Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Blogs | Writers | Paid | My Orble | Login

Invictus

January 28th 2010 04:35
Clint Eastwood’s admirable, though slightly underwhelming Invictus embarks upon the political and sporting history of South Africa, offering stirring insights into how great men forge a path for their people. There’s no doubt that in Morgan Freeman, Eastwood has an actor who, through the weightiness of his presence, is capable of clarifying blurry historical boundaries and making them plausible to casual audiences. Without him, this film might have seemed like a frail, tainted version of events, serving little artistic purpose. But Freeman commands the screen, filling it with his intimidating presence, and his portrayal of Nelson Mandela probably ranks as one of his finest to date.




Invictus, the title of a William Ernest Henley poem that sustained Mandela through years of acute isolation in his tiny cell, is a tale of those universally nourishing cinematic qualities - forgiveness, unity and vision. There’s nothing grand or operatic in the scale of Eastwood’s film, an adaptation of a John Carlin’s book by Anthony Peckham. Here, history is reduced to a small window of time in 1994 with Mandela overwhelmingly elected President just as the fortunes of the country’s Union team, the Springboks, seem to be at their lowest point.

This was of little consequence to Mandela - never the keenest observer of the sport - who foresaw the possibilities of a greater good feeding off sporting success and creating a metamorphosis in the country’s attitude. Not only would South Africa’s impaired status as a nation begin a rectification in the wake of an unlikely victory, it would also represent a symbolic first step - before the eyes of the world - in wiping away the stains of a long and ugly history stitched together by the inhumanity of Apartheid.


First meeting between Nelson Mandela (Morgan Freeman) and Francois Pienaar (Matt Damon)


Mandela’s first meeting with Springbok captain Francois Pienaar (Matt Damon), an exchange of pleasantries and ideas over afternoon tea, is one of the film’s best. It was here that Freeman’s Mandela really took shape and won me over with his piercing, direct gaze and forceful words, gently imploring Pienaar to see the future as he does; to imagine the broader implications of World Cup success, though seemingly an outlandish pipedream at the time.

Pienaar, a relatively simple man, doesn’t fully comprehend the impact of his visit, but he's clearly able to achieve some meaningful discernment into the unshakeable, persuasive force of Mandela’s personality. A strong recurring theme later in the film makes clear Pienaar’s humbled appreciation of the great man’s ascent to the country’s highest post after somehow triumphing against despair through years of unjust incarceration.

Damon ensures we sees Pienaar as a firm but humble leader. Other than the accent, this isn’t much of a stretch for the increasingly versatile actor, but his physicality helps create a strong aura about the man, making him a credible allay for Mandela’s cause. Tony Kgoroge as the President's dedicated but humourless head of security, Jason Tshabalala, is the best of the support players who mostly fade into inconsequence against the background of the central story.



The rugby scenes themselves aren’t particularly spectacular and I wouldn’t have argued against some trimming of the Cup final itself. Tackling what is essentially an alien pastime to most Americans doesn’t help Eastwood’s attempt to get a feel for the game but considering the outcome’s mostly metaphorical relationship to the plot, he probably wasn’t overly fussed about re-creating reality anyway. Thus, we have bits and pieces of games that look and feel more like simulations pillaged from a video console version of the sport.

This is a flawed though worthy film, which isn't to damn it with faint praise for Eastwood’s economical, well-honed craftsmanship ensures this flows along without missing a beat. Invictus is genuinely engaging and anyone with a natural curiosity for the subject matter will come away with a more expansive conception, at very least, of the almost saintly, benign influence of Mandela and the indelible image of fortitude that will forever be associated with him.









69
Vote


   
subscribe to this blog 


   

   


Comments
6 Comments. [ Add A Comment ]

Comment by Matt Shea

January 28th 2010 04:58
Nice one Dave, and I think we're pretty much on the same page here. It almost seems cynical, the way it engages you with so much ease, but after that I found it lacked any great depth.

Re: the rugby scenes:

Thus, we have bits and pieces of games that look and feel more like simulations pillaged from a video console version of the sport.

Hehe - I had exactly the same thought.

Comment by David O'Connell

January 28th 2010 06:09
True, there's not a lot of depth Matt and a lot of it is probably no closer to the truth than something you or I could make up but there's no doubting Mandela's greatness which is what it's all about in the end. It has its heart in the right spot anyway and it's very easy to watch too.

Comment by Luke

January 28th 2010 10:36
I did a review of this too a few days ago.
I think everyone feels pretty much the same about this one... most people like the idea of Eastwood doing a movie about Nelson Mandela and rugby union so much that they're willing to forgive some of it's faults.

I actually had a dream that I saw Eastwood in my home town and he chatted to me about the making of Invictus for about an hour while he waited for the bus home to America. Lol

Comment by katyzzz

January 28th 2010 20:18
Is that you in the photo there?

Comment by David O'Connell

January 29th 2010 06:29
Absolutely Luke, nothing but noble intentions here and you can't have anything but the utmost respect for anything Eastwood does. Maybe that dream has provided you with a few more insights than the rest of us into the making of the film!

Comment by Luke

January 29th 2010 11:00
I don't think it gave me any insights... for some reason Eastwood filmed Invictus in Australia to save on money and it only took him three months and while he was in Australia he took an 'Aussie'-wife who was a really bogan with a trowel face, and she wasn't happy because he was going home to his real wife in America. He was pretty laid back about the whole situation... it wasn't in the slightest bit realistic.

Add A Comment

To create a fully formatted comment please click here.


CLICK HERE TO LOGIN | CLICK HERE TO REGISTER

Name or Orble Tag
Home Page (optional)
Comments
Bold Italic Underline Strikethrough Separator Left Center Right Separator Quote Insert Link Insert Email
Notify me of replies
Your Email Address
(optional)
(required for reply notification)
Submit
More Posts
1 Posts
6 Posts
6 Posts
510 Posts dating from April 2008
Email Subscription
Receive e-mail notifications of new posts on this blog:
0

David O'Connell's Blogs

I have no other blogs :(
Moderated by David O'Connell
Copyright © 2012 On Topic Media PTY LTD. All Rights Reserved. Design by Vimu.com.
On Topic Media ZPages: Sydney |  Melbourne |  Brisbane |  London |  Birmingham |  Leeds     [ Advertise ] [ Contact Us ] [ Privacy Policy ]