Ryan McNeil
It’s possible that nobody in Hollywood wants to see this decade end less than Clint Eastwood. The man has been on a bit of a hot streak for the last eight years, and is responsible for two of the very best films of the era. His latest offering is INVICTUS, a film whose title suggests courage and determination. Such qualities are indeed on display in this tale of Nelson Mandela and South Africa’s Springboks rugby team. The film won’t be mentioned as one of the decade’s best, but it serves as a solid capper to a fine decade of work by Dirty Harry himself.
The film begins in 1994 as Nelson Mandela (Morgan Freeman) takes office as president of South Africa. His position is a strenuous one, as he stands as a beacon of change. The Apartheid Era is over, and while Mandela was voted in by an overwhelming majority, there are many in South Africa who do not want him as their leader.
At the same time, the country is gearing up to host the 1995 World Cup of Rugby. Rugby is religion to many South Africans, though with the way the Springboks have been playing lately, there hasn’t been a whole lot to get religious about. Captain Francois Pienaar (Matt Damon) is trying his best to rally his troops, but apathy seems to have taken over the dressing room. As he watches a friendly match between South Africa and England, Mandela sees an opportunity, but for his idea to have any success, he’ll need Pienaar’s help.
Seemingly out of the blue, Pienaar is invited to the President’s office for tea. When he meets Mandela, the reason for the summons becomes clear. Mandela thinks the country can, and will, rally around The Springboks’ World Cup run. But national pride will only generate token interest. For people to truly believe, Mandela needs Pienaar to rally his teammates…to lead by example, and strive for greatness.
It’s almost difficult to believe that after twenty years, this is the first film about Nelson Mandela. I dare say it won’t be the last, as it doesn’t spend too long focusing on the true determination of his story. The story doesn’t get too far into his imprisonment, we know that he was a detainee, but we’re never given a clear picture as to why. Likewise, we don’t see too much of Mandela trying to govern his newly reunited nation. Instead, the film focuses on his efforts to inspire the rugby team to greatness. This aspect of Mandela’s presidency, is a detail even the film rolls its eyes at – which is a rare bit of cinematic honesty.
Eastwood’s direction seems to get complacent at times, and it really costs the film from elevating itself into something truly great. There is at least one horrible music cue that completely jars you out of the film’s journey, which is unfortunate since it feels like a smack to the head reminding us that what we’re watching is important. Likewise, it must have been Clint’s first time using a crane camera – there’s no other explanation for the vast amount of sweeping aerial shots of the stadium and the crowd. Hey Clint – I’m invested in what’s going on in the game, not in getting a great view of everyone at the game.
These missteps hold the film back from becoming something truly great. They are somewhat compounded by the unlikely, and cliche trajectory of the Springboks’ World Cup run. However, one cannot fault the movie too much for such a David & Goliath narrative, since events really did play out that way. While a South Africa would continue struggling to heal, grow, and prosper after the 1995 World Cup run, it did nonetheless inspire the feeling of national jubilation and unity depicted onscreen.
Make no mistake, this is very much a rugby film…but the rugby plays a big part in the larger story at hand. What INVICTUS does best is take Mandela’s rugby obsession, and show us how astute a move it actually was. The man inherited a mess, not the least messy part of which was a lingering race division. What Mandela understood quite early on – and what INVICTUS wants to remind us of – was that sports can unite. Even if it’s only for a short while, national sports can both take our attention away from the problem at hand, and give us renewed effort to solving it.
I wanted to get to watch this this weekend but got talked into seeing Blind Side instead *ugh*. I know I would enjoy this, it just screams Uni all over it! Great review.
I am far from the biggest supporter of Eastwood's Great Oscar Grab of the 21st Century, but this film, ironically the one that looked like it would piss me off the most (an inspirational sports movie AND a racial drama? God, kill me now), and it ended up being my second favorite work of his this decade past the masterpiece Letters. The music is just awful, some lines are way too on-the-nose, but this gets him back on solid ground after the bloated Changeling and the borderline-embarrassing Gran Torino, which I love for all the wrong reasons in its astonishing absurdity. Freeman gave his best performance since Shawshank and proves that he isn't just some guy to add gravitas as as supporting character: he can lead with the best of them.
