One of the side-conceits in Ricky Gervais’s The Invention of Lying is that since there is no lying, there can be no fiction.  And if there’s no fiction, every film has to be a documentary.  And since acting is a form of lying, there are no actors – the films consist of someone sitting in a chair reading a book to the audience.

It struck me that Clint Eastwood’s Invictus almost could have been made in Gervais’s world.  If nothing else, it seemed so dull to me that having someone just sit there and read the screenplay to me would not have been much worse.  I am a huge fan of Eastwood’s and I am in the critical minority here, as the majority of critics have heaped praise upon this film.  One question I might ask:  are they really praising the film or are they praising its subject, Nelson Mandela, as well as the fact that Eastwood at 80 is still making films that are mostly worthwhile?

If you’re not familiar with the story, the film is about Nelson Mandela.  It is the first big budget film to be made about Mandela, a man whose life is so inspiring that there will eventually be many more films made about him.  Another question to ask:  with all of the significant events in Mandela’s life, why is a sports movie the first one made?  Mandela, portrayed here by Morgan Freeman, newly elected President of South Africa, seeks something to bring the blacks and whites of his country together, seeks to avoid a racial bloodbath in the aftermath of apartheid and when he notices that South Africa’s rugby team will be competing in the World Cup, decides that this is what he is looking for.   From there, even if you’re not familiar with the history, the film contains no surprises or twists; it proceeds in an orderly fashion from Point A to Point B pretty much the way you expect it to.  And that means that like practically every sports film since time began, the climax of this film is a game.  From Bad News Bears to The Longest Yard to even, yes, MASH – everything comes to a halt, the game is played, the film is over.

Also, I suspect that because Mandela is still alive and still an iconic figure for millions, if not billions, he’s not really allowed to be human here.  He is Gandhi, Mother Theresa and Abraham Lincoln all rolled into one.  That leaves the burden for much of the film to fall on the shoulders of Matt Damon as team captain Francois Pienaar.  Who is also portrayed as an all around good guy without a dark side, just a few doubts here and there. Mandela and Pienaar are not friends (perhaps they became friends later in life, I don’t know) and that means that Freeman and Damon have just a couple of brief scenes together.

There’s just a hint of what Eastwood might have done with different material – the scene where the rugby team visits Mandela’s prison cell is powerful and evocative.  Both Freeman and Damon give strong performances as well.  But in 2009, are we still in a place where Hollywood won’t make a big budget film about a black man unless there’s a white director and a white star attached as well (or, I suppose, if they could have got Will Smith to play the lead)?

I approach every Clint Eastwood film with lofty expectations.   But he’s not necessarily consistent from film to film.  Following 2002′s boring Blood Money, he had a good string of successes up until 2008′s boring and stodgy The Changeling.  He came back from that with Gran Torino, the top grossing film in his entire career.  I feel let down by Invictus.  It’s a genre film that only rises about its genre due to the nature of the material and not because of the film that’s on the screen.  Next one at the gate, Hereafter, a supernatural thriller with Matt Damon.  Perhaps the genre change will help to re-energize him.

Share