‘Invictus’: Eastwood’s rugby metaphor
Clint Eastwood’s “Invictus” made me ruminate about the difference between great movie-making and great story-telling. I hope to go into that subject at greater length in my blog in the near future.
What struck me about “Invictus” was that Eastwood – nobody’s idea of a flashy or innovative filmmaker – really knows how to tell a story. Eastwood is among the most economical of filmmakers, with little wasted motion and no stylistic flourishes. He’s always all about the story, the action – about telling the tale and getting out of its way.
Eastwood’s film is about a chapter of sports and international political history that few outside of South Africa would be aware of. In most ways, it’s a standard underdog tale, but this one comes with a difference.
That difference is Nelson Mandela, as iconic and heroic a figure as the 20th century produced. As portrayed by Morgan Freeman, he is the guiding hand of this story, a leader trying to figure out how to pull an entire benighted country out of its own shadow.
The film begins with Mandela’s 1990 release from prison after 30 years, then shorthands his subsequent election in 1994 as the country’s first post-apartheid president. He inherits a country still riven by racial strife: an angry, vengeance-bent black majority and a defensive, frightened white minority, out of power for the first time in its history.
Reconciliation and forgiveness are Mandela’s watchwords, the keys to progress for a country that’s been an international pariah for its policy of institutionalized racism. He realizes he needs something symbolic to pull the country together, something that has nothing to do with politics, government or race.
He finds it in the Springboks, the national rugby team. Long a favorite of the white minority, the team is about to host the rugby World Cup, though its own record is so poor that it wouldn’t be invited to the tournament, were it not the home country.
The team is viewed by the black population as a symbol of the past – the team the blacks would root against, simply because it represented the apartheid government. The new black majority is on the verge of changing the team’s name as a measure toward erasing the past – until Mandela steps in.
His reasoning: Changing the name will further deepen the racial rift because it will alienate the fearful white minority, by taking away yet another piece of its history. Rather, Mandela wants the team to keep its name, reverse its playing fortunes and become a cause behind which everyone can unite.
So he enlists the team captain, Francois Pienaar (Matt Damon), inspiring him to not just improve the team but to expand and enhance its public image. That means conducting rugby clinics in the poor townships (which are then covered by TV news) – and it means Mandela himself turning up frequently as a very visible Springbok supporter.
Eastwood finds his tension in the ongoing security concerns about Mandela’s safety. He creates a microcosm of the country’s racial divide within the office of his own squad of bodyguards – half of them his own men, half of them the white officers who protected the previous occupant of the office.
The script by Anthony Peckham sets up the situation with a minimum of fuss, capturing the political struggle and stakes for Mandela without a lot of exposition. Then he turns the film over to the true story of the rugby team in the World Cup games, which couldn’t have been scripted this well and still be believable.
Credit Eastwood with giving his audience the benefit of the doubt as to its own intelligence. It would have been a simple matter to have someone say, “I don’t even know what this game is about,” the cue to thumbnail the rules of rugby.
But Eastwood never does. Indeed, there is a moment when one of the bodyguards says, “I’m a soccer man, myself,” and another where the same character turns to one of his white counterparts during a game and says, “What happened?” “We’re winning,” is the reply. No explanation of rugby’s rules or strategy – just clear-eyed depiction of a game that looks a lot like American football (without helmets or protective padding), except rougher.
Freeman’s Mandela is the guiding spirit of the film: the visionary who understands that no real change happens instantly, no matter how impatient people are. Even massive sudden transitions are the result of years of incremental shifts that lead to that final swing. Freeman, a thinking man’s actor, lets us into Mandela’s head without having to explain what he’s got on his mind.
Damon doesn’t have a lot to do, except be straightforward and earnest: a professional athlete with a brain and a heart, part of a generation that’s been ready for change, if not eager to speak up about it. In this case, actions speak and words don’t have to.
In that sense, “Invictus” is terrific story-telling: spare, evocative and rousing. Its subject may be familiar – until you look below the surface at the depths beneath.
December 9th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Interesting review, but just to let you know that South Africa was, and is, a leading rugby nation and would have been in the tournament regardless of where it was held. I haven’t seen the film, so I’m not sure if it suggests otherwise, but it’s worth clarifying.
December 9th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
>>He’s always all about the story, the action – about telling the tale and getting out of its way.
As are all the truly great directors, from Jean Renoir, Ford, Ozu & Hawks through Hitchcock, to Pedro Almodovar & Eastwood himself, to name just a few.
I think your opening line about the ‘difference’ between great movie making & great story-telling is rather interesting & definitely worth a discussion. You can certainly have movies that are influential in terms of their technique but that doesn’t mean that they’re any good as stories, or even entertaining to watch.
One should never forget that without narrative, or character, or theme, movies are mere technology. It’s WITH story & theme & character that movies become ART &, yes, great movie-making. It distresses me that we live in an age when a filmmaker’s technique - how flashy his style is, how many attention grabbing setpieces he can deliver regardless of whether or not they actually assist the story - is prized above the ability to craft a satisfying narrative. And stories, lest we forget, are what audiences around the world crave.
