Invictus
And thus endeth the Racism Is Bad, Mmmkay Oscar trifecta.
…I shouldn’t be flip. It’s an important story. Alas, it’s filmed as just that, An Important Story, and the weight of that responsibility presses all the oxygen out of the movie — ponderous telling instead of showing, an endless denouement that shows us nothing we haven’t seen before and is more a celebration of the film itself for knowing that apartheid is evil than a celebration of, or by, the Bokke.
It also can’t decide if it’s a sports movie or not, and then, in the last half hour, it decides that it is.But it hasn’t explained the rules of rugby, and it solves that problem by inserting expository sequences and VOs, or dialogue from the black secret-service officers a la “Is that good, what just happened?”, or portentous slo-mo.
I wanted to like it; I like Freeman, I like Damon, I like sports-adjacent uplift.And it does do a few bits well: the SAA jet fake-out really worked, and the series of shots of the kid outside the stadium as he and the security team integrate themselves while listening on the radio. There’s a good movie in it; that movie didn’t get made. This laborious, unfocused one got made instead.
It’s not up for anything except acting statues, which it won’t win. Freeman is playing himself, with spotty accent work; Damon’s accent is pretty much flawless, and he’s clearly working hard in the on-field scenes, but this is a by-numbers role that he doesn’t dig into very far — because he can’t.(Can someone explain to me why he didn’t get a nomination for The Informant!? That movie is totally off Oscar’s radar, and I don’t understand why, given some of the garbage on the slate.)
I mostly like Eastwood’s work, in spite of (or, let’s face it, perhaps because of) a certain creaky mawkishness; Invictus isn’t even successfully manipulative. Not a realistic contender, so you’re cleared to skip it.
Death Race 35, Sarah 23; 6 out of 24 categories completed
Tags: bored now Clint Eastwood Matt Damon Morgan Freeman movies Oscars 2010 Death Race
You’ve got me on why no one’s talking up The Informant!, and specifically Damon’s performance in it. Totally underappreciated. He sunk into that role, and it wasn’t just the weight gain or the mustache.
Eastwood is always fiercely loyal to the book he’s interpreting, even when that cuts the narrative and drama off at the neck. As soon as I understood who had made the movie I understood why it wound up being so wrong. Before I realized that I was calling for all the filmmakers to write personal apologies to Mandela.
As I sat SEETHING at the end of this film, my partner hissed at me that if the Springboks hadn’t beaten the All Blacks in the RWC final I would have thought this was the best movie ever made. I’m a Kiwi, I watched the live broadcast of the game in 1995, I cried a lot.
I know ‘Invictus’ was quite heavy-handed (and VERY kind to Francois Pienaar) but it was an important story. I love sports films, I love rugby, and there are so few films made about rugby that I sort of had to love it.
And [interesting factoid] the Springbok jersey has 46664 (Mandela’s cell number) on the sleeve.
This post just reinforces my belief that I am a naive and easily manipulated moviegoer. I liked this movie a lot.
I went in knowing very little about Mandela and nothing at all about Bokke and the game of rugby.
However, I have been in the presence of some other great leaders and prophets in other arenas and I am struck by the resemblance of their visions and dedication and leadership to President Mandela’s. I was also able to feel that same faith and conviction that must have guided and driven Mandela through all those years leading up to this point.
I agree with you that the no-explanation-of-the-game was clumsily handled; if somebody could please explain what the point of the scrum is I would appreciate it. I also agree that the jet at the World Cup caused me to cringe and partially cover my eyes (although I read later that it’s probably the least realistic part of the movie; the plane did fly over but it was planned ahead of time.)
I left with a new appreciation and admiration for the President, a renewed enthusiasm to work against the force of racism, and a sense that rugby just might be a fun thing to watch…I understand we get it on BBC America. :)
Anyway, all this to say, I wouldn’t necessarily say “give it a pass” quite yet. For one thing, I thought the soundtrack was spectacular. I also heard an overarching message of faith and love of humanity that, hokey as it may be, gave me a real lift that has stayed with me since.
