Last month, this critic was totally manipulated into liking the sports movie The Blind Side. I knew it was a corny movie, but I stand by my review, even if I knew I was being manipulated as it happened.
How did I let that happen? Sandra Bullock and the people behind The Blind Side know a good sports story can rally an audience to their point of view and provide a giant shared feel-good moment. Director Clint Eastwood knew it too while making Invictus, and South African President Nelson Mandela knew it while setting in motion the real-life events that inspired Eastwood’s film.
In the mid-90s, the newly-elected Mandela (Morgan Freeman) still had work to do to unite a divided country. There was considerable resentment among the white minority that this black leader had been elected.
They feared change and resented their new flag. Mandela knew he needed to embrace more than just his countrymen – he needed to embrace the symbols of their patriotism. That included their underdog rugby team the Springboks. The whites cheered the team; the blacks did not. For them, support for the Springboks was support for the old establishment. Mandela reached out to the team’s captain, Francois Pienaar (Matt Damon) and became the Springboks biggest public fan. Invictus, named for a poem that inspired Mandela during his decades-long imprisonment, follows that team from Mandela’s endorsement to the World Cup.
It’s a “big picture” story, and Eastwood shows how the changing country and team affects everyone involved. We see how it affects the team that has to learn a new national anthem while playing in the green colors that still symbolized apartheid to many. We see Pienaar’s family (and black housekeeper) watching the team and the nation change on their TV. And in a well-done subplot, we see Mandela’s security team learn how to become a mixed team of their own: Mandela’s long-time trusted security guards had to work with members of the presidential police they once clashed with.
Freeman anchors the film as the man holding his country. Eastwood has used Freeman in his films before as an outstanding supporting actor (Unforgiven, Million Dollar Baby) and certainly knew he had the right man to play the civil rights giant. Freeman brilliantly combines Mandela’s commanding presence and his compassion. It is wonderful to see Eastwood let his former supporting actor become the man to carry one of his films.
That’s not to say Matt Damon doesn’t do his part as Pienaar, but his character is less impressive. Damon gives a reliable performance, but we really don’t know that much about him before Mandela enters his life. His presidential encounter seems very matter-of-fact, and while we know his father’s politics, we don’t really know his. It’d be nice to know more about such a central figure in the story.
And while Freeman is great as Mandela and Eastwood is great at telling a story, Invictus really only shows us a footnote in Mandela’s history. I can’t help but wonder what would have happened if Eastwood and Freeman had worked on telling some of the much more dramatic moments in Mandela’s life. Eastwood could have done it – he crafted two masterful movies about world events and patriotic symbolism with Flags of Our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima. And while we’re comparing Invictus to Eastwood’s other work, I have to say Eastwood and Freeman collaborated on a better sports movie already with Million Dollar Baby. Invictus is hurt a little bit by its subject. I’m not sure audiences here will completely get into the rugby scenes, which frankly aren’t all that suspenseful. Getting into the drama of those scenes may require a passion for the game.
Still, we can hope American audiences will get behind the movie’s “big picture” message. Listen to the squawking of talk radio on the way to the theater, and you’ll know we’ve got some issues of our own here (whether they’re worth comparing to South Africa’s historical problems, I’ll leave up to you). It’s an inspiring story, and just like Mandela and Eastwood wanted, I bought into it.
