Invictus (Clint Eastwood, 2009)

Message

exte · #1 Post by **exte** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 5:34 pm

MTV: And you're going to be reteaming with Morgan Freeman, directing him as Nelson Mandela in "The Human Factor"?

Eastwood: Yes, that's something we're talking about doing around the first of next year. Matt Damon and Morgan Freeman. It's a very good script.

Goddamn!

tavernier · #2 Post by **tavernier** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 5:39 pm

Spike's head is going to explode.

#3 Post by **Jeff** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 6:19 pm

Here are the Variety stories on the Mandela thing. There's one from September when the project was announced, and one from earlier this month when Matt Damon joined the cast.

Maybe Eastwood should just make films about important black figures in world history from now on, just to irritate Spike. I'm hoping for:

Code: Select all

Warner Brothers Pictures and Malpaso Productions Present

                  A Clint Eastwood Joint

                      Wayne Brady in

                   THE SPIKE LEE STORY

John Cope · #4 Post by **John Cope** » Sun Mar 15, 2009 4:13 pm

First set pics from The Human Factor.

MyNameCriterionForum · Mon Mar 16, 2009 12:40 pm

Code: Select all

Warner Brothers Pictures and Malpaso Productions Present

                  A Clint Eastwood Joint

                      Wayne Brady in

                   THE SPIKE LEE STORY

Please, this guy's a much better likeness:

JonathanM · #6 Post by **JonathanM** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 12:58 pm

Morgan Freeman as Nelson Mandella.
Ru Paul as his mad wife.

O'Bummer · #7 Post by **O'Bummer** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 9:30 am

Matt Damon 5’10 tops is portraying a man, Francois Pienaar who is 6’3 and weighed over 17 stone in pomp. Damon isn’t even big enough to play a rugby back let alone a forward but credit to him he looked a decent 10 in The Departed.

I guess the rugby is going to be as comical and faux as the boxing in Eastwood’s Million Dollar Baby?

Antoine Doinel · #8 Post by **Antoine Doinel** » Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:46 pm

The film is now officially titled, Invictus.

Antoine Doinel · #9 Post by **Antoine Doinel** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 12:08 pm

The film will open on Dec. 11th.

JonathanM · #10 Post by **JonathanM** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 12:43 pm

If ever there was a piece of casting that had "Magical Negro" written on it.

Freeman's going to have that carved on his tomb stone.

Antoine Doinel · #11 Post by **Antoine Doinel** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 3:54 pm

Before trolling with provocative statements, you may want to familiarize yourself with what the phrase actually means.

#12 Post by **domino harvey** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 4:42 pm

Antoine Doinel wrote:The film is now officially titled, Invictus.

Biggest title downgrade of all time?

JonathanM · #13 Post by **JonathanM** » Sat Jun 06, 2009 4:14 pm

Antoine Doinel wrote:Before trolling with provocative statements, you may want to familiarize yourself with what the phrase actually means.

I know exactly what that term means and I use it very deliberately indeed.

Freeman's made a career out of those kinds of parts in recent years.

As for Mandela, well yes... that is a more controversial application of the term I admit. But I think there's something vaguely Christ-like about the man. Something in the way that he rose to prominence by virtue of being sent to prison by an unjust regime and the way that, under his leadership, post-Apartheid black South Africa effectively turned the other cheek and did not descend into a blood-bath of retribution and political purging. But what makes him something of a Magic Negro is the way that he has provided an easily identifiable and friendly face for racial tolerance. White people can talk about how great he is, go to concerts in the 80s and put up statues of him and in some way he serves as a sticking plaster over centuries of institutional and personal racism - There's a statue of him in Trafalgar square, that must mean that Britain is no longer a racist society right? makes people feel better about crossing the road when black people walk in their direction.

The Magic Negro is always a good man. But he exists in order to make the white folk look good. And I think that a lot of Nelson Mandela's fame is down to that rather than a real understanding or care for what he did in South Africa.

Casting Freeman in that role just makes this aspect of Mandela's public profile seem all the more pressing. Particularly given the charges of racism leveled at Eastwood in the wake of Gran Torino.

So before you accuse people of trolling you might want to think beyond wikipedia searches to a wider cultural and historical perspective.

#14 Post by **Mr Sausage** » Sat Jun 06, 2009 6:45 pm

domino harvey wrote:
Antoine Doinel wrote:The film is now officially titled, Invictus.
Biggest title downgrade of all time?

Certainly the most confusing. How can both "The Human Factor" and "Invincible [Invictus]" apply to the same movie?

Gator · #15 Post by **Gator** » Sat Jun 06, 2009 11:24 pm

JonathanM wrote:Casting Freeman in that role just makes this aspect of Mandela's public profile seem all the more pressing. Particularly given the charges of racism leveled at Eastwood in the wake of Gran Torino.

Antoine Doinel · #16 Post by **Antoine Doinel** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:42 pm

Here's the concept poster art that will hopefully bear no resemblance to the final piece:

And a first look at Freeman as Mandela here.

