In 1994 the world heralded the ascendancy of Nelson Mandela to the Presidency of South Africa, just three years after his release from Robben Island Prison where he was a political prisoner for nearly 30 years. Mandela and the man who freed him, then President F.W De Klerk were awarded jointly the Nobel Peace Prize as the political system called Apartheid was brought to an end.
Outsiders were aware that Mandela's election was not without strife but how close Mandela came to losing his country to racial, civil war is a story stirringly brought to light for the first time on the big screen in Clint Eastwood's “Invictus.” On the surface you might assume Invictus is a sports movie, rugby after all takes a major role, but the real story is about a leader, a politician and a legend.
The Rugby World Cup was less than a decade old when it came to South Africa for the first time. It wasn't really to be all that notable for the South African national team known as Springboks, the team wasn't supposed to go far. Then something extraordinary happened. One afternoon the captain of the team, Francois Pienaar (Matt Damon) received an invitation to tea with President Mandela.
It was at tea in the Presidential palace that Mandela asked for Pienaar's help in uniting the country. How could he do that? Win the Rugby World Cup. From there these two very different men were bound on a journey neither could have expected with Rugby becoming a unifying cause in a country on the verge of being torn apart forever.
Is that dramatic enough for you? Director Clint Eastwood's great achievement in “Invictus” is giving weight to Mandela's decision to make Rugby a political cause. In 1993-1994 Rugby remained a sport beloved only to whites. Mandela made the calculated decision to relate to the white population through Springboks, a decision not at all welcomed by black South Africans who had hoped the team and its green and yellow colors would be banished to history.
Pienaar's challenge is no less dramatic. Mandela made quite clear to Pienaar all that was at stake in this victory and what might happen if their gambit failed. Damon plays the conflict with humble determination. It's wonderfully subtle yet powerful work from the chameleonic Damon whose last role was a pudgy corn company executive.
As one might expect, Morgan Freeman perfectly embodies the man he has been destined to play, Nelson Mandela. As Roger Ebert and numerous others have pointed out, Freeman has been linked to a number of Mandela biopics over the years. Freeman has met and befriended Mandela and that pays off in “Invictus.” Freeman loses himself in Mandela's accent and manner from moment one, easily conveying the charm, savvy and cool of Mandela.
The real challenge for both Freeman and director Eastwood was not deifying Mandela. That has been the tendency of the handful of previous Mandela movies and they have mostly failed for it. Audiences generally agree with Mandela's greatness, his achievements speak for themselves, but the overly reverent approach puts audiences to sleep.
Freeman's take and Eastwood's direction focus on Mandela's humane charms. The soft voice, his frail health, Mandela suffered from exhaustion amongst other ailments from day one of his Presidency. These are not the outsized traits of a deity but the feel of a real, if exceptional, human being. Freeman's performance is so clever and charming that it may seem too small for some, especially those expecting something more sweeping and dramatic.
Sweeping, epic drama is not what you get in “Invictus.” This is not a film that pauses to marvel at its own dramatic importance. “Invictus” deepens and becomes important when we consider what Mandela and Pienaar accomplished. “Invictus” works by letting us weigh the historic importance while the movie focuses on the story at hand. It’s a remarkable work from a remarkable group of filmmakers and one of the best films of 2009.
BYLINE:
Sean Patrick Kernan is a film critic. Check him out at: http://www.myspace.com/number1ramjamfan.
0 comments:
Post a Comment