**** (four stars)
Definition of "invictus": from the original Latin-unconquer, unconquerable, undefeated
“Make a stand
Before you fall
Your country needs you
To play football
Wake up,
Can’t you hear the call
All for one & One for all”
-Big Audio Dynamite
“Union, Jack”
“Invictus” opens with a simple and succinct combination of information and imagery that successfully sets up the social-political landscape of South Africa. The date is February 11, 1990. We are witness to two sets of boys, playing rugby amongst themselves, only being separated by fences and the small width of a road. One set of children are White students, behind their sturdy fence, playing on lush and carefully tended green grass. The other set of children are Black, behind a dilapidated chain link fence, playing on sun-drenched dead grass. Suddenly, a motor cavalcade ushering recently emancipated political prisoner Nelson Mandela (portrayed by the always graceful and transcendent Morgan Freeman) interrupts both sets of play; a deft presentation of a seismic act that immediately ushers in the dawning of a new era.
As leader of the African National Congress (ANC), Mandela successfully negotiated to create the country’s first multi-racial elections; another seismic political shift that provided the nation’s majority of Black people the right to vote. After his subsequent election as President in 1994, we are witness to his first day in office and the seemingly insurmountable task of leading a nation and exacting reconciliation and unity across a land torn by Apartheid.
We are next introduced to the eight members of Mandela’s newly integrated Security team, which now consists of Black ANC activists and White Afrikaner police officers that once would have arrested the Blacks or members of their families. Their relationship is forced and tenuous, mirroring the South African society itself, which is consumed with fears of racial unrest and retribution on both sides.
Soon, Mandela emerges with a unique venture to help heal South Africa. He takes a meeting with Francois Pienaar (a strong and solid Matt Damon), the son of racist Afrikaner parents and the habitually disgraced Captain of the Springboks, the consistently losing official South African Rugby team. Mandela instills in Pienaar a mission: to lead the Springboks into competition and ultimate victory in the 1995 World Cup. It is at this particular point where Eastwood brilliantly deviates from the standard Hollywood form and even corrects some typical Hollywood crimes, usually made for reasons of box office commerce. (And I apologize in advance for this somewhat lengthy digression.)
I have long held a contention with Hollywood films that attempt to tell the story of a non-White race or individual yet the perspective is shown exclusively through the eyes of the White lead (i.e. the box office draw). Now, don’t get me wrong. There are several of those films that I have loved and still enjoy including Kevin Costner’s gorgeous Western epic from 1990, “Dances With Wolves.” I have also thoroughly enjoyed Director Edward Zwick’s stellar motion pictures, 1989’s “Glory,” (featuring Matthew Broderick along with Denzel Washington), 2003’s “The Last Samurai” (with Tom Cruise) and 2006’s “Blood Diamond” (with Leonardo DiCaprio); three films which evoke the David Lean epics of the past. That said, my main issue with “Blood Diamond,” as well as movies like “Cry Freedom” and in its own way, the current box-office behemoth, James Cameron’s “Avatar,” is a certain over-reliance of utilizing White actors to tell non-White stories. Honestly, if I am going to see a film about Steven Biko, then why am I forced to see it through the eyes of the Kevin Kline’s journalist, as depicted in “Cry Freedom”? Or how about Director Norman Jewison’s 1999 film, “The Hurricane”? While a good film, which starred Denzel Washington as wrongly imprisoned boxer Rubin “Hurricane” Carter, why did much of that film have to be focused on the viewpoints of the three White Canadians who fight to have him freed? It is as if Biko and Hurricane were sidelined within their own stories.
Returning to Zwick’s “Blood Diamond,” despite DiCaprio’s blistering performance that I could not take my eyes off of, here was yet another story about Africa and the turmoil that directly affects Africans but uses DiCaprio as an audience through-line and insurance for any box-office earnings. I just wanted the film to be about Djimon Honsou’s searing fisherman character and have DiCaprio be the supporting character. I think it would have been an even ore effective film. And I still contend that my enjoyment of “Avatar” would have been increased ten-fold if Cameron had immersed the audience in the world and culture of the Na’Vi from the outset, making his film a more emotionally resonant film for the ages than simply a technical masterpiece.
Again, thank for allowing me my digression as I am getting to the point at hand. In a standard Hollywood version of the subject matter presented in “Invictus,” Matt Damon would not only have been the box-office draw, but he would undoubtedly have been the lead character and provided the full perspective. Nelson Mandela would have been a supporting character at best, and the overall tenor of the film would ultimately have been a by-the-numbers underdog sports epic with the political scenery of South Africa existing only as a backdrop.
