and outraged locals for depictions that were described as slanted, fake and racist. In response to a campaign against the film’s Japan release, which included loud protests at the office of local distributor Unplugged, several theaters initially cancelled screenings, but the film finally opened at six venues nationwide in July 2010. Though demonstrators converged on four of the cinemas, police presence ensured that theatergoers entered undisturbed, while two theaters in Tokyo and Yokohama secured court injunctions against protests on their premises.

So where is the Toei, Argo Pictures or Unplugged for “Unbroken”? It might have been Toho-Towa, the company that releases films distributed by Universal Pictures, the U.S. distributor of “Unbroken” — but they declined. Another company could buy the Japan rights, but so far none has.

One reason is straightforward business. In contrast to the low budgets of “Yasukuni” and “The Cove,” “Unbroken” cost a reported $65 million to produce and sellers of foreign films have typically asked 10 percent of the production budget for Japan rights. Even if a buyer could negotiate this figure down, it would probably need a release in more than six small independent theaters to break even. A multiplex chain could deliver the needed number of screens, but finding one willing to deal with the inevitable protests — and possibly worse — may not be easy.

Also, Jolie is known in Japan only as an actor, while her star, O’Connell, is a nonentity here. Miyavi has his fans, but he is not a marquee name. Furthermore, foreign films in general have struggled against the local competition in recent years and even ones with supposedly Japan-friendly themes, such as “Pacific Rim,” “Emperor” and “Godzilla,” have underperformed at the Japanese box office. It would take a confident distributor indeed to believe that “Unbroken,” given a similar release, would do better.

Despite all the negatives, a feisty distributor may yet open “Unbroken” in Japan — if just on one heavily guarded screen — or distribute the film on other platforms, assuming that similarly unafraid DVD store chains and streaming sites will step forward. But would it make a difference in public perceptions of Japan’s war actions and responsibility?

Shioya worked hard to have “Blood Oath” released in Japan, hoping that it would open the eyes of his fellow citizens to a forgotten chapter of the war, but he might not be so optimistic today. (We’ll never know, since he died at age 56 in 2013.) Old-school rightists, who once looked so isolated and pathetic shouting from their sound trucks, have been joined by legions of “Net uyoku” (Internet rightists), stridently proclaiming that everything from the Nanking Massacre to the forced conscription of “comfort women” are fictions propagated by Japan’s enemies.

And mainstream Japanese may still tell poll-takers they are stoutly anti-war, but they also helped make “Eien no Zero (The Eternal Zero)” — a WWII film whose hero is a self-sacrificing kamikaze pilot — one of the biggest live-action hits of 2014. There are other indications, from the declining numbers of Japanese studying abroad to the Liberal Democratic Party’s landslide victory in the last parliamentary election, of an inward turn and a nationalistic drift. A single Hollywood film will probably not change any of that.

So what are the boys on the sound trucks and their Internet allies afraid of?

Break the ban on “Unbroken.”

  • TV Monitor

    The value of “Unbroken” is that it sends a message to Japanese that Hollywood does not subscribe to the Japanese rightwinger’s version of wartime history; the US has its own memory, which is similar to what Chinese, Koreans, and other former victims of Imperial Japan remember.

    There is a certain misdirected notion in Japan that westerners do not know the true wartime history as told by Japan, and Japanese could teach westerners on true account of what happened during the Sino-Japanese War and WW2. A movie like this Unbroken serves as a chilling reminders that Americans are not fools to be taken advantage of by Japanese rightwinger’s smoke screen.

  • timefox

    A director sneaks from a delusion and should be confronted with the truth.

  • Oliver Mackie

    Funny, because I was in Shinjuku last Friday night (Jan. 9th) and blazoned across the sky on the biggest screens available was what was clearly seemed to be a trailer for ‘Unbroken.’ Or at least it was a montage of shots from the film (bullied as a child, abused in a POW camp, goes on to win an Olympic event) shown in exactly the same style as a trailer (all the powerful scenes in rapid succession, lasting about 1.5-2 minutes.) What could it have been?
    When was this artcile written, in other words, when was the last time the author confirmed that no release is planned?

    • Mark Schilling

      As of today (Thursday), there have been no reports about the film’s Japan release on any local or foreign news site. There is also no Japanese website for the film. Universal still wants to release it here, but has not yet announced how.

      • Oliver Mackie

        Well, someone is priming the market with advertising. I speculate that Universal is either a) waiting till things calm down a bit (but unlikely given the advertising I saw) or they are going to suddenly release, having already made arrangements to do so behind the scenes. This is all speculation on my part, given what I saw in Shinjuku.

      • Mark Schilling

        I’m not saying you didn’t see what you saw, but it’s SOP for distributors put a film on their line-up and give it at least a general release date before they start to screen trailers for it in theaters. “Unbroken,” however, is a very special case, so bets are off. Thanks for the info.

  • Oliver Mackie

    “where war criminals are honored in addition to millions of war dead”
    Interesting ordering of noun phrases there. You seem to be suggesting that the primary purpose of the shrine is to hono(u)r “war criminals” whilst the other more than a million war dead are a secondary thought. This is absolutely not the case.
    The shrine is dedicated to essentially all military war dead from 1869 to 1951. Plus the correct term is “enshrined.”
    What your sentence should have said is, “where millions of war dead are enshrined including 1,068 people convicted as war criminals (14 Class A) by the International Military Tribune for the Far East.”

  • Mike Magnum

    The way i see it. Every country has skeleton in its closet. I think best thing is to recognize it, comes to terms with it and try to move on.

