Invictus

I use this movie to wrap up my Apartheid unit in my social studies class.

Leaving the movie description to other more able reviewers, I won't repeat anything. Let me just say I am seeing it for about the fifth or sixth time and my eyes still well with tears of emotion when I see that troubled nation magically changing by the sheer will of the great statesman Nelson Mandela. He managed to draw all peoples together and change the flag and the nation to multi-color, and he managed to win the Springboks over before they won the 1995 World Cup. If I could be granted a wish to have been anywhere in the past 20 years, it would be attending that great game in Ellis Stadium in Johannesburg, the last bastion of Afrikanerdom, just to watch that game, the mighty Springboks versus the feared New Zealand All-Blacks (so named after the color of their uniforms). I'd see the old Boer "bitter-ender" descendants of hard-line Afrikaner voortrekkers playing rugby and fathers and sons of apartheid hugging and being hugged by peoples of all colors and persuasions during and after the game when their countrymen won the World Cup. I'd hear people of all tribes, colors, and religions cheering and shouting Mandela's name and see that game. I'd hear alack, white, and every color of men, women, and children sing "Nkosi Sikelele' iAfrica", the cherished song of black freedom. The film is true to life by director Clint Eastwood. But oh to be in old J'burg just to see the Springboks win the World Cup Rugby and the great president Mandela in his Springbok jersey and cap, smiling from ear to ear, as he presented the World Cup to the Captain of the Springboks, which by his sheer force of will he made the whole country's team, no longer exclusive to Afrikaners.Immediately after seeing this movie I googled Francois Pienaar and got him on You-Tube talking to and about Mandela and ended up buying the book "Playing the Enemy", by John Carlin, which moved me even more. It reassured me of the authenticity of the film. The 'Boks winning that day was the crowning moment for South Africa not just in sporting events but the culmination and beginning of Mandela's "One Team, One Country" idea which both shocked, surprised, and pleased all citizens (mostly themselves) by their own reactions.President Nelson Mandela is played most ably by Morgan Freeman,and in voice, accent, and and gesture--he is authentically Mandela). Francois Pienaar, the Afrikaans Captain of the Springboks is played by Matt Damon (of Bourne fame) with a very authentic Afrikaans accent and a fierce rugby-playing skill, though only 5'11" not 6'4" is very believable and played a strong Captain. He was big in soul and a convincing Captain and you could see Damon was playing great rugby. I'am sure the real Pienaar was pleased. The first meeting between Pienaar and Mandela, like everything in the film, is based on fact. I had no inkling that these incidents had ever occurred. How I managed to miss this is beyond someone who has been following South African politics and reading all she could since the mid-sixties. But this film is about more than a game, it is the magic of Mandela and his shrewd and wise perception that sports can be a uniting force, and he played it for all it was worth, and the beginning of a great, united South Africa came to be, and at a very pivotal point in South Africa's history.Of course there is much more than the Springboks game involved in this film. As in real life, there was more to Mandela's presidency ending apartheid, and his most herculean task was to draw all peoples together in a spirit of forgiveness, redemption, and the Afrikaner Springboks represented all Afrikaners in this effort, and that was key in succeeding. Mandela believes that sometimes in order to create a new nation people have to work with people they don't like, or even trust!In the film, Mandela gives a poem to the Springbok Captain. "Invictus", the famous poem by William Ernest Henley and though it's not mentioned in Mandela's own autobiography or even in the book "Playing the Enemy," Eastwood takes a liberty by making it Mandela's comfort and strength while in prison. It may well have been so, as it is for anyone who lives under such horrible conditions.Please, please, if you like the film, buy the book on Amazon, as well. It is even better to read and savor. I will be reviewing the book as well.

