The power of sport

Rating: 8/10 (17 February 2010)

To make a good sports film you need a top class director, talented actors, and a theme that is more then the sport. Invictus is a film with ambitions of not just telling the story about how South Africa won the Rugby World Cup in 1995, but also about the early days of Nelson Mandala's presidency and the importance of the events for the new South Africa.
In 1994, Nelson Mandala (Morgan Freeman) is elected to be president of South Africa. Mandala starts a reconciliation process, after members of former Apartheid government to remain in their jobs if they wanted to. He also brought in members of the Apartheid security services to act as his bodyguards with his ANC bodyguards. Despite these efforts and his popularity, he still needs to find of uniting Black people who do not want Mandala to sell out and ensure he can provide on issues like crime, housing and social cares, whilst to reassure the White population that he isn't going to attack them and wants them to be a part of the new South Africa, and wants them to contribute. Mandala sees the best way to unite the nation is by sport, a weapon that was used against the Apartheid government with a boycott. South Africa had been picked to host the Rugby World Cup. But the South African rugby team, the Springbok, are unfit, lack experience and lack support of the Black population. They are calls to rename, and change the colours of the Springbok. But Mandala prevents this, and he asks the team's captain François Pienaar (Matt Damon) to inspire his team.
This is two films in one, a political film/bio-pic about Mandala trying to change South Africa and avoid either one race dominating the other, and of course a sport film about how an underdog defincing the odds. It took great skill by the screenwriter Anthony Peckham and the director Clint Eastwood. The political story is the most interesting aspect, with Mandala doing a forgive and forget reconciliation process, similar to Konrad Adenauer in West Germany after the Second World War. The ideas is for successful transition a government then you need to keep the same structure and allow professional civil servants to remind in their positions. Compare this to Post war Iraq where all the government system was dismantled, and all Ba'ath party members were executed from system, and helping turn that nation into right royal mess. There is also a financial reason why Mandala wanted to win over the whites, because they controlled the purse strings of South Africa, and also control the police and army. Mandala is shown to be a very intelligent man, who calmly argues his case and goes against easy political populism because he wants to improve South Africa for the long team. But he is also a man with family troubles and health issues, but wants to do the best for his country. The World Cup story is about how the underdogs of the whole tournament won, beating the likes of France and Australia. Pienaar and Mandala have to lead the team both on and off the field against tough competition. Their efforts help unite the nation. This is a cleaver film that tells this story. Fans of political films will like it. Fans of rugby will like it.
As well as the story, there are two great leads, Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon. Morgan Freeman is the only Hollywood actor who could Mandala, having both the look, and the acting talent. He plays Mandala as an intelligent, insightful man who is committed on improving his nation. He is quick witted, and they is a tragedy about his family problems. Freeman does do the Mandala voice well most of the time, but there are some moments where his voices slips into sounding like Red from the Shawshank Redemption. Matt Damon also does a good job playing a man who is less insightful, but a good sportsman and a good leader. He is one of the few White South Africans who isn't hostile to Mandala's presidency. Matt Damon builds up really well to play a professional rugby player, and does a believable South African accent. It's a shame there wasn't more of him in the film.
Clint Eastwood is obviously one of the best directors in Hollywood, having directed films like Unforgiven and Letter from Iwo Jima. But I think his direction of this film would be no different to any decent director, particularly the political scenes. But the rugby scenes are very good, from feeling like you are either in the stadium, watching from the stands, to being in the heart of the action. For an American Eastwood has a good understanding of the sport. I also liked that he casted former Bath player Zak Feaunati as Jonah Lomu.
Whilst the film is a very solid piece of work and people will enjoy it, there are some minor criticisms. The antagonism between the black and white bodyguards felt too staged, too Hollywood. It should have been less arguments, but more bitter. There also the Hollywood cliché of the guards overcoming their dislike for each other, playing rugby and again feeling staged. They were also some other moments that are hard to believe like a black boy listening to the World Cup final with the police on their car radio. Mandala also seemed a bit too obsessed with Rugby, seeming like he didn't govern on other important issues, and also skirted over issues like Mandala health and family problems. The film was also ignoring that there are still problems with South African sports, with rugby and cricket being played mostly by white people, whilst football (or Soccer to my North American friends) is seen as the black people's sport.
This is a good, entertaining film, with two good leads who deserve their Oscars nods, but it's not Clint Eastwood at his very best.