After all, you offer me a choice between some flashy but soulless bit of technique & a well told narrative in which the director disappears into his story rather than showboat his style or use it to disguise the fact that he doesn’t actually have much of a story to tell - & I’ll pick the latter every time.
I guess that’s why I’ve been a fan of Mr Eastwood for going on 35 years now. Anyway thanks for your review & I look forward to seeing ‘Invictus.’
December 9th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
I am not sure whether it is the movie or your error but you state: “own record is so poor that it wouldn’t be invited to the tournament, were it not the home country.”
That is totally incorrect as SA has always been in the top 5 rugby nations of the world.
The only reason for not participating in previous world cups/qualifying was due to the banning of the team as a result of the Apartheid policy.
December 9th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
According to the film, which is set in 1995, the South African team was on a significant losing streak at that point and would not have received an tournament berth, had it not been the host country. And the boycott of South Africa had been lifted at that point, after Mandela’s release and election and the end of apartheid.
December 9th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
To say that few outside of SA know of this story is I’m afraid not true at all. It may have been a little known event for Americans, but not to many people in the UK, throughout mainland Europe, Australasia, Africa…Also, to say the Boks would not have been invited in 1995 is absolutely wrong. They lost a few games in the early 90s, were not the top team in the world, but were there or thereabouts, as they always have been. It has always been SA and New Zealand vying for the title of greatest team in the world and one of the two generally carries the moniker (SA at the moment for example).
December 10th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
To say this was “a chapter of sports and international political history that few outside of South Africa would be aware of” is stunningly, breathtakingly insular. This was the *World* rugby championship. Millions of people in countries across the globe followed the tournament. The clue is in the word ‘world’. We were aware of its significance, too. It was on the news and everything. But then I guess if Americans weren’t aware of it then it doesn’t count, eh?
December 10th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Mea culpa. Yes, as an American, the world of sport outside of America - particularly soccer and rugby - are terra incognita for me. You’re right; I’m being, as you put it, breathtakingly insular.
December 11th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Just FYI, after the Olympics and the Soccer World Cup, the Rugby World Cup is next in size (in terms of global audience). This is an international event occurring every 4 years, just like the aforementioned Olympics and Soccer World Cup. A worthwhile place to visit is http://www.irb.com, which is the International Rugby Board’s website. On that website all the international rankings are listed.
December 11th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
I’m in the middle of the book that this movie was based on. Assuming it is correct, after the ban against the SA team was lifted, they played NZ (losing one, draw one), then beat Argentina, Scotland, and Wales, before the World Cup. As host team, it’s a moot point whether they would have qualified. Had they played enough to be ranked; maybe not, but they weren’t on a losing streak. But, did the info come from the movie itself, or from the press releases? I hate to think the movie got it wrong. I can see the press release getting more inventive.
As a rugby mom, I am astounded on how little the US knows about one of the world’s most popular sports. Need more movies like Forever Strong and this one to raise awareness.
December 12th, 2009 at 3:18 am
Tom said -
“(SA at the moment for example).”
That’s hardly true after their recent test matches in the Northern Hemisphere. At the moment, I’d put New Zealand, Australia, Ireland, France above them in that order. They are always top 5 though (usually top 3)!
Good review, as you said Eastwood is a great storyteller, and this is a great story. Mandela and Pienaar are both great people, albeit in vastly different ways, and it was great that a sports star could be such a positive role model. I suppose the timing of the release of this film is perfect considering two of the “Gillette 3″, Tiger Woods and Thierry Henry are now both synonymous with cheating, albeit in vastly different ways.
December 13th, 2009 at 4:02 am
Great story and production.It portrays the “happier” days of SA.It is sad to see how SA is now sliding down the tubes due to the unstoppable legacy of corruption that began during the pre Apartheid era.
ex Bok of Indian descent now living in NZ which in none the better.
December 23rd, 2009 at 7:31 pm
You bring up a good point: “Thinking Man” (or people for that matter). I haven’t seen the film, know nothing about Rugby and only what I’ve read in the U.S. news coverage about SA. That being said, and having seen some of Eastwood’s productions, I would rather watch anything he has produced and directed than anything else that Hollywood excretes.
I have always preferred radio drama and books to movie and network TV production (I know, I know “there’s a difference?”) because of the cerebral stimulus they offer. One exception I can think of is the “Poirot” series; excellently written, produced and acted, many of the History Channels productions. Otherwise today’s “entertainment” gives us little mental stimulation. Rather, it relies on “smoke and mirrors” and flash-bang “action-adventure” in order to stimulate the otherwise moldering gray matter of today’s entertainment seekers. That is not to cram everyone into the same category, but the lack of exposure to the arts in general in the public school curriculum in the last 40-50 yrs (and diminishing rapidly)has produced a population ignorant not only entertainment history but of the history that has been “called upon” by producers, writers and directors to create a vehicle that should be informative and stimulating as well as entertaining. Your review of “Sherlock Holmes” is a good example. When I frst saw the ads and trailers on TV I was thinking “HUH?”. Bears no resemblance to what I ever read or about Sherlock Holmes. The assessment is correct: It boils down to one word: “Profit”.