  • tomado

    Mr. Schilling approves of depictions of Japan’s WWII brutality but not of the lampooning of North Korea. Why not just leave personal taste out of it and support free expression across the board? Why the prejudice against comedy anyway? A laugh is as good as a tear!

    • Scott Reynolds

      I don’t really see how a movie reviewer can leave personal taste out of his columns. The whole point of movie reviews is to have the reviewer tell you whether or not he or she likes the film in question, and why.

      • tomado

        Because I believe that people should be allowed to makes and display stuff that I find distasteful.

      • Scott Reynolds

        I agree. My impression is that Mr. Schilling was expressing *his opinion* that The Interview was a bad idea for a movie and shouldn’t have been made in the first place. I don’t think he was advocating that it should be censored.

      • tomado

        Right. He believes the head of SONY should have intervened based on the ideas in the movie. This is not censorship. SONY has the right to do this. I’m against Schilling’s idea. He’s wrong. The only problem with the movie was that it wasn’t funny. I have enjoyed some of Rogan’s movies in the past, though. That’s my opinion. I just hope that people in charge don’t start taking up Mr. Schilling’s idea, (which can be applied to other “offensive” movies as well – think Team America, think The Producers).

      • tomado

        Whereas Mr Schilling believes The Interview should have been nixed by Sony while Jolie’s film should be shown over the objections of the Japanese right wing.

      • Mark Schilling

        I did not say “The Interview” should be nixed. Here’s what I wrote: “This doesn’t mean that companies like Sony and Sony Pictures should knuckle under to a dictator like Kim, but it does mean that they, as well as makers of take-it-to-the-limit comedies, need to understand the possible consequences of certain actions and frankly communicate them.”

      • tomado

        “In retrospect, Hirai pussyfooted when he should have stomped — or at least have stated plainly why he thought Rogen and company were crossing a dangerous line. Would he have been a damper on free, if juvenile, expression? Perhaps. The voice of reason? Most certainly.” Voice of reason means what? Too tactful means what? Well, perhaps I’m misinterpreting what you wrote. Or perhaps, at the very least, your sentiments could be a bit clearer. I didn’t think the movie was very funny. Not as funny as some of their previous work. But it might have been funny. Frankly, when it comes to what’s funny, I trust Rogen more than you or Sony. Sony certainly has a right to make what they want. But I’ll be sad if what you recommend comes to pass.

  • Olivia Underwood

    I’m half Japanese, half British, and I think as it concerns the Japanese, this film obviously must be released there, regardless of whether it will be successful or not. They have a fundamental right to see it and form their own opinions, and it shouldn’t be prevented by right wing extremists. They do not represent the majority of us, and they are sending wrong messages to countries abroad. I’m not a huge fan of this film, besides the politics, I think Clint Eastwood’s two films on the Battle of Iwo Jima were better war films, whereas here it gets a little vague. Some facts are exaggerated, but since it’s not a documentary I’ll let it pass. But I know many japanese people would be offended to hear that the writers of the film thought cannibalism was a part of ancient japanese culture, when it is not, although it certainly did take place during WW2. But despite these pitfalls, there is no question, this must be released in Japan and if Hollywood isn’t confident enough to do that, then they lack faith in their own film.

    • Oliver Mackie

      “I know many japanese people would be offended to hear that the writers of the film thought cannibalism was a part of ancient japanese culture….”

      I have not seen the film nor read details of the plot. I know it depicts wartime cannibalism by Japanese soldiers. The only reference to Japanese culture on this issue I have seen is some Japanese saying that it didn’t happen in the war “because it’s not part of Japanese culture” (which is a weak argument, even though true.) Does the film actually state or imply that cannibalism is part of ancient Japanese culture? If it does, then I would have no trouble with it being banned…..

      • paratize

        I saw the film here in Korea and can’t recall any references to cannibalism.

      • Oliver Mackie

        Thank you for the clarification. I am relieved to hear that.

  • Oliver Mackie

    “And mainstream Japanese may still tell poll-takers they are stoutly anti-war, but they also helped make “Eien no Zero (The Eternal Zero)” — a WWII film whose hero is a self-sacrificing kamikaze pilot — one of the biggest live-action hits of 2014.”

    Pseudo-science of the most laughable kind. You are nothing but a straight-out racist looking for some kind of ‘objective data’ to back up your prejudices. Just can’t trust those Japanese, can you? (Look they tell pollsters what they think they should say, but deep down they’re all war-thirsty thugs….)

    “Old-school rightists, who once looked so isolated and pathetic shouting from their sound trucks, have been joined by legions of “Net uyoku” (Internet rightists)…”

    Legions? Reliable figures put the number at about 1,500, in a population of 130,000,000. The recent petition against the film reportedly secured 8,000 signatures in total, which is half the number the JT-centered petition against Julien Blanc obtained in the space of about a week……..

  • Oliver Mackie

    Seeing as you have deleted my comments critical of the article, I have posted them to Facebook.

  • Oliver Mackie

    But there are not claims that it was part of traditional Japanese culture, right?

  • Saw the film and it is well done. Have also read the book. I don’t think the film is as, this article author claims, one that makes a big statement about Japanese war crimes. It shows one Japanese character as being cruel and that’s about it. It certainly doesn’t paint a flattering portrait of the Japanese, but it also doesn’t try to give the picture of all Japanese prison camps being cruel. It just shows you one isolated situation and it’s up to the viewer to interpret that as a generalization or a one-off. It wouldn’t be well-received in Japan because the underdog and hero isn’t Japanese. Japanese love underdog stories, but not when it’s turned around on them like this.