I had expectations for "Invictus" from the moment it went into pre-production. With names like Clint Eastwood, Morgan Freeman, and Matt Damon attached how could the film really falter? As it is with most films that are released for award consideration, sometimes prestige trumps layers. This honestly perturbs me to say this about a Clint Eastwood film. Over the last decade or so, Eastwood has certainly created his fair share of films that not only work as great stories, but also explorations into the human condition. Such examples of this would be "Letters from Iwo Jima", "Mystic River", and "Million Dollar Baby". Yet, with Eastwood pumping films out nearly every year, and in some cases two a year, he has seemingly lost his edge. This was evident in both his films from last year, "The Changeling" and "Gran Torino". Without a doubt Eastwood elevated the material in both cases, but both ended up being stilted affairs and lackluster efforts. It's not that the stories weren't present, but they lacked the compassion and direction Eastwood possessed going into them. Unfortunately it gives me great displeasure to say that Eastwood's admirable attempt to account one of Nelson Mandela's greatest moments comes out a little flat.
As expected, the film has great acting. The most praise should be heaped upon Morgan Freeman who by all accounts was born to play Mandela. Aside from being his doppelganger, at least visually, Freeman is able to generate the kind of will and determination that peacefully emanates from the pours of Mandela. I honestly can't pick another actor to portray such an important person. Accompanying Freeman in the ring of great performances is Matt Damon who gives the most physical performance of his career. Playing the role of South Africa's Rugby captain, Francois Peinaar, Damon delivers a performance filled with pride and sweat. He is not only able to capture the characteristics of his historical figure, but also does a fantastic job displaying an honest physical prowess in the Rugby scenes. Yet, the film falters in a department that Eastwood rarely falters in: telling the story. Now the premise of the film, based on real events and non-fiction account of said events, explores Nelson Mandela's attempt to reunite the blacks and whites of South Africa under the support of the nation's Rugby team. Although the wounds are still fresh under the demise of the Apartheid, Mandela puts all of his chips on the idea that the people will come together as one nation to cheer on their team in the 1995 Rugby World Cup.
A gamble that ultimately paid off for Mandela, but never does the film deliver enough context for the event to fully feel like a momentous occasion. Yes, there are moments that set up the ramifications of the Apartheid, but they seemingly only glide over the complications that arose between whites and blacks. In addition to this, there just seems to be a lack of development between the Rugby team Mandela hopes to use as a means for rebuilding a country torn apart. At one moment, the Rugby team seems opposed to Mandela's interest in them, but they end up doing a quick turn and suddenly see it as a golden opportunity. Maybe this is what happened, I don't really know, but never does the team's new found faith in Mandela and their country feel honest. It just seems it had to turn because that's what the film called for. It's this attention to detail and context that really made it difficult for me to catch on to the inspiration. Some will say the film plays out like a conventional sports film, which I don't disagree with, but that's not the problem here. It didn't stunt the inspiration, it was the build up that drained the heart for me.
But the lack of context didn't stay within the conflict between whites and blacks,it also spread through the many scenes that dealt with the Rugby matches themselves. Now, I'm not a purveyor of Rugby by any means and I certainly don't think a film should spell it out for me, but when the film attempts to stir my soul through the use of a match, it better well make sure I understand at least some aspect of the game. Without an understanding of the game, then I'm more caught up in trying to figure out what's going on than I am getting caught up in the game's emotional results. Certainly near the end of the film I was able to figure out some aspects of the game, but I never fully understood it and I never fully got caught up in the rich and historical drama that was generated on the Rugby field. Is this to say that "Invictus" is a bad film? No, it has some grand moments and obviously some terrific performances, but those can only go so far when the story lacks the back story and build up it deserves, especially when said story is based on a momentous moment in a country's tumultuous history.
No comments:
Post a Comment