Invictus is a 2009 biographical sports drama film directed by Clint Eastwood and starring Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon. The story is based on the 2008 John Carlin book Playing the Enemy: Nelson Mandela and the Game That Made a Nation about the events in South Africa before and during the 1995 Rugby World Cup.First things first: To describe the first half of ‘Invictus’ as messy would be generous, and because of the subject matter, I think in some ways this is inevitable.‘Invictus’ makes a frugal attempt in combining topics that traditionally have no connection with one another - sports and politics - and as such is put in a position where the journey in making their two overarching stories less than ideal. The trek across this bridge of reconciliation shakes more often that it stands still, and this is reflected in the difficulty ‘Invictus’ has in transitioning between scenes that are seemingly (or, assumingly) dominated by either political matters and those where rugby is intended as the focal point. On one hand this is particularly tactful in that this lessens the chances of having President Mandela’s formal responsibilities as President grossly minimized, but it makes the heart of this story disappear into the background. I dare suggest that ‘Invictus’ fails to feel as cohesive as Eastwood would like us to believe, but is akin to watching two separate stories that just coincidentally happen at the same time.There’s a special something that biographical dramas are meant to have as to appeal with audiences that otherwise wouldn’t care about its subject matter….oh, that’s right, the drama. In addition to operating like a vehicle with no clear sense of direction, ‘Invictus’ also lacks in sufficiently putting the struggles of all parties involved in this film underneath a spotlight that is dignifying and ultimately moving. ‘Invictus’ doesn’t make a move in acknowledging the fact that Mandela wasn’t just considered unfit for office or labeled as unfavorable: there are many citizens in South Africa that would go as far as to call him a terrorist (which, would have justified the vignettes of conversations his bodyguards have in this movie about concerns for his safety). Alternatively, I am also suspicious of the nature in which the popularity of The Springboks seems to be shown as changing overnight given the fact that they A) conceptually represent a time where apartheid was prevelant and 2) honestly weren’t performing partciuarly well to begin with (and, well, does anyone cheer for teams that have a reputation for losing?). I give my appreciation to ‘Invictus’ for making an honest venture in telling a story that is propelled by challenges that are difficult to separate without undermeaning the historical figures portrayed, but I find myself reserving my empathies when they otherwise would (and perhaps, should) flow freely and without constraint.All of my complaints set aside: it is refreshing to note that ‘Invictus’ is a more-than-fair representation of the efforts made by the real-life Mandela to unite a nation where racial tension has pushed it to the very edge of civil war and disruption. His interest in rugby as a tool to potentially unite the people of South Africa isn’t butchered by exaggeration, but even this is compartimilized and presented as what otherwise could be a casual distraction from his expected duties and obligations.In closing: it is clear that ‘Invictus’ intends to be a movie about the difference inspirational leadership can make, but this message is lost in the vignettes of emotions rooted in frustration and hope that are hardly ever occurring simultaneously and are instead awkwardly kept as far away from each other as possible.In theory ‘Invictus’ is meant to be a tribute to a man with a vision for unifying his country but it is unfairly subdued by a genuine disinterest in making this story emotionally compelling. If not for the solid portrayal of Mandela given by Freeman (who knew Mandela in real life) I would be lost in reaching for reasons why a film such as this one should be watched at least once.I would recommend(Just…..not…like…....enthusiastically or anything)

Great movie

The goal of the filmmaker was to tell the story of South Africa after Nelson Mandela was elected President after the overthrow of the apartheid state. He uses the ultra nationalist Rugby team the Springboks, as the vehicle to showcase the transition. While it was interesting to see Mandela the man in action, the narrative is flat and meanders to its predictable conclusion. Clint Eastwood directed and he could have cut 20 minutes of this film and fleshed out the characters of Mandela and Francois Pienaar (the captain of the Rugby team) much more fully. He choose not.

Invictus is a solid movie about Rugby, and acceptance to change. Covering the story of Nelson Mandela's release and electioral win. Then to bring a nation together in one of the biggest sporting events!

Good

Somehow, Clint can't quite put a foot wrong lately, and while this movie does not perhaps match his directorial highs, it's a great solid entry and well worth seeing. But perhaps it's not best served being described as an Eastwood movie - this is Morgan Freeman's film. This is the role he has been aching to play - Nelson Mandela, and Mandela himself said it was Freeman should play him in any movie depicting him.This is not the whole life story of Mandela though, it's a snapshot, used to illustrate the character and charisma of the man. The moment is the 1995 Rugby World Cup, and charts Mandela's conviction that the Rugby was a chance to unite the blacks and whites in a moment of national pride, to finally give truth to his `rainbow nation'. As such, and given the facts are well known, it's a fairly predictable movie - you know what happens. What's more, some of the allegories for the bigger picture - the animosity between the white and black bodyguards breaking down as rugby unites them - are a little too trite. There's a nagging feeling that a bigger more complicated picture is not explored - after all, is South Africa now everything Mandela wanted it to be?Perhaps it's just unkind to complain about these little niggles.. in much the same way that the rugby purists who say the rugby isn't quite right are missing the point. This is about Mandela, and his people, and it tells a remarkable story, no matter how simplified and streamlined it is here. Who could fail but be moved by Matt Damon standing in Mandela's actual cell and start to comprehend what the man went through, and the level of forgiveness he exhibited.Matt Damon does fine, if not inspiring. Perhaps an actual South African actor would have been more convincing.. it's hard not to be constantly aware that you're looking at Damon, not a rugby team captain. His dissimilarity in height and stature to the rugby team captain is well documented, but not that relevant to his impact on screen. Freeman though is... well, just IS Mandela. He inhabits the role so naturally that it hardly seems worth mentioning.. like that's just the way it's meant to be. And the cinematography, particularly in crisp bluray hi-def, is wonderful. And even those rugby scenes.. for the non-purists among you, they do a good enough job of giving a flavour of being in a match, to make the final game a suitable climax. As an aside, let's not forget this is a period movie. And with a clever blend of discreet special effects, clever photography and typically fastidious art direction, the mid 90's are perfectly evoked.Politics are explored, Mandela's character is explored, rugby is explored.. it's a lot to cover. Some elements, such as a deeper understanding of the political context, the solitary black player on the team, or Mandela's home life, are sacrificed as a result of covering so much ground. But it's still riveting viewing, educational and uplifting, and a recommended watch.