However, Clint Eastwood does not make that misguided error in the least. Damon is the supporting character and Eastwood’s focus is placed firmly on Mandela, as well as the people and politics of South Africa and how the Rugby team is used as a political tool to encourage people to rally behind something and unite, while not realizing that they are uniting. A victory in the World Cup is more important than the innocuous act of just winning a game. The win would be used as a symbol of national pride and the first steps a nation can use to heal itself and move forwards. This juxtaposition of perspectives has been an Eastwood trademark as of late, with 2008’s American/Hmong culture clash of “Gran Torino,” and so electrifying in the twin 2006 World War II epics, “Flags Of Our Fathers” and “Letters From Iwo Jima,” which told the story of the war from American and Japanese perspectives. Eastwood’s ability and willingness to view an issue from many vantage points makes for insightful, thought-proving cinema while not lessening any entertainment value and “Invictus” is definitely one of his very best.
There is no one else who could have portrayed Nelson Mandela but Morgan Freeman, as I cannot think of another actor who possesses his level of gravitas and ability to find the humanity within. His Mandela is presented sometimes as a sage, sometimes cryptic yet always loving, patient, and crafty as well as being a savvy politician with a decidedly foxy sense of humor. Freeman embodies his spirit completely. It is a sight to not simply witness but also to feel and he makes Mandela a flesh and blood creation and less of an icon. Yet, there is also admittedly something other worldly about him as every meeting takes on an air of disarming transformation. When Pienaar tells his girlfriend after his life-altering initial meeting with Mandela that he was “the greatest man I have ever met,” you believe every word, as we feel equally transformed. Pienaar’s visit to Mandela’s cell of 27 years provides him with infinite inspiration and purpose to dig deeper within himself and find a strength he otherwise may not have used or even known that he contained. Just watch the short scenes where Mandela negotiates with his staff, or with his Security team, or with patrons at a Rugby match and especially when he shakes the hands of every Rugby player. He addressing the players each by name, and everyone with a kindness meant to show inclusiveness for all who choose to accept it.
Matt Damon provides another effective performance as we view a man at a point where his life begins to carry a newfound sense of purpose and responsibility. He rises to the challenge, inspires others to do the same and takes each moment as one to gain knowledge from. I must also make special mention of two actors completely unfamiliar to me. Tony Kgoroge and Adjoa Andoh, portray the leader of Mandela’s Security team and Chief advisor respectively, in equally excellent performances, as they both portray characters whose own political viewpoints are challenged by Mandela’s urgency for peace.
Aside from Eastwood’s long known history as a Republican, I really know nothing of his personal politics. Perhaps that really is not of any importance as I am reviewing a film and not the man behind the film. Yet, I feel confidant that if his films are of any indication, he is quite possibly a truly fair minded and ethical man. He is matter-of-fact with his presentations, never condescending, never taking leaps into proselytizing. He just gives us the characters, and situations and lets them play out as naturally as possible. Even with “Invictus,” it never feels like a history lesson. We can see people really thinking abut their situations and lives. The game sequences are thrilling with how much is at stake politically. And the themes of forgiveness, as portrayed through the lens of man who forgave the nation who imprisoned him, resonates the most and even gave me much to ponder within myself and my country that I love so much.
Who knows what Clint Eastwood thinks about the current state of American politics. But, somehow I could not help but to wonder if Eastwood’s film is a way of holding up a mirror to ourselves. Often as I watched, my mind traveled back to the night of November 4, 2008 when Barack Obama won the endless, bitter election we had all experienced and became the first Black President in the Unites States of America. I could not help but to wonder as I watched that night, as well as during his inauguration, what may have been going through his mind during those moments. Certainly, there’s the seemingly insurmountable responsibility of handling our devastated economy plus two wars of course, but also attempting to correct some of the historically rooted divisions that run across our great nation. If Mandela was able to find forgiveness and then find himself in the position to lead the country into the beauty of unity and pride, then couldn’t we, the United Sates of America should be able to find it within our deep resolve to pull off the same feat? I think that Eastwood is ultimately showing with this film, to anyone willing to watch and understand, that there are larger, more important issues than party lines and personal politics if we are to prosper and survive. At this course in our history, we are truly on a precipice of renewed unity or eternal division, and the life of our country hangs in the balance.
Nelson Mandela’s empathy and ability to look beyond differences for a larger societal triumph is a lesson we can all gather seeds from as we plant our love of a nation’s potential and utilize incisive tools to gain redemption from our troubled, violent history.
Clint Eastwood’s “Invictus” has closed out his remarkable decade of film in high style as it is easily one of his and 2009’s very best gifts.
No comments:
Post a Comment