Invictus (2009)

It is  about a country far away and a sport I don’t understand much, but brought tears to my eyes.  Clint Eastwood, at 79, has made yet another amazing film.  Freeman and Damon were solid.  It is about politics, race relations, redemption, and about the wisdom of Nelson Mandela.  Go to watch it. 


New York Times

It may not seem obvious at first, but Clint Eastwood’s
“Invictus,” a rousing true story of athletic triumph, is also that
director’s latest exploration of revenge, the defining theme of his
career. It is hard to think of an actor or a filmmaker who so cleanly
embodies a single human impulse in the way that Mr. Eastwood — from “Pale Rider” to “Mystic River,” from Dirty Harry to “Gran Torino” — personifies the urge to get even.

He has also, of course, taken a critical view of the drive
for vengeance, investigating its tragic roots and terrible
consequences. A movie like “Unforgiven,”
most famously, suggests that violent revenge is regrettable. But
rarely, in the world of Mr. Eastwood’s films, is it avoidable.

“Invictus” is to some degree an exception, a movie about
reconciliation and forgiveness — about the opposite of revenge — that
gains moral authority precisely because the possibility of bloodshed
casts its shadow everywhere. The film, based on John Carlin’s book
“Playing the Enemy,” takes place in South Africa in the mid-1990s, just
after Nelson Mandela’s
election as the country’s first black president. Many of the whites in
the film — most of them Afrikaner nationalists still attached to a
system that kept their black compatriots poor, disenfranchised and
oppressed — brace themselves for payback as Mandela assumes power.
Quite a few of the president’s black supporters expect it, too, as
their due after decades of brutality and humiliation under apartheid.

But Mandela, played with gravity, grace and a crucial spark of mischief by Morgan Freeman,
knows that score-settling would be a disastrous course for a new and
fragile democracy. Passing by a newsstand on the morning after his
victory, he spots a headline in Afrikaans. He has shown that he can win
an election, it says, but will he show that he can govern? His
bodyguards bristle at a pre-emptive low blow from a hostile press, but
Mandela shrugs. “It’s a fair question,” he says.

And a perennially urgent one in any democracy. Mr. Eastwood
and the screenwriter, Anthony Peckham, are too absorbed in the details
of the story at hand to suggest historical analogies, but “Invictus”
has implications beyond its immediate time and place that are hard to
miss. It’s an exciting sports movie, an inspiring tale of prejudice
overcome and, above all, a fascinating study of political leadership.

But much of the ingenuity in Mr. Freeman’s performance lies
in the way he conveys that idealism and the shrewd manipulation of
symbols and emotions are not incompatible, but complementary. Taking
power a few years after being released from 27 years of incarceration,
Mandela is already a larger-than-life figure, an idol in South Africa
and around the world. His celebrity is something of a burden, and also
an asset he must learn to use; his moral prestige is a political weapon.

But he is preoccupied, to the dismay of loyalists in his
movement, with finding some kind of concord — not friendship,
necessarily, but at least a state of non-enmity — with the people who
hate and fear him: the whites who see him as a terrorist, a usurper and
a threat to their traditions and values. Mandela’s overtures to the
Afrikaners — starting with his refusal to dismiss white members of the
presidential staff and security detail — arise partly out of Gandhian
principle, and partly out of political calculation. They are a powerful
force in the army, the police and the South African economy.

Mandela’s aides — in particular Brenda Mazibuko (Adjoa Andoh)
— are baffled when he takes up the cause of the South African rugby
team, a symbol of stiff-necked Afrikaner pride despised by most blacks.
The team’s Springbok mascot, named for a kind of gazelle, and its
green-and-gold uniforms are nearly as loathsome as the apartheid flag,
and when Mandela insists that the colors be retained, it seems almost
like a betrayal of his life’s cause. South Africa, a pariah in the
world of international sports for a long time (“the skunk of the
world,” as Mandela puts it), is preparing to host the Rugby World Cup,
and Mandela decides that if the nation is to find unity and
self-respect the underachieving Springboks must win the championship.

And so an alliance develops between the president and
François Pienaar, the Springbok captain, played with crisp, disciplined
understatement (and utter mastery of a devilishly tricky accent) by Matt Damon.
Pienaar’s struggle to keep control of his team, and also to persuade
them to accept some perplexing new social realities, is a microcosm of
Mandela’s larger project. And he quietly accepts Mandela, who shares
with Pienaar the Victorian poem that gives the movie its title, as a

Beyond the politician, Mr. Freeman and Mr. Eastwood allow us
glimpses of a complicated and somewhat melancholy man, carrying the
loneliness of his long imprisonment with him and estranged from much of
his family. He is gracious and charming in small groups, a stiff but
compelling public speaker and a boss whose authority is buttressed by a
phalanx of devoted, sometimes skeptical aides.

But if “Invictus” is predominantly an absorbing character
study of one of the most extraordinary characters of our time, it is
also fleshed out with well-sketched minor players and subplots that
illuminate the progress of racial rapprochement in its comic human
dimension. The black bodyguards and their white colleagues proceed from
hostility to wary tolerance to guarded warmth in a way that is pointed
without being overstated. And that, for the most part, characterizes
Mr. Eastwood’s direction, which is always unassuming, unhurried and
efficient. In this film he tells a big story through a series of small,
well-observed moments, and tells it in his usual blunt, matter-of-fact
way, letting the nuances take care of themselves.

And once again, as in “Letters From Iwo Jima”
— a tragic rather than heroic inquiry into the nature of leadership —
they do. “Invictus” is more sprawling than that film, and more willing
to risk hokiness. That is a chance Mr. Eastwood is often happy to take,
and no genre is more susceptible to it (or earns it more honestly) than
the victorious-underdog team-sports movie. That the sport is as alien
to most Americans as it is to black South Africans presents its
challenges, but by the end you might care about rugby more than you
thought you would, even if it remains harder to understand than

The convergence of the two provides an occasion for some
potent, intelligent filmmaking — a movie that hits you squarely with
its visceral impact and stays in your mind for a long time after.

“Invictus” is rated PG-13 (Parents strongly cautioned). It has some swearing, the threat of violence and brutal sports action.


Opens on Friday nationwide.

Directed by Clint Eastwood;
written by Anthony Peckham, based on the book “Playing the Enemy” by
John Carlin; director of photography, Tom Stern; edited by Joel Cox and
Gary D. Roach; music by Kyle Eastwood and Michael Stevens; production
designer, James J. Murakami; produced by Mr. Eastwood, Lori McCreary,
Robert Lorenz and Mace Neufeld; released by Warner Brothers Pictures. Running time: 2 hours 14 minutes. WITH: Morgan Freeman (Nelson Mandela), Matt Damon (François Pienaar) and Adjoa Andoh (Brenda Mazibuko).

This entry was posted in Cinema. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s