Morgan Freeman spielt Nelson Mandela. Mit anderen Worten, einer der wenigen Schauspieler, die ich bewundere, spielt einen der wenigen Politiker, die ich bewundere. Clint Eastwood hat einen packenden Film geschaffen, der zeigt, dass das Ende der Apartheid in Südafrika alles andere als einfach war. Sehr empfehlenswert!

"Invicut" heisst übersetzt "Unbesiegt" und mit diesem Thema setzt sich auch der gleichnamige Film von Clint Eastwood aus dem Jahr 2009.Es ist - trotz Rugby - ein poetischer Film über die Aussöhnung einer Nation.Es ist auch ein Film über die Präsidentenjahre von Nelson Mandela (Morgan Freemann) und beginnt mit dessen Freilassung aus der 17jährigen Gefängnishaft im Jahr 1990.1994 wird er zum ersten schwarzen Präsidenten gewählt, als großes Lebenswerk gilt, das gespaltene Land nach der dunklen Zeit der Apartheit zu einigen.Doch der Hass, manchmal vielleicht auch nur Mißtrauen, ist noch nicht aus den Köpfen der Menschen verschwunden.Im Rugbysport ist Südafrika eine der führenden Nationen, doch Anfang der 90er Jahre läuft das nicht so gut für das Team von Francois Piennaar (Matt Damon).Mandela erkennt sehr schnell die verbindende Wirkung durch den Sprot, doch die tiefe Kluft zwischen Schwarz und Weiß hat bewirkt, dass Rugby von der schwarzen Mehrheit des Volkes immer noch als Sport der Buren und damit der ehemaligen Unterdrücker angesehen wird. Daher will weder das Mitfiebern noch die Identifiktation gelingen.Mandela besucht ein Spiel der Mannschaft. Diesen "Springboks" sollen bei der 1995 stattfindenden Weltmeisterschaft im eigenen Land triumphieren. Der weise Präsident erklärt dies zur Chefsache, auch wenn seine Berater dieses Engagement für den Sport der Weißen eher belächeln, schliesslich gilt es politische Themen zu meistern.Damit unterschätzen sie die Tiefenwirkung, die eine gemeinsame Nationalmannschaft an Aussöhnung bringen kann.Zumal in der Mannschaft nur ein dunkelhäutiger Spieler einen festen Platz hat.Der Präsident lädt den Kapitän der Mannschaft zu Tee ein, was unheimlich Wirkung auf den jungen Mann hinterlässt.Nun wird auch schon mal in die Townships gereist zwecks Imagepflege, durch den Kontakt mit der schwarzen Bevölkerung wächst tatsächlich die Unterstützung für die Mannschaft...Ein Film über Südafrika nach der Apartheit, ein Film über Rugby (der Unterschied zum Fußball kann ein englisches Sprichwort erklären: Football is a gentleman`s game playd by ruffians and rugby ist a ruffianŽs game played by gentlemen), ein Film über einen der wichtigsten Figuren im Kampf gegen den Rassenhass und vor allem ein Film zum Thema "Versöhnung".Dies alles wird von Clint Eastwood perfekt in Szene gesetzt, man muss auch nicht die Regeln des Rugby beherrschen. Ziel ist es, den Ball am Gegner vorbei zu tragen oder zu kicken und dadurch Punkte zu erzielen.Die Geschichte zeigt vor allem, dass durch den Sport, durch die Mannschaft im Volk eine Begeisterung und eine Zusammengehörigkeit entstehen kann, die sich auch auf den Alltag und auf die Zukunft des Landes positiv aufwirkt. Was Südafrika hier erlebt hat, das dürfte in ungefähr mit dem vergleichbar sein, was der 1954er Sieg der Fußball-WM in Bern bei uns ausgelöst hat.Ein guter Film, Eastwood beweist auch im ruhigen, gefühlvollen Fach ein sicheres Gespür.