Film review: Invictus

Invictus is Clint Eastwood's latest director, based on John Carlin's book "Playing the Enemy: Nelson Mandela and the Game of Making Nations." The screenplay was written by Anthony Peckham (Sherlock Holmes) and the film stars Matt Damon as Francois Pienaar (the real-life captain of South Africa's rugby team in the mid-1990s) and Morgan Freeman as Nelson Mandela, the country's first black president in the post-apartheid era.

The film tells the true story of Mandela's early years in office as he struggled to bridge the long-standing gap of hatred and mistrust between white and black South Africans. While Mandela was fighting an uphill battle in every aspect of the country and government, Francois Pienaar was trying to lead his rugby team, the Springboks, to some sort of victory in World Rugby. Needless to say, as the film opens up, both leaders are overwhelmed by their unlikely targets.

Mandela noted that his countrymen were as divided about the rugby team as about anything else. Blacks regard the Springboks (and their colours) as the lingering ghosts of apartheid oppression; The whites still cling to their view of the old South Africa and love the Springboks. With the black population now in positions of administrative power, one of the first things they will try to do is replace the Springboks with a new team, which will better demonstrate the changing trends in South Africa. Yet Mandela, ever the wise leader, saw great hope and opportunity in this simple example, where everyone else (even his closest advisers) saw only division and conflict

Instead of dismantling the springboks, Mandela chose to build them: he invited Francois Pienaar to tea in the executive office, where he skillfully probed the young captain until they found common ground in their views of leadership. Mandela did not say so directly, letting Francois know that it was his duty as captain to show the world the true greatness of the new South Africa. Francois took this information into account (along with a Smandela called "Invictus" to share with him) and set about climbing the mountain to win the World Cup.

Depending on what kind of movie it is (in fact it's a true story), you can guess what happened there. Both Freeman and Damon are excellent in their respective roles, with Freeman in particular excelling in his portrayal of the affable yet devious Mandela.

Where things fall short (to me) is in the way of storytelling. Clint Eastwood is an excellent director - I think we can all agree on that now - and a lot of the shots of South Africa, its countryside and its people are very beautiful. However, the story is very clear, because what we get is the slow pace of Mandela and Francois to victory. The whole movie is basically seen as a series of small victories - there's never a single thing that feels dangerous or dangerous. Even when some "curveball" is thrown into the narrative, the problem is ignored or quickly resolved, and we are immediately back to square one, fully aware of our exact location (making the wait more than two hours to get there).

Again, both protagonists are idealized and polished. Francois Pienaar seemed to immediately embrace his role as ambassador of all kinds for the new South Africa, without a word to say. Mandela's only flaw was that he was a workaholic who cared too much about workaholics, with only brief, fleeting glimpses of his troubled personal life. They may indeed be true, but they never feel that way. Instead, the film is a simplified version of an uncertain and turbulent time in the country's history. That kind of national anxiety (surely familiar to us in the modern American context) never really felt the presence of the film. Why tell this story at all? In my opinion, a missed opportunity.

Until the last three times (guess what will happen to), we will see some very cliche topic example, to explain how the South Africa as a nation together (if only for a minute), a warm heart end may make some people left the theatre feeling hopeful, but I wonder about the dark side of the story, the film was apparently. I have to make two minor complaints: the CGI crowd inside the rugby stadium looks very fake, and despite the excellent performance, Morgan Freeman causing lasting damage to his left arm (in a car accident a few years ago) is a very noticeable distraction for me. That is all I have said on the subject.

While a little too warm and feel-good, Invictus is an excellent movie whose lead character gives some strong performances. You'll also get some really good pro football sequences, which may end up (and ironically) being one of the most illuminating aspects of this all-too-familiar story.