Gator · #17 Post by **Gator** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:58 am

That's NOT concept art, it's some fan job that's been circulating for ages.

flyonthewall2983 · Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:48 am

Trailer

numediaman2 · #19 Post by **numediaman2** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:26 am

Tomorrow's review today: New York Times

(Hint: it's a rave.)

filmnoir1 · #20 Post by **filmnoir1** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:02 pm

This film like Gran Torino and even his two World War II films allows Eastwood to explore how racism is fostered through the usage of fear at a cultural and institutional level to the point of paralyzing all people. For me this films seems to speak to issues within South Africa, of course, but it also speaks to larger issues that the United States is facing since the election of Obama. As one of the white characters says early in the film about Mandela "he has won an election but now we will have to see if he can govern," in a dismissive tone that is inflected by tinges of racism and a feeling of superiority. However as Eastwood shows from the first shots of the film when we see a road that separates two disparate universes: the world of the white Afrikaneers and their love of rugby and the world of the "Blacks" and their admiration of soccer, these two worlds are divided by hate and boundaries such as the road and the fences that keep the two groups from intermingling. In these brief moments Eastwood sets up the entire film which is a dialogue about the dangers of entrenched ideological positions and how these ideological stances harm everyone involved, even those who believe because they possess all the power that they are safe.
Eastwood uses Mandela's skills as a politician and as a man who understood human nature to show how even bitter rivals and hatreds can be overcome if one recognizes the humanity rather than the actions of those who use fear to govern. The white minority feared that Mandela would allow the "Blacks" to seek retribution but instead he understands that the legacy of South Africa's past has been harmful to all people and instead seeks to create a new South Africa where all people are equal in stature and in voice. To govern from the middle for the greater good is Mandela's strategy and I would argue Obama's because the only way forward is to recognize the past and then attempt to ensure that the future is not tainted with the crimes of previous generations.
For some, Invictus, may seem to be a simple narrative about sport and nation but I believe that Eastwood is using the backdrop of South Africa to comment on the possibilities of a better America and a better world. A world where tensions are played out between the white lines on an athletic field rather than on the field of battle. It is a masterful film and is easily one of the best films of the year and perhaps one of the best of the decade. As Eastwood ages his strident conservative views have been tempered by a sense of humanism and as an artist his work while deceptively simple grows more impressive with each new film. A throwback to the classical Hollywood era, Eastwood may be but there are a lot of young directors who could learn from him if they would only be patient enough. This is a must see film.

foofighters7 · #21 Post by **foofighters7** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:32 pm

I went to this film thinking it would be great.

I was wrong. This is his softest film in awhile.

Great acting, quite an interesting story. Went nowhere and needed some severe cutting.

To me, this film was lacking in many ways.

Matt Damon's character is 2D. I never know what or who he is. They left that untapped.

Morgan Freeman did quite a nice job and although they briefly touched on some deeper things with Mandela, I think they could have did much much more. I realize the film isn't EXACTLY about Mandela, BUT this is the selling point so I expect something deeper.

Editing was terrible. The slow motion at the end was amateur and felt very 'Lifetimey'. It really annoyed me. The final Rugby game dragged on and on and simply went too long. I even like Rugby and this was overkill.

I really feel this film fell quite short of anything great. Sadly, though, I think people will want to love this and give it good reviews simply because of who and what it is about. People want to love this film and I think they are forcing it out of themselves. I wanted to love it. I love much of Damon's work, Freeman's, Eastwood's latest films, and find Mandela's story interesting. I think people are blinding themselves right now.

#22 Post by **domino harvey** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 11:39 pm

foofighters7 · #23 Post by **foofighters7** » Fri Dec 18, 2009 5:15 am

hahahahahaha

Very nice.

No one can say he hasn't played a rainbow of characters.

Caligula · #24 Post by **Caligula** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 8:30 am

I went to see the film Saturday night. Being an Afrikaans-speaking South African, and having a soft spot for rugby (not fanatical, mind you, I don't watch the provincial games, just the internationals) I was curious to see what Eastwood (whose Letters from Iwo Jima and Gran Torino I admired) did with the recent events in this country.

I am sorry to say that I tend to side with foofighters. The film is competent at best, certainly no masterpiece.

The good: Morgan Freeman. He utterly convinced me as Mandela, particularly in the detail like Mandela's manner of speech. The presidential staff and especially the guards are also OK, although the conversation where at a rugby game a black guard asks a white one what has happened on the field (when the electronic scoreboard clearly tells the tale) grates.

The bad: The Afrikaners & the rugby.

As regards the Afrikaners: throwing in a Afrikaans phrase here & there was OK (at least the accents were better than in Lethal Weapon II) but going for Afrikaans with subtitles in sequences like in the Pienaar family household (and on the rugby field between the SA players - the game was very Afrikaans-dominated at the time and Afrikaans is still used on the field BTW to keep opponents in the dark) would have been more convincing, perhaps even emphasized the divide to be bridged. In addition one tires of having the stereotypical dumb Afrikaner who speaks English with a bad accent portrayed as representative of the Afrikaans whites. The sports presenter comes to mind - goodness, he'd battle to find employment at a sports station in this country. The teacher in the beginning who tells his pupils that the country is going to the dogs - with apologies to Peckinpah but I didn't believe a word he was saying. In the same way Pienaar's dad felt like