Clint Eastwood’s “Invictus,” naively inspirational, annoyingly simplistic, and overly clichéd, details former South African President Nelson Mandela’s attempt to unite his divided country, shortly after the end of the apartheid system of racial segregation. To heal the nation, Mandela (played by Morgan Freeman) turns to the South African rugby team in hopes that they will end their losing streak and, in the process, unite and inspire the country.
“Invictus,” much like the country it depicts, is divided into two combating parts. The film starts as an interesting, although somewhat dry, examination of political idealism and how it intertwines with various racial issues. However, as the film progresses, screenwriter Anthony Peckham loses sight of Mandela’s politics, instead opting for cliché sports scenes which trivialize the weighty political issues the film beautifully illustrates in its first half.
Thus, while the film does an admirable job of showing one unconventional way in which Mandela dealt with healing a divided nation, it simply does not go far enough. A game of rugby can put a dent in the nation’s healing, but it does not have the power to solve all the country’s problems unequivocally. A country cannot just cheer its problems away with a rousing rugby game. The issue of race relations, especially after a severe oppression, is much more complex than that.
“Invictus,” much like the country it depicts, is divided into two combating parts. The film starts as an interesting, although somewhat dry, examination of political idealism and how it intertwines with various racial issues. However, as the film progresses, screenwriter Anthony Peckham loses sight of Mandela’s politics, instead opting for cliché sports scenes which trivialize the weighty political issues the film beautifully illustrates in its first half.
Thus, while the film does an admirable job of showing one unconventional way in which Mandela dealt with healing a divided nation, it simply does not go far enough. A game of rugby can put a dent in the nation’s healing, but it does not have the power to solve all the country’s problems unequivocally. A country cannot just cheer its problems away with a rousing rugby game. The issue of race relations, especially after a severe oppression, is much more complex than that.
Anthony Peckham’s script is certainly not aided by Eastwood’s direction, which sentimentalizes and gives into nearly every sport cliché in the book. From constant slow-motion to incessant cheering, Eastwood loads on the cheese to an insufferable degree. During these sports sequences, tedious, trite, sentimental images replace the steady, quiet direction of the film’s first half.
The film’s last half also reduces most of the film’s ensemble to cheering spectators, no longer taking any active action to heal the country. For example, Morgan Freeman, the star of the movie, speaks no more than ten words in the film’s final forty-five minutes. Freeman fares well in the rest of the film, and so does Matt Damon as rugby star Francois Pienaar, but neither seem as emotionally connected to the material as the rest of the cast, which is comprised of mostly South Africans. Adjoa Andoh’s performance as Brenda, Mandela’s secretary, is particularly outstanding. Andoh paints Brenda as a woman who realizes both Mandela’s strengths and weaknesses and is not shy about correcting him when needed.
It’s a wonderfully detailed performance, but, like much of the good things in “Invictus,” it disappears in the film’s second hour.
C
1 comment:
Post a Comment