Review: Invictus
December 13th 2009 22:53
Invictus (Eastwood, 2009)
It’s difficult to put out a film at this time of year. You’re either going to miss the Oscar boat completely, be steering the ship, or, like Invictus, be an undeserving passenger. Invictus is a good film; it’s simply not a great one.
Invictus is based upon the events surrounding the 1995 Rugby World Cup and how Nelson Mandela used this event to unite South Africa. Eastwood’s direction is precise and masterful, as always, yet it’s the outside connotations that cannot be overlooked when discussing the film. Invictus is currently a 78% on Rotten Tomatoes and will most likely be included in this year’s best picture race because it is a) a Clint Eastwood film and b) a biopic. Is it the best film of the yet? Not by a long shot. Is it one of the ten best films of the year? Still no. It’s a shame when a film becomes all about being an Award Contender; that’s exactly what Invictus is.
Certainly, Eastwood did not go into making this film simply because it might win him an Oscar but that’s sadly all one can think of upon watching. The film is crafted in a way that attempts to manipulate and preach to the audience. There are numerous scenes in which drama is attempted in the form of possible assassination attempts. And while that was certainly on the mind of Mandela’s secret service, it works as a manipulative device to the audiences; an attempt to make this film have mystery and conflict. But that’s just the thing, there is no mystery and no conflict. No one believes for one second that a plane is going to crash into Rugby stadium, and (regardless if you know the outcome of the actual events) no one believes this team is going to lose.
Instead of conflict, the audience is force-fed sentimental moments and clichés, such as the scenes during the World Cup as we see shots of random people we’ve never seen before watching the match, some black, some white. The point being: unity. When the Cup is won, there’s a close-up shot of the players’ hands on it: black and white. Then there’s the sentimentalism of the team visiting Mandela’s former prison and Francois (Matt Damon) imagining Mandela in that cell or working outside (these scenes try to tug at the heart-strings but end up coming off as heavy handed and cheesy). Invictus attempts to rouse and move the audience, but never truly does. It unfortunately relies too much on force-feeding its message and using every cliché in the book to do so. Mandela’s concept was a brilliant one. To attempt to unite a nation over a sports team: a team that has stood for apartheid for far too many years. It’s also stirring when one realizes that the man is attempting to reach the Afrikaners, who are the same people that placed him in jail for 27 years. He has no hate, only forgiveness. It lends the unbelievable strength of his character. But do we really need this pointedly mused to us by Francois the night before his match as he looks out his window? Undoubtedly, numerous dramatizations occur, perhaps for more of the film then we're lead to believe.
For all of these reasons, Invictus is simply a good film. The directing is solid but the material is less than engaging. Freeman, however, loses himself within Mandela and you never once believe he’s acting. It’s a stunning performance and deserves without a doubt to be recognized. Damon’s character is sadly underwritten but he does as much as he can with the material. The supporting cast are all good but, again, help to play into the film’s projection of its message and numerous clichés, such as the secret service agents having to overcome their own prejudice and soon bonding, brought together not only by their president, but rugby as well. The rugby scenes are expertly shot and even if you don’t know what’s happening in the game, the scenes will still entertain. The film’s final scenes, however, rely far too much on slow motion, again adding to the cliché checklist. This checklist also includes the usage of overly sentimental and self-aware songs.
Invictus is far from Eastwood’s best film. In fact, in this decade alone the legendary actor/director has made 5 films far more noteworthy. It’s anyone’s guess how the award accolades for the film will play out, but in today’s day and age one hopes a film can earn a spot in the Oscar proceedings because of its substance and merit, not because it simply fits the Academy’s bill.
It’s difficult to put out a film at this time of year. You’re either going to miss the Oscar boat completely, be steering the ship, or, like Invictus, be an undeserving passenger. Invictus is a good film; it’s simply not a great one.
Invictus is based upon the events surrounding the 1995 Rugby World Cup and how Nelson Mandela used this event to unite South Africa. Eastwood’s direction is precise and masterful, as always, yet it’s the outside connotations that cannot be overlooked when discussing the film. Invictus is currently a 78% on Rotten Tomatoes and will most likely be included in this year’s best picture race because it is a) a Clint Eastwood film and b) a biopic. Is it the best film of the yet? Not by a long shot. Is it one of the ten best films of the year? Still no. It’s a shame when a film becomes all about being an Award Contender; that’s exactly what Invictus is.
Certainly, Eastwood did not go into making this film simply because it might win him an Oscar but that’s sadly all one can think of upon watching. The film is crafted in a way that attempts to manipulate and preach to the audience. There are numerous scenes in which drama is attempted in the form of possible assassination attempts. And while that was certainly on the mind of Mandela’s secret service, it works as a manipulative device to the audiences; an attempt to make this film have mystery and conflict. But that’s just the thing, there is no mystery and no conflict. No one believes for one second that a plane is going to crash into Rugby stadium, and (regardless if you know the outcome of the actual events) no one believes this team is going to lose.
Instead of conflict, the audience is force-fed sentimental moments and clichés, such as the scenes during the World Cup as we see shots of random people we’ve never seen before watching the match, some black, some white. The point being: unity. When the Cup is won, there’s a close-up shot of the players’ hands on it: black and white. Then there’s the sentimentalism of the team visiting Mandela’s former prison and Francois (Matt Damon) imagining Mandela in that cell or working outside (these scenes try to tug at the heart-strings but end up coming off as heavy handed and cheesy). Invictus attempts to rouse and move the audience, but never truly does. It unfortunately relies too much on force-feeding its message and using every cliché in the book to do so. Mandela’s concept was a brilliant one. To attempt to unite a nation over a sports team: a team that has stood for apartheid for far too many years. It’s also stirring when one realizes that the man is attempting to reach the Afrikaners, who are the same people that placed him in jail for 27 years. He has no hate, only forgiveness. It lends the unbelievable strength of his character. But do we really need this pointedly mused to us by Francois the night before his match as he looks out his window? Undoubtedly, numerous dramatizations occur, perhaps for more of the film then we're lead to believe.
For all of these reasons, Invictus is simply a good film. The directing is solid but the material is less than engaging. Freeman, however, loses himself within Mandela and you never once believe he’s acting. It’s a stunning performance and deserves without a doubt to be recognized. Damon’s character is sadly underwritten but he does as much as he can with the material. The supporting cast are all good but, again, help to play into the film’s projection of its message and numerous clichés, such as the secret service agents having to overcome their own prejudice and soon bonding, brought together not only by their president, but rugby as well. The rugby scenes are expertly shot and even if you don’t know what’s happening in the game, the scenes will still entertain. The film’s final scenes, however, rely far too much on slow motion, again adding to the cliché checklist. This checklist also includes the usage of overly sentimental and self-aware songs.
Invictus is far from Eastwood’s best film. In fact, in this decade alone the legendary actor/director has made 5 films far more noteworthy. It’s anyone’s guess how the award accolades for the film will play out, but in today’s day and age one hopes a film can earn a spot in the Oscar proceedings because of its substance and merit, not because it simply fits the Academy’s bill.
| 49 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Catherine Stebbins
Cinema Enthusiast
Thoughts from a Cinephile
Thoughts from a TV Watcher
Comment by Cinema is truth
Cinema is Truth
Cinema is Truth