One thing I have always loved about Damon is that he gets the accents right. Contrast his southern accent in “The Rainmaker” with…well, just about anyone else’s in anything, and he comes out the winnah. I’ve never heard him hit a false note.
I guess I saw a different movie than you did. I agree it was heavy-handed (particularly the music – that song “Color Blind” was screaming, “Nominate me for Best Song!”), and certainly, Damon deserved to be nominated for The Informant rather than his work here (and I didn’t even like The Informant), but I still liked it. And unlike the other two movies you tie in with this – Avatar and The Blind Side – this doesn’t tell the story of people of color through the eyes of a white person. Pinnear is an important character, to be sure, but he’s not the main focus. And I actually liked Freeman as Mandela – he played him as someone making his way as he went along, even though he did have that principle he was falling back on. It made him vulnerable without overdoing it.
“Can someone explain to me why he didn’t get a nomination for The Informant!? That movie is totally off Oscar’s radar, and I don’t understand why, given some of the garbage on the slate.”
Because the theme of The Oscars this year is “Racism is Bad, Mmmmkay?”
I so agree about The Informant!, Damon was robbed of a nom for that. I think probably it just came out too early. It was an awesome movie. I mean how could a movie with Joel McHale as an FBI agent not be awesome?
Damon does competent work in this but the way it’s written pretty much anyone could’ve played that part. I’m not familiar enough with the South African accent to tell who did it well or who didn’t, but I did notice that Damon’s didn’t slip in and out like Freeman’s.
I’m so with you on The Informant! A brilliant performance that rewards multiple watchings, as you slowly figure out that you as an audience member have been conned in ways you didn’t even know about.
I especially love the scene where Matt, Scott Bakula and that Other Guy are having their first meeting and it looks like the All Midwestern Bad Male Haircut Contest. I gotta say, Bakula was out in front by a street, there.
Absolute agree re: The Informant! I thought Damon would certainly get an acting nomination; I also thought it would get nominated for best score, because (for me at least) the music was such a vital part of the movie.
It’s kind of astounding that Freeman isn’t the front-runner in his category, just because it’s Morgan Freeman Playing Nelson Mandela. Seems like a no-brainer, and yet, no one’s expecting him to win.
I haven’t seen this yet and I’m torn about it. I LOATHE Eastwood’s movies, like, cannot bear them, but I like Freeman, I like Damon and I adore South African music. I see that Eastwood himself didn’t score it, but there’s an “Eastwood” listed on IMDB under Original Music, which gives me pause. I loathe Eastwood’s scores, too.
@Anna: seething because of the notorious Suzie? My Kiwi officemate is still going on about it.
It’s kind of astounding that Freeman isn’t the front-runner in his category, just because it’s Morgan Freeman Playing Nelson Mandela.
It’s more like “Morgan Freeman playing Nelson Mandela doing a Morgan Freeman imitation.” Understand: I love Morgan Freeman. I would plant a row of Oscars in his garden for the “so you go on and stamp your little form, sonny, because I don’t give a shit” line in Shawshank alone. And I don’t envy him this job; to portray Mandela is a big deal, plus he’s given a lot of booming abstracts in place of genuine dialogue.
And he’s not BAD. The movie overall isn’t outright BAD. But I wanted to like it and I wanted it to catch fire. It never does, and it never quite finds a way to make its heroes relatable. There’s some country song that has a line to the effect of “if Achilles hadn’t had his heel, nobody would care much what happened to him” — these real people did not feel real, or realized.
My problem with “Invictus” wasn’t that rugby wasn’t explained so much as it was that the rubgy scenes were oddly edited. I’ve been to a rugby match, and admittedly, I don’t know all of the rules, but I’ve got a rough grasp of the game, and I still couldn’t follow any but the final rugby match. The earlier matches show a handful of random, disconnected plays – almost none of them scoring – and no shots of the scoreboard, so when the ref blows his final whistle, one of the teams puts their hands in the air and says “we won” in the most lackluster of fashions, like the match has less importance than a beer league softball game.
