Biopics about noble leaders of troubled countries (Gandhi) usually focus on said leader dealing with crisis after crisis. This film, about the presidency of Nelson Mandela and how he set out to repair the rift between whites and blacks in post-Apartheid South Africa, chooses the narrow focus of Mandela using his support of the mostly white rugby team, the Springboks, to show goodwill towards the whites and to build unity by supporting the team’s bid for the 1995 Rugby World Cup.
Clint Eastwood’s Invictus is predictable, simplistic, and naively pat, but it is a well-intended drama held together by the performances of Morgan Freeman as Mandela and Matt Damon as the Springbok’s captain, Francois Peinaar.
As Mandela, Freeman imitates the South African president’s slow speech to an irritating extent, and after the first few inspiring speeches his words fall somewhat flat, but Freeman conjures a commanding presence and he portrays Mandela’s enthusiasm for the team and his love for his country genuinely and touchingly.
Matt Damon has that solid, sporty look that works for his character, and it’s hard not to root for him. He shows convincing devotion to his team, and he fits believably into the rough, chaotic action of ruck and maul, and elements of the game that must be totally alien to American audience members: the unique scrum, which is like bighorn sheep butting heads, and the even more unusual lineout (my favorite), when teammates are able to hold a leaping player up in the air so that he can catch the ball being thrown into play.
The film starts skillfully with two parallel scenes of tension. The black head of Mandela’s security is not happy about having to include white members of the police as part of the security force. After all, these are the same police who arrested men like Mandela and his followers. As they go over the president’s schedule, tensely crammed together in a small room, Mandela faces his staff, the white members grumbling about how they expect to be fired. But Mandela’s dramatic speech convinces his staff that they are all needed to guide Africa along a new path.
As politics hang in the background, the film turns into the typical sports movie as the underdog team wins its way to the championship match and, predictably, wins the big one. With all the hackneyed shots of jubilant spectators, the big game is something we’ve seen before, but Freeman’s and Damon’s solid performances made me care about what happened even though I knew what was going to happen.
6 comments:
Nice review. There's something about the self-congratulatory air of Invictus that has kept me away from it. A politicized sports movie? I once tried to play rugby in Virginia, and found that, after a couple painful tackles, soccer suited me better.
Once again, thanks for the link!
FilmDr. - You are most welcome for the links. I always enjoy your blog. It's always very honest and (as far as I can detect) unbiased. I look forward to your comments on Avatar.
I only went to this movie because it looked like it might have an Oscar chance and I wanted to be in the know. Otherwise, it didn't attract me, so I was pleasantly surprised that I enjoyed it - despite its propagandizing and (pun intended) white-washing.
At U.C. Berkeley I used to walk up to the pool in Strawberry Canyon and and they'd be practicing rugby in a nearby field and I'd stop to watch. They always seemed to be in a scrum - and it looked like a tough sport. I'm sure, when they see American football players with all their padding and helmets, they think American football is wimpy. It sure seemed that way from the movie.
I'm getting tired of mediocre movies with good intentions. I'd rather see a movie with bad intentions that's excitingly well-made.
Craig - I'll go for "a movie with bad intentions that's excitingly well-made" any day, too! There just wasn't one playing that Sunday that I saw Invictus. But I know what you're saying.
Ha, I've passively watched rugby at the college club level before as well, and it did also always look like they were in a scrum. Though I have to say, seeing it on the big screen in Invictus I think I understood the game a little bit more than I did before. Still disoriented by that extra time countdown (up?), though.
And I guess I tend to give a pass to mediocre movies with good intentions so long as the intentions aren't completely abandoned. It's one thing if the message is clear though the filmmaking is muddy (Invictus); it's another thing - and possibly worse - if the filmmaking is clear and the message is muddy (Up in the Air, even Precious).
Thanks for the observations, Daniel. I agree with you on Precious - and I haven't seen Up in the Air yet. As for Invictus, in retrospect it's too bad the filmmaking couldn't have been more artful; the message was a good one and an inspiring one. Guess old Clint is getting tired.
Post a Comment