Fragile
To be unbreakable is to endure. No matter what. You might bend, you might suffer, you might worry or face what seem insurmountable trials, but somehow, you survive. It's a myth, of course, that a human being might be so absolutely sturdy, but it's a useful myth, replayed again and again in children's stories, movies, and comic books. To be unbreakable is to be heroic, to be so resilient and well-intentioned, so
modest and moral, that you withstand all opposition, no matter how nefarious, mean, or broken.
Unbreakable opens, somewhat ironically, with a scene about breaking. More exactly, it's about the extreme pain of breaking. In a Philadelphia department store in 1961, a child has just been born. In the darkness of the manager's office where she's been ushered for the apparently unexpected event, the mother (Charlayne Woodard) lies to the side, as a doctor (Eamonn Walker) arrives. While the baby screams uncontrollably in his arms, the doctor's face betrays his horror: he asks if the infant has been dropped or mishandled, his eyes growing wider as he looks down at the infant. You can only expect the worst. And you get something very much like it: the child's arms and legs have been broken during the birth process.
Cut to the present day. David Dunn (Bruce Willis) is
embarking on the train ride that will change his life.
It's the train ride that you already know will end in
disaster for everyone but David, because he is the
film's titular character: he is unbreakable, but he
doesn't know this. In fact, he imagines himself as
fragile, miserable, and not particularly honorable.
This point is made subtly. The camera observes David
as he flirts with a pretty young woman seated next to
him, furtively removing his wedding band in order to
do so. The camera peeps at him from between seats,
shifting back and forth from the woman to David,
taking the perspective of a little girl seated in the
row ahead of him: he looks back at her, sad and
busted. But it hardly matters. The train crashes.
These extraordinary first scenes beautifully
composed and quite provocative set up
Unbreakable's dual storylines and shifting rhythms,
as the two protagonists head toward each other, toward
a collision. Like the little girl's point of view, the
film moves between the unbreakable David and the
radically breakable Elijah (Samuel L. Jackson). Both
are tortured in their own different ways. David is a
regular schmoe, working as a security guard at Temple
University's football stadium, fretful about his
future and in particular about his failing marriage
with Audrey (Robin Wright Penn) and increasing
distance from his young son Joseph (Spencer Treat
Jamison). Elijah is a successful comic book art
dealer, world-beatingly wealthy and well-respected,
but ever afraid of physical collapse, due to his
medical condition, osteogensis imperfecta (in a
word: he has brittle bones). He walks with a cane,
wears black leather gloves and jacket, and is
understandably pissed off at the world while also
avoiding interactions that appear even slightly
dangerous.
The very extremity of the differences between the two
characters is surely tantalizing, even if their
combined symbolic weight is heavy the clueless,
seemingly invincible white man and the angry,
vulnerable black man. Their introductions make a
promising start for writer-director M. Night
Shyamalan's new film, who no doubt has been feeling
the pressures of expectations following his super-hit,
The Sixth Sense. Unfortunately, Unbreakable never
really gets out from under these expectations, to the
extent that its structure and themes repeatedly recall
those of the earlier film the meticulously layered
mystery, the Bruce Willis character's domestic crisis,
the new-agey meditations on life and death, the
deliberate pacing and clever camera placements, the
pale wife with precious little to do, the teary young
boy played by an actor with three names (young
Jamison, recently tearful in Gladiator, bears more
than a passing resemblance to Haley Joel Osment).
Though it bears all these surface similarities to
The Sixth Sense, I think that Unbreakable might be
best described as Die Hard for art-house audiences,
and not only because the third film in that franchise,
Die Hard With a Vengeance, also starred Willis and
Jackson. Like its action flick predecessor,
Shyamalan's film finesses a standard good-versus-evil
storyline with occasionally canny characterizations,
ostensibly wily plotting, and Willis's famous smirk.
Put another way, Unbreakable creates concern for
David's eventual fate (even though it's pretty much a
foregone conclusion) by focusing on his human
weaknesses. Because David, unlike Die Hard's
eminently bruise-able John McClane, lacks physical
frailties and so can't display his wounds quite so
dramatically, Unbreakable exploits his emotional
flaws. This means that David is again and again
pondering his place in the world, wondering about his
failures as husband and father, his abandonment of his
early promise as a football player, his calling as a
security guard. That he must confront these issues in
the context of ludicrous plot turns (he pretends to
suffer a serious injury that no one ever notices is
not real, apparently not even his doctor) doesn't help
anything, least of all your capacity to believe in
him.
Most importantly for the film's purposes, David is
contemplating his strangely evolving relationship with
Elijah. After reading about David's miraculous
survival of the train wreck (which kills 131 others
that is, everyone else on board), Elijah contacts him
and explains his interest in David as it is based in
his own condition. Elijah believes that because he has
spent his own lifetime feeling fragile and beset
his schoolmates taunted him with the epithet, "Mr.
Glass" there his opposite must also exist, someone
who is relentlessly hardy, un-sick, and never injured.
Elijah's theory is that David is a real life
incarnation of a comic book superhero who has only to
realize his full potential as a crime-fighter and
moral guardian. Elijah points to David's apparently
unthinking choice of vocation as a stadium security
guard which Elijah terms a "protector" as proof
of David's subconscious inclinations. Though David
protests, this seems only to fuel Elijah's conviction:
the reluctant hero is, of course, the ideal one, as he
doesn't presume his moral (or other) superiority.
The pieces to this puzzle fall together in ways that
are occasionally entertaining and clever: one
well-wrought scene has David and Joseph testing his
super-strength by piling weights onto the bar that
David bench-presses in the basement, with dreary light
and smart shot compositions displaying father and
son's shared anxiety and excitement. But more often,
the movie piles on melodramatic weights (exacerbated
by James Newton Howard's overbearing score), leading
you through David's doubts and thrills, as he begins
to believe Elijah's explanations for his despair and
yearning: he's only been looking for a sense of
mission and people to rescue.
There are obvious issues here, perhaps too obvious to
mention. That it's a black man encouraging this white
savior to discover and pursue his magnificent calling
is not a little disturbing. It's not only that Elijah
is a bitter and isolated man, an obvious product of a
genetic malady and unhappy social conditions: namely,
he's black, grew up in what appear to be projects with
his single mom, is wheelchair-bound after falling down
a flight of stairs (a particularly harrowing series of
shots), and living a solitary life as a result of his
genetic malady. It's not that David is in fact the
perfectly gentle and generous husband, wanting
desperately to make his family happy even as he's
struggling with his own individual, heartfelt
uncertainty. It's not even that Audrey ends up telling
her son to beware this black man, to avoid him because
he's "crazy," or that Elijah's anger (however
well-motivated) is measured against David's persistent
goodness (the guy just can't seem to help but do the
right thing). It's also that these dynamics are so
apparently unconsidered as if the film's
"color-blind" casting has nothing to do with the ways
in which these characters might be apprehended by
viewers or function in the culture at large. And this
is, quite simply, a fatal flaw, especially in a film
that conveys such an apparently earnest faith in the
usefulness of heroic myths generally, and their comic
book manifestations specifically. In comic books, the
characters (heroes and villains alike) have traumatic
backstories that inspire them and clear moral lines
that bind their actions. They're schematic by
definition, their situations carefully coded and
culturally meaningful. Unhappily, Unbreakable's
codes and moral lines are too familiar and too
visible.