The final game at least showed the scoreboard often, but WAY too many reaction shots. First Eastwood showed the stadium crowd, then the youth loitering around the security team, then at least two shots of people in shantytown bars or families watching at home. If the rubgy scenes had been edited like a typical Hollywood American football movie (scoreboard shots for the earlier games, and showing plays that have a result, other than just picked at random), I think it would have been easier to follow without even needing to explain rubgy itself.
I though Freeman was pretty good, especially when showing how lonely he was without his family, but I did think his South African accent was better in “The Power of One”.
Also, I can’t be the only one who saw the shantytown second unit shots in “Invictus” and reactively started to look for the ship or the “prawns” from “District 9”, am I? I probably should have let more time lapse between seeing those two particular films…
[I haven’t seen this yet and I’m torn about it. I LOATHE Eastwood’s movies, like, cannot bear them, but I like Freeman, I like Damon and I adore South African music. I see that Eastwood himself didn’t score it, but there’s an “Eastwood” listed on IMDB under Original Music, which gives me pause. I loathe Eastwood’s scores, too.]
“Yes to all,” Deirdre. The last Eastwood-the-auteur project that wasn’t a dreary obligation for me to get through was Play Misty For Me (with the future Lucille Bluth, Jessica Walter, as the proto-bunny-boiler), and that hardly counts, since the movie is older than I am. So I’m relieved I can skip Invictus, which looks like category filler.
As to Freeman not being the front runner, I’m sure he’d be brought up as an upset possibility, at least, if he hadn’t won an Oscar (albeit in Supporting) a few years ago. Bridges just has the timing and everything else on his side, although I’ll refrain from saying more until Sars gets around to writing up Conventional Heart itself.
I love Freeman too; I just think it’s a shame that so many know him only for the wise old sidekicks and noble-uplift types. He has such range, and he’s kind of been put in a “genial” box since Daisy. In his first nominated performance, as the pimp in Street Smart, he was genuinely frightening. Without him, no way would I remember that movie, and all I really do remember is the scenes of him terrorizing Kathy Baker and Christopher Reeve, respectively.
As God is my witness: I see Morgan Freeman, I see Easy Reader. Thirty-five years on. I’d go to confession, or do penance or something, but I’m not even Catholic.
As God is my witness: I see Morgan Freeman, I see Easy Reader. Thirty-five years on.
You mean I’m not the only one, Jaybird? Thank GOD. I mean, I’ve seen almost every movie the man has made, but Easy Reader is the one who still lives in my head.
@jlpcubsfan BBC America is showing some of the Six Nations. The next match will be Ireland v England on the 27th. It will either be awesome or terrible depending on if England keep up the pointless kicking.
I haven’t seen the movie, but I’m currently obsessed with rugby so I probably will even though I hate the Springboks.
I really enjoyed the movie although it probably helps that I’m South African. I read the book, though, and a couple of things they changed in the movie really grated. My biggest gripe was, in the book, the Springbok team were really excited about learning Nkosi Sikelele iAfrica. In fact, two players sang in choirs and asked at the end of the singing lesson if they could sing the song to the rest of their team mates. I hate that in the movie, the boks are made out to be complete arseholes about having to learn the song.
Otherwise, I quite enjoyed it. Matt Damon’s accent was close to perfect (there is nothing as cringe-inducing as a bad afrikaans accent- thanks Leo de Caprio in Blood Diamond) and Morgan Freeman didn’t do too badly handling Mr Mandela’s accent. I did wonder how much sense the games would make if you didn’t know anything about rugby.
Invictus? They don’t even know us!
Hahaha – Anna, as a fellow Kiwi I’m right with you! I was sitting there thinking ‘Suzy the Waitress!’ for the entire final game. But my husband is South African and we’ve had that fight too many times before, so I’ve learned to keep it to myself.
I love rugby and have watched a lot of it – the rugby showed in this film was not done well. But I liked the film because I love Mandela and I like the story of how he won over the white population of the country. My husband was living in Cape Town at the time and went to the opening match of the RWC – he reckons that it really was like that and the film hasn’t overstated the sentimentality of the situation at all.