Still not sold on this film yet, but I may have to break down and see it anyways. I am starting to wonder if Eastwood is the new Scorsese? In the sense that every picture he makes people automatically scream Oscars. I really enjoyed Letters from Iwo Jima, Unforgiving, Mystic River and Million Dollar Baby but his other directorial efforts have not been as strong as people claim them to be.
On a side note, I enjoy the way your reviews are written, never found them to be too wordy. Though I guess you have to please the Twitter base as well.
@ Univarn… How the heck did that happen? my condolences. You still have two weeks to see it before our podcast, so rest easy – it ain't going anywhere.
@ Jake… Yeah – that's what I think is most impressive, is that the film succeeds despite details that would sink most films. I'm not ready to put it on an MYSTIC/MILLION/IWO JIMA level, but it did move me nontheless.
@ CS… Hype or no, it's worth seeing. get out to give it a look in the next few weeks.
As for my writing style, thanks for the encouragement, but allow me to fill you in. A while ago, I was talking with a few people about my reviews, and they mentioned that it might be worth skipping the synopsis and jumping straight to my reaction. I argued that the way I summarize the plot is part of my reaction, but thought I'd put it to a vote.
I did a post, asking readers if they thought I should keep the summary or ditch it. Responses came back six for and six opposed (thanks for nothing!0.
So this is just me tinkering with something new.
I actually noticed something that I went back and added to my review: Eastwood's films since the 90s have often been about deconstruction of some sort (tearing down his own mythos in Unforgiven and Gran Torino, deconstructing directors with White Hunter Black Heart), and this seems to be about deconstructing the race movie. It's something I was getting at but didn't flesh out before I posted the original form of the review: when the Springboks go to the black area of town to teach fundamentals to the kids, it's a feel-good moment. Then, we cut to Mandela watching the same thing on TV and commenting on its political worth. In that moment, Mandela is like a director, watching footage he knows is going to win him points with critics. I can't believe that Eastwood, who's been mugging for Oscars the entire decade, was the one to so slyly mock the conceit of Oscar-baiting race dramas.
We have to wait another two months for this one. It was supposed to come out over Christmas but has been put back. I don’t know if you know the history of the film, it is more Morgan Freeman’s project than Clint Eastwood’s. He purchased the rights to the book and cast himself in the part; he also acted as executive producer.
I was 19 when the film was set and remember watching the rugby world cup; it was really special sporting moment. I am not a huge rugby fan – football is my game – but I tend to watch internationals especially the world cup. It was an exciting time, we (England) had lost the final to Australia in the previous competition four years earlier and quietly fancied our chances this time around. The team to beat was New Zeeland with Jonah Lomu looking unstoppable. True to form Lomu was devastating in the semi scoring four tries and we were knocked out. When it came to the final nobody expected South Africa to win making the result truly unbelievable.
as Fands says, we on the other side of what the French call 'L'Atlantique' have to wait a while longer for this one.
On the writing style Hatter, you dont need to give people the option of skipping some of your copy – thats good s**t you write there!
keep it up.
@ Jake… Damn – that's quite an observation! I might well be tempted to edit my review and add that in had I come up with such insight after the fact.
@ fandango… Sorry to hear you have to wait for it, but look at the the bright side – you get to buy a copy of MOON before we do.
I know precious little about rugby, except that The All Blacks are a constant powerhouse. So I came into this movie pretty blind. When I did some reading after seeing the film, I was rather interested to see how faithfully this movie plays out.
@ Ross… should be worth the wait. Thanks for the boost to my writing style, I just thought I'd experiment on a few pieces to appease the pleebs.
As a rule of thumb if I am reviewing a big film that everyone else is writing about I do very little on the plot or synopsis as I figure whist readers may want to hear several opinions of a film they don’t need to several accounts of what it is about. If I’m reviewing a lesser known film that reads wound know much about I will explain what’s going on in more detail. I don’t follow a strict formula with my reviews, I don’t know if this is good or bad. As for your reviews I agree with Ross (as always!), I like what you have to say and value your opinion I say stick with whatever you are comfortable with.
With regard to rugby New Zeeland are generally considered the team to beat but they haven’t won the world cup since the 1987. ’95 was supposed to be their year, it was the first time South Africa were allowed to play following the end of apartheid. I don’t know how much of this was covered in the film.