Invictus
Two out of three is still a passing grade
Two out of three is still a passing grade
Eastwood, Freeman, and Mandela. When you hear
those three names in the same sentence concerning collaboration in
movies, you get pretty damn excited to see what the results will be.
Just by hearing the first two, one should expect some great outcomes.
But throw in Nelson Mandela, and the expectations rise to exponential
results. Having Matt Damon also be involved is just a bonus. I mean
Clint Eastwood has been involved with multiple Academy Award-winning
films, with at least two of his directing jobs winning both the Best
Picture and Director statuettes (Unforgiven and Million Dollar Baby).
Morgan Freeman has proven time and time again why he is one of the
finest actors of our time. Also, Damon’s career has grown to show a
great deal of range in roles that he takes. That is not to say that
these three fine men are not prone to making lesser quality products,
but they are in the top tier of Hollywood actors and directors. With
that said, Invictus turns out to be one of those lesser efforts, proving to contain too many lofty ambitions for the filmmakers to handle.
Plot Synopsis: The movie sets
off in 1990, with Mandela's release after 27 years in prison back into
South Africa, which seems to be very close to a racial civil war. Then,
we are quickly shown his rise back into power, culminating in his
election as the country’s president. One of the challenges he faces is
that many other members of his party want to dismantle the Springboks,
the South African rugby team, because they feel that the team is
representative of years of white oppression. Mandela, however, sees this
as a fatal political calculation that will further polarize the
population. Realizing the potential for unity if the team (which is only
cheered on by the white minority) steps up their game and wins the 1995
World Cup which will be hosted by South Africa, Mandela sets up a
meeting between himself and the team’s captain, Francois Pienaar. At
first, Pienaar is confused as to the purpose of this seemingly
superfluous meeting, but afterwards he begins to understand Mandela’s
future goals and motives for improving the team. While his fellow
teammates are skeptical and downbeat, especially after a barrage of
losses, Pienaar has faith that he can improve their morale and skill by
the time the World Cup rolls around.
Of the three men I named before, the two that
certainly cannot be faulted for the movie’s shortcomings are Freeman and
Damon. While Freeman was quite an obvious choice to play Nelson
Mandela, he doesn’t slump it like so many other actors that get typecast
in roles. Mandela is not shown as being invulnerable, as evidenced by a
few scenes that showcase the cracks and pressure points in his
personality. There is one particular scene where he is about to go on
his usual late-night walk, but then one of the new guards asks about his
family, which upsets him and causes him to skip the walk. Yet even when
in those times of weakness, Freeman still showcases Mandela’s stern
will and firm grasp of the situation. It’s typical Freeman, but typical
Freeman is still great Freeman. Damon is given the less showy role as
Pienaar, but the dynamic between him and Mandela provides some
compelling viewing. Just as Mandela must try and rectify the splits in
ethnicity, Pienaar must corral his disapproving players into a strong
team force. There’s an excellent scene where Pienaar brings his team to
the prison cell where Mandela was held for so many years. While the rest
of the players look in and walk by, Pienaar takes a moment to step into
Mandela’s shoes and imagine the hardship and trials that the man had to
go through in order to reach his goals, allowing him to realize that he
must do the same for his team. It also helps that Damon is quite good
in the role, both in terms of acting and nailing the South African
accent.
Eastwood, on the other hand, who I still admire
a lot both in front of and behind the camera, doesn’t get a feel for
how to express the full effects and outcomes of the story. One of the
most important aspects, the Springboks’ rise from one of the lesser
teams to World Cup finalists, is woefully shortchanged. There is almost
no development shown as to how the team just suddenly became good and
started winning games. Scenes meant to give depth to Mandela’s
bodyguards instead replace this pretty significant transformation. It’s
an interesting dynamic to show the new, primarily black guards now
having to deal with white guards from the old regime being employed by
Mandela, but it would have been better left as a footnote added to the
big picture, instead of receiving substantial screen time. These scenes
are also the main reason for the relatively slow pace, which could’ve
been improved had they been trimmed or cut entirely. For most of the
running time though, Eastwood’s style, which mainly focuses on the
actors’ performances with little visual flash, is a good fit for the
story. He lets the story breathe on its own and doesn’t always try to
show off….usually. In one instance, an important moment in the final
rugby game, Eastwood suddenly flips on the slow-motion cliché switch to
emphasize the moment. This wouldn’t bother me so much if the slow-motion
didn’t drag…on…for…so…long. Stick with the actor showcasing Clint,
that’s where you shine.
However, it must be said that before that scene
comes, Eastwood puts on a damn good sports game. I’m not familiar with
the rules of rugby, but I was able to pick up on a few by the time the
finale came for me to soak in. It’s a brutal sport, like football
without pads but the same impact of player contact. The fact that the
game hasn’t been shown in dozens of other movies before adds to the
freshness of it, in addition to the hard-hitting direction. But nuzzled
underneath this tale of attempted unification is a message of hope.
While we know that South Africa will not be completely remedied of it’s
racial tension, the filmmakers presents to us a moment in time where
there was the hope of a shared culture, and that these moments can
happen in the most unlikely of places (i.e. rugby). It may not be
entirely successful at telling its story, but Invictus does at
least give us this feeling that these two men (played exceptionally well
by their actors) can hopefully accomplish what they set out to do,
allowing us to cheer whenever they hit the next level.
2.5/4
No comments:
Post a Comment