Despite my ferocious adoration of the films of Clint Eastwood, particularly the more recent ones with accomplished cinematographer Tom Stern, Invictus was a film I had avoided seeing, simply due to my complete disinterest in sport and inability to watch it. Finally, however, I was forced to put my dislike aside to get my Clint fix.
Reliving the story of Nelson Mandela's early presidency, Invictus follows the newly elected leader's plan to unite his post-apartheid nation through the country's rugby team, a former symbol of the white oppressors. Collaborating with captain Francois Pienaar to establish the Springboks team as an institution which can be supported by all colours, Mandela sees World Cup victory as a much needed catalyst to healing the wounds of racial segregation.
It is precisely in the above plot summary that one can find what turned me from getting to this film for so very long a time, the unifying power of rugby not something I exactly believed in whatsoever. That said, any collaboration between Eastwood and Stern is automatically compulsory viewing material for me, so huge a fan am I of the sum of their creative visions. And yet, I couldn't help but maintain a scepticism nevertheless. Opening with newsreels covering Mandela's release from prison and election to office mixed with shots of Freeman altered to look like the newsreel footage, Invictus does not dwell on the politics surrounding the election, preferring to begin instead with the new president's first day in office. We immediately see, as perhaps we ought to expect, the theme of race relations coming to the forefront of the film's focus. The presidential guard serves as the primary representation of the changing state of South Africa, the two colours begrudgingly forced to work together and eventually coming to trust, even like, one another. As Mandela comes to have his bodyguards overcome their prejudices and forgive those who did them wrong, so too does he slowly repair his country's damaged state, caused as it is by the distrust of decades of enforced segregation. The first thing to address must surely be the performances. As Mandela's personal choice, Freeman does a very fine job. Not usually much a fan of his roles, I was behind him the whole way. Damon too is on good form, better than I've known him to be in the past (his wonderful performance in Hereafter suggests that he works well with Eastwood). Fortunately for me, the scenes of rugby are minimal, far more time spent off the pitch than on. Now, as someone who really just doesn't get sport at all, I of course had no familiarity with this story, and no idea whether or not the Springboks would emerge triumphant. The fact that I was rather interested to find out says something about the film's tension, though I would be lying if I said I was shouting for them. What is impressive is that through the sweeping crane shots of thousands of faces cheering on their team and the images of black and white united together in mutual hope, I came to understand— if only slightly—why sport can mean so much to so many. And do believe me when I say that that really does say an awful lot.
Though it falls far short of his best work, Invictus is a strong offer from Eastwood. As someone completely ignorant of its subject matter, the fact that I was made to be interested in the match, and even brought to understand the meaning of sport for people, does much to contribute to my appreciation of the film. It may not be a masterpiece, but it makes for some compelling drama.
Reliving the story of Nelson Mandela's early presidency, Invictus follows the newly elected leader's plan to unite his post-apartheid nation through the country's rugby team, a former symbol of the white oppressors. Collaborating with captain Francois Pienaar to establish the Springboks team as an institution which can be supported by all colours, Mandela sees World Cup victory as a much needed catalyst to healing the wounds of racial segregation.
It is precisely in the above plot summary that one can find what turned me from getting to this film for so very long a time, the unifying power of rugby not something I exactly believed in whatsoever. That said, any collaboration between Eastwood and Stern is automatically compulsory viewing material for me, so huge a fan am I of the sum of their creative visions. And yet, I couldn't help but maintain a scepticism nevertheless. Opening with newsreels covering Mandela's release from prison and election to office mixed with shots of Freeman altered to look like the newsreel footage, Invictus does not dwell on the politics surrounding the election, preferring to begin instead with the new president's first day in office. We immediately see, as perhaps we ought to expect, the theme of race relations coming to the forefront of the film's focus. The presidential guard serves as the primary representation of the changing state of South Africa, the two colours begrudgingly forced to work together and eventually coming to trust, even like, one another. As Mandela comes to have his bodyguards overcome their prejudices and forgive those who did them wrong, so too does he slowly repair his country's damaged state, caused as it is by the distrust of decades of enforced segregation. The first thing to address must surely be the performances. As Mandela's personal choice, Freeman does a very fine job. Not usually much a fan of his roles, I was behind him the whole way. Damon too is on good form, better than I've known him to be in the past (his wonderful performance in Hereafter suggests that he works well with Eastwood). Fortunately for me, the scenes of rugby are minimal, far more time spent off the pitch than on. Now, as someone who really just doesn't get sport at all, I of course had no familiarity with this story, and no idea whether or not the Springboks would emerge triumphant. The fact that I was rather interested to find out says something about the film's tension, though I would be lying if I said I was shouting for them. What is impressive is that through the sweeping crane shots of thousands of faces cheering on their team and the images of black and white united together in mutual hope, I came to understand— if only slightly—why sport can mean so much to so many. And do believe me when I say that that really does say an awful lot.
Though it falls far short of his best work, Invictus is a strong offer from Eastwood. As someone completely ignorant of its subject matter, the fact that I was made to be interested in the match, and even brought to understand the meaning of sport for people, does much to contribute to my appreciation of the film. It may not be a masterpiece, but it makes for some compelling drama.