“Invictus,” the new bad movie from Clint Eastwood, perpetuates the soggy myth that decades of virulent racial distrust can be overcome if everyone roots for the same sports team. In this case, the team is the 1995 South African rugby team that represented the post-apartheid nation during the early years of Nelson Mandela presidency.The film gives the impression that Mandela had little to do except offer benign encouragement to the almost all-white team (there was a single black player) while gently extolling the black majority of his nation to support the team. Prior to the end of apartheid, the rugby team was viewed as a symbol of the apartheid regime – to the point that many blacks traditionally rooted against them.
And that’s pretty much what “Invictus” is all about – Mandela gently prodding the team to work harder and play stronger while the once-fractured nation finds a way to common ground in cheering on the team. There is no spoiler in announcing the end result is telegraphed long before the film reaches its midway point.
But who was the nation rooting for? Outside of the team captain played by Matt Damon (sporting bleached blonde hair and a phony Afrikaaner accent) and the sole black player, it is hard to imagine what they are thinking – “Invictus” never gives the individual players any personality to stand out. Furthermore, the team often sneers at the racial harmony that Mandela is trying to instill; one scene, where the players refuse to learn the indigenous African language lyrics of the country’s new national anthem, suggests these guys were not deserving of any hero worship.
As Mandela, Morgan Freeman functions as a South African version of Charlie Chan, spouting fortune cookie-style wisdom in an appropriately wily manner that disarms the racial agitation of black and white foes alike. It is a one-dimensional caricature that reimagines Mandela as a sports-happy old codger, and the only attempt to give him depth comes in a fleeting reference to the failure of his marriage to Winnie Mandela.
As the team’s captain, Damon is little more than a buff mannequin who is carefully posed to represent the idealized post-apartheid white South African who is not terrified of black leadership. He manages to ignore the racist babble of his father and teammates, but he is too bland to inspire any admiration.
“Invictus” betrays all of the problems inherent to Eastwood’s directing efforts: a ponderously overlong production (the 134-minute film could easily have been trimmed by a half hour), murky cinematography (at one point, Damon is filmed in a shadowplay that makes him look like he’s sporting a black eye), a distracting out-of-place music score and a sense of clumsy self-importance that grows worse with each new reel.
The film also carefully obscures the significant failures of the Mandela presidency. Brief glimpses of headlines talking about rising crime rates and a visit by the rugby team to a ramshackle township offer a reminder that Mandela’s leadership skills could only achieve so much. Whenever these hiccups of reality permeate the film, it is easy to understand why Mandela’s staff was impatient with his focus on rugby and not the serious issues that dominated (and continue to impact) his country.
In the end, the 1995 rugby team’s achievement, not unlike a typical Hollywood movie, offered little more than an entertaining distraction to a dismal world. Sadly, “Invictus” offers little more than a dismal distraction.
"Invictus"
2009, Rated PG-13, 134 minutes
Directed by Clint Eastwood, starring Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon
Released by Warner Bros.
5 comments:
Some of your comments on the cinematography are valid but I would suggest you stick to a review of the film instead of trying to comment on whether it was a proper reflection of the time in South African history. Your opening paragraph and other comments makes me seriously wonder if you have ever been to South Africa and/or whether you followed the news in 1994/1995. Apartheid had only just come to an end and the ANC had only come into power a year earlier. Its ridiculous to expect the different races to lay down their differences overnight. It was Mandela's approach and definitely the winning of the world cup that helped pave the way towards reconciliation. I agree South Africa still has very far to go but it was a start.
Your clever post modern language and cynicism does a great job at dismembering a fictional story. But this isn't one. If you were telling it, how would you have portrayed the experience of this series of events? What would you have emphasized? What would you have left out? It is a story after all of rugby and reconciliation. The movie implies that a person either knows the context or needs to research it. On the surface, without context, your criticism is probably valid. But, I am one who left South Africa because I was fearful for my family, didn't want to go to the townships with the SADF and saw the writing on the wall for explosive violence after the 1987 election. I have returned to live after 15 years away. Not easy times, but there is no doubt in my mind that Nelson Mandela's understanding of his people as well as the Afrikaner, made it possible for me to return. He did it. It is a new South Africa. He did forgive and then with tact and assertive respect he called people to live by their higher values. Living here I experience both failure and success of the struggle to change oneself. Mr Mandela connected people first. Political analysis reflects on institutions and uses statistics to condemn or praise regimes and governments. Your view of his government probably fits the stats, but where is your view on reconciliation? You have focused on who 'roots' for whom, who is the hero, maybe even what makes a hero and the one dimensionality of the story. This story is less about those concerns. It explores how historically powerful and opinionated groups - cultures, were able to reconcile differences and live together - with their many imperfections and their many strengths too. It just turns out that this part of their journey has a Hollywood ending ..... life can be stranger than fiction. And in this sense - it brings real hope to humanity. Your cynical appraisal has been an opportunity for me to clarify this for myself. So thanks!!
Your clever post modern language and cynicism does a great job at dismembering a fictional story. But this isn't one. If you were telling it, how would you have portrayed the experience of this series of events? What would you have emphasized? What would you have left out? It is a story after all of rugby and reconciliation. The movie implies that a person either knows the context or needs to research it. On the surface, without context, your criticism is probably valid. But, I am one who left South Africa because I was fearful for my family, didn't want to go to the townships with the SADF and saw the writing on the wall for explosive violence after the 1987 election. I have returned to live after 15 years away. Not easy times, but there is no doubt in my mind that Nelson Mandela's understanding of his people as well as the Afrikaner, made it possible for me to return. He did it. It is a new South Africa. He did forgive and then with tact and assertive respect he called people to live by their higher values. Living here I experience both failure and success of the struggle to change oneself. Mr Mandela connected people first. Political analysis reflects on institutions and uses statistics to condemn or praise regimes and governments. Your view of his government probably fits the stats, but where is your view on reconciliation? You have focused on who 'roots' for whom, who is the hero, maybe even what makes a hero and the one dimensionality of the story. This story is less about those concerns. It explores how historically powerful and opinionated groups - cultures, were able to reconcile differences and live together - with their many imperfections and their many strengths too. It just turns out that this part of their journey has a Hollywood ending ..... life can be stranger than fiction. And in this sense - it brings real hope to humanity. Your cynical appraisal has been an opportunity for me to clarify this for myself. So thanks!!
from the posters its obvious who's the hero. why choose a story that focuses on rugby so much. maybe because it was an almost all white team?
"The rebellion against apartheid should not have been about rainbows - accommodating the 10 per cent of the population who were white - but about freedom for the majority of South Africans. They live in abject poverty today."
Easy to carp cynically on the sidelines. That S. Africa has not overcome the history of colonialism and apartheid should be obvious to anyone and to have expected it to happen in short order would be naive. That Mandela's graceful leadership is the difference between S. Africa and Zimbabwe should also be obvious to anyone.
If the movie is a caricature of Mandela then his autobiography is also a caricature, for in that book one captures the same essence of Mandela's commitment to healing versus evening the score. That is what makes Mandela the greatest international leader since Gandhi and also give S. Africa a shot at escaping the in human chaos that is the legacy of all to many nations in Africa that have escaped the yoke of colonial oppression.
Post a Comment