BREAK MOVIE REVIEW: Invictus

I recently saw Invictus and really enjoyed it. I finished the movie and thought, "Wow, this is an awesome film! I will totally get this out again."

I also thought, "I know why this film wasn't hugely popular."

I don't know if it appeared in theaters, but if so, it didn't make the waves of even The King's Speech.

The reason: a lack of a single character arc.

It is an exceptionally well-acted piece. Morgan Freeman is a cultural icon in his own right (even more so, I think, than Matt Damon who has that Gary Oldman-morphing quality), yet I never felt like I was watching Morgan Freeman. Rather, I felt like I was watching a consistent portrayal of Nelson Mandela. (I don't know how accurate the portrayal is since I know very little about Nelson Mandela, but Freeman never broke character.)

In typical amazing fashion, Matt Damon morphed, Gary Oldman-like, into Francois Pienaar. Damon is not only much shorter than Francois Pienaar but ten years older than Pienaar was in 1995. However, Damon really bulked up for the role. He is much more rugby-looking than in the Bourne films. This actually, surprisingly, makes him look younger.

And he does a superb job.

Perhaps too good.

I don't know what Francois Pienaar is actually like, but Damon plays him as a reserved minimalist who remains a reserved minimalist throughout the film. He also plays him as politically flexible but likely due more to his age/generation than anything else.

That is, he plays Pienaar as a person rather than as a character with an arc.

In a way, this is awesome since it is probably more accurate than a film like Remember the Titans where all the close-minded youngsters learn to be open-minded youngsters. However, this lack of arc gives Invictus a documentary, rather than a story feel. In fact, although Invictus more directly explores the political scene, it is much less message-heavy than Remember. This makes it rather relaxing to watch.

The film's political focus is Mandela, and I agree with Freeman et al. that using a specific story, the 1995 World Cup, was a better vehicle for exploring Mandela's character than trying to tell a straight historical biography. However, even with Mandela's character, nothing much changes. We learn a lot about the man; we don't really see any before and after alterations.

The film's change/arc is not to any person; rather, it is to THE COUNTRY. A change that big and abstract is extremely hard to pull off. In fiction-writing, I think it is impossible. Remember the Titans, although based on a true story, focused on one student's change of perspective, the student's girlfriend's change of perspective, and the one coach's change of perspective. Through those specific changes, the viewer saw the bigger historical picture.

In Invictus, the images of national jubilation, although awesome, don't resonate because the viewer isn't invested in any one person.

However, the movie IS worth watching. It keeps the interest. It is a fascinating view of two personalities I, personally, knew little about. (Not to mention a sport that is sort-of starting to make more sense to me.) And it does have an awesome pay-off!

Check back next Friday, June 17th, for our review of "Blink" from Doctor Who, Season 3!