today, i saw....
Invictus (directed by Clint Eastwood)
... and I didn't really like it.
Obviously, blah blah blah, it's the story of the period after Nelson Mandela was elected as South Africa's president in 1994, which shocked the whole white Afrikaner community, and the film is about how he used the common goal of South Africa's winning the World Cup as the means to unify the nation behind the new "Rainbow Nation." It's hard to judge a historical movie for its cinematic values, but here we go. So, normally, I like Clint Eastwood's direction, as in Million Dollar Baby, Mystic River, Changeling, and most recently, Gran Torino, but unlike those others, this film had no singular protagonist. I mean, we spent the same amount of time with Mandela's bodyguards than with him or Matt Damon's character. Without a singular person to constantly follow, I had an incredibly difficult time becoming emotionally invested in the film because I didn't know the personal stakes of the film's main conflict (the rugby match). I suppose, though, that the narrative alternating between various characters could be symbolic of the fact that the true protagonist in the film is South Africa as a country itself, rather than a singular person... Maybe? I don't know.
Also, I really didn't understand who the audience was for this particular movie. If it was supposed to be for just South Africans, then I understand the fact that they never explained how to play rugby, who the different people were on the team and what the background of the country's political and social situation was (save for a few fake newsreels in the beginning). But seriously, for a movie in which the climax occurs during a rugby match, it would have made much more sense to add like 3 lines to the first Act just explaining what exactly the rules to rugby are and how you win, etc. As Americans, though, we have no sense of rugby (or any other sports besides baseball, football and maybe basketball), and therefore, the entire climax was lost on me. There was no cathartic release in the eventual victory of the main characters (the rugby team, at this point in the film). I mean, I could tell by the dramatic music and the intense 10-15 minute slow-motion sequence that this was the final moment of climax, but seriously, my mom and I were sitting there, thinking, "Did they win? Did they kick the ball? Why are they constantly huddled up with the ball outside? What does that mean?" instead of jumping up and down for joy at their winning the match. If this film was meant for an American audience, they definitely should have explained rugby in the first place. It was the same with the South African accent too - we couldn't understand many things the characters were saying and I only figured out that "Bokke" is the Afrikaner word for "Boks," which is the shorthand form for the rugby team's name, when I asked my mom after it was over... It took me out of the film, which is to say that it made me aware of something outside of the narrative, with which, as the viewer, I should be consistently enthralled.
Needless to say, this will not be my pick for Best Picture Oscars, though Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon's performances were both great (despite their respective accents being less than believable)... Anyway, I was just looking at the IMDb page for it and noticed that the person who wrote the screenplay for this is the same person who wrote the new Sherlock Holmes movie that I was really looking forward to seeing. Hopefully, he won't screw that up too!
Stay tuned for more of my reviews - I plan on seeing Sherlock Holmes, Nine, Avatar, The Lovely Bones, A Single Man and I'll also be reviewing Up in the Air, which I saw a few weeks ago with Katie.
-- Maggie
Click to view... and I didn't really like it.
Obviously, blah blah blah, it's the story of the period after Nelson Mandela was elected as South Africa's president in 1994, which shocked the whole white Afrikaner community, and the film is about how he used the common goal of South Africa's winning the World Cup as the means to unify the nation behind the new "Rainbow Nation." It's hard to judge a historical movie for its cinematic values, but here we go. So, normally, I like Clint Eastwood's direction, as in Million Dollar Baby, Mystic River, Changeling, and most recently, Gran Torino, but unlike those others, this film had no singular protagonist. I mean, we spent the same amount of time with Mandela's bodyguards than with him or Matt Damon's character. Without a singular person to constantly follow, I had an incredibly difficult time becoming emotionally invested in the film because I didn't know the personal stakes of the film's main conflict (the rugby match). I suppose, though, that the narrative alternating between various characters could be symbolic of the fact that the true protagonist in the film is South Africa as a country itself, rather than a singular person... Maybe? I don't know.
Also, I really didn't understand who the audience was for this particular movie. If it was supposed to be for just South Africans, then I understand the fact that they never explained how to play rugby, who the different people were on the team and what the background of the country's political and social situation was (save for a few fake newsreels in the beginning). But seriously, for a movie in which the climax occurs during a rugby match, it would have made much more sense to add like 3 lines to the first Act just explaining what exactly the rules to rugby are and how you win, etc. As Americans, though, we have no sense of rugby (or any other sports besides baseball, football and maybe basketball), and therefore, the entire climax was lost on me. There was no cathartic release in the eventual victory of the main characters (the rugby team, at this point in the film). I mean, I could tell by the dramatic music and the intense 10-15 minute slow-motion sequence that this was the final moment of climax, but seriously, my mom and I were sitting there, thinking, "Did they win? Did they kick the ball? Why are they constantly huddled up with the ball outside? What does that mean?" instead of jumping up and down for joy at their winning the match. If this film was meant for an American audience, they definitely should have explained rugby in the first place. It was the same with the South African accent too - we couldn't understand many things the characters were saying and I only figured out that "Bokke" is the Afrikaner word for "Boks," which is the shorthand form for the rugby team's name, when I asked my mom after it was over... It took me out of the film, which is to say that it made me aware of something outside of the narrative, with which, as the viewer, I should be consistently enthralled.
Needless to say, this will not be my pick for Best Picture Oscars, though Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon's performances were both great (despite their respective accents being less than believable)... Anyway, I was just looking at the IMDb page for it and noticed that the person who wrote the screenplay for this is the same person who wrote the new Sherlock Holmes movie that I was really looking forward to seeing. Hopefully, he won't screw that up too!
Stay tuned for more of my reviews - I plan on seeing Sherlock Holmes, Nine, Avatar, The Lovely Bones, A Single Man and I'll also be reviewing Up in the Air, which I saw a few weeks ago with Katie.
-- Maggie