Invictus (2009)
It helps to have Nelson Mandela as your main character. The inspiration he provided his country for decades, in and out of jail, is transferred here through a single focus--the national rugby team. In the form of Morgan Freeman, Mandela is made to be as profound and humble as he truly seemed to be, at least as a public figure.
So even if you have troubles with Clint Eastwood movies (they all seem pretty decent, you have to admit, whatever the repeating clichés in them), this one rises above in enough parts to warrant the good attention. Eastwood, to be sure, never appears. This is mostly Freeman's movie, though the other big name is Matt Damon, who is good enough (as usual) in a role that is minor and fairly straight forward, the captain of the team.
The best of the movie is the interpersonal mixing with the political. We get a glimpse (if only that) of post-apartheid South Africa, and of how fractious the scene was. And how Mandela used the mostly white rugby team to represent a new, tolerant country with its new, tolerant black president. It's a clever, clear way to get into that world in a heartbeat.
Where the movie gets most outwardly exciting it gets more ordinary--at the Rugby World Cup. Then it becomes a kind of sports movie where the underdog seems like it really might win. It helps to have the larger themes of reconciliation and Mandela's presence mean so much in it all, but eventually it's all about getting the goal. I was cheering for the S. African team but I was also losing respect for the movie's more interesting (and important) intentions. I know, that makes me seem mixed up, but you might see what I mean when you get there.
Does this sentimentalize the situation? Oversimplify? Make Hollywood and far more interesting and complicated and sometimes unhappy affair? Probably a loud yes on all accounts. But in that sense, it really is a Clint Eastwood film. Well made stuff, but not half what it might have been.
It helps to have Nelson Mandela as your main character. The inspiration he provided his country for decades, in and out of jail, is transferred here through a single focus--the national rugby team. In the form of Morgan Freeman, Mandela is made to be as profound and humble as he truly seemed to be, at least as a public figure.
So even if you have troubles with Clint Eastwood movies (they all seem pretty decent, you have to admit, whatever the repeating clichés in them), this one rises above in enough parts to warrant the good attention. Eastwood, to be sure, never appears. This is mostly Freeman's movie, though the other big name is Matt Damon, who is good enough (as usual) in a role that is minor and fairly straight forward, the captain of the team.
The best of the movie is the interpersonal mixing with the political. We get a glimpse (if only that) of post-apartheid South Africa, and of how fractious the scene was. And how Mandela used the mostly white rugby team to represent a new, tolerant country with its new, tolerant black president. It's a clever, clear way to get into that world in a heartbeat.
Where the movie gets most outwardly exciting it gets more ordinary--at the Rugby World Cup. Then it becomes a kind of sports movie where the underdog seems like it really might win. It helps to have the larger themes of reconciliation and Mandela's presence mean so much in it all, but eventually it's all about getting the goal. I was cheering for the S. African team but I was also losing respect for the movie's more interesting (and important) intentions. I know, that makes me seem mixed up, but you might see what I mean when you get there.
Does this sentimentalize the situation? Oversimplify? Make Hollywood and far more interesting and complicated and sometimes unhappy affair? Probably a loud yes on all accounts. But in that sense, it really is a Clint Eastwood film. Well made stuff, but not half what it might have been.