There are many films that preach the importance of teamwork and the ability to change and forgive. However, it is rare to find a film that actually believes this message. I am ecstatic to write that Clint Eastwood’s latest masterpiece Invictus (Latin for “unconquered”) is one those very special films. In a time when technology seems to dominate the cinema, Eastwood proves all you need in order to leave the audience speechless is a great story and a bit of passion.
Based on John Carlin’s book Playing the Enemy: Nelson Mandela and the Game That Changed a Nation, Invictus is a look at newly elected President Nelson Mandela’s (Morgan Freeman) attempts to bring the people of post-apartheid South Africa together through the Springboks, the country’s national Rugby team. With the assistance of team leader Francois Pienaar (Matt Damon), they aspire to win the 1995 Rugby World Cup Championship.
In what just may be the most obvious bit of casting in the history of the world, Morgan Freeman is nothing short of phenomenal as Mandela. In his third collaboration with director Clint Eastwood, Freeman is allowed to develop the character naturally and it is through simple facial expressions and small details in body language that we are given some insight into the history of Mandela. Sure there are moments where the script portrays Mandela as a god amongst men, but looking into Freeman’s eyes, you see a flawed but brave figure, willing to make the sacrifices to better those around him. In one of the rare times Freeman is given a leading role, he steps up to the challenge and delivers one of the most charismatic performances of his career.
Matt Damon is also very strong as Francois Pienaar, for not only did he need to demonstrate a convincing South African accent but he also is given the difficult task of creating a realistic character arc from hopeless captain to a symbol of national unity. Damon does this and more; bringing the needed grace, confidence and determination to a character that could have been easily overshadowed by the towering presence of Nelson Mandela.
However the magic of this film comes mainly from director Eastwood, who gives the mature, no-bull approach a film like Invictus needs and at age seventy-nine, shows filmmakers half his age how the job gets done. While some may find flaws in the approach towards Mandela’s personal life, I will argue that Eastwood is simply looking at the bigger picture. He does not try to hide his main character’s troubles as some other biographies have done in the past; his past is just an element of a story that is about something much bigger than any single individual. Mandela never attempted to present himself as a saint, but was a man willing to forgive others for so many mistakes. Had the film gone deeply into Mandela’s personal troubles, it would have strayed from the film’s themes.
Overall Invictus is less about the man and more about his message. Personally, I cannot imagine Mandela’s message in better and more honest hands than Eastwood’s. Even when he occasionally indulges in cliché (particularly in the final match, where Eastwood follows Zac Synder’s rule that slow motion makes everything more intense), you never feel as though he is talking down to or manipulating the audience.
It would be easy to call Invictus great entertainment or an Oscar contender, but that would be seriously undermining the power of the film. Eastwood and his amazing cast and crew give Invictus the spirit of a champion. The only way to give the film the praise it deserves is to say that it is a reminder of why we fell in love with movies to begin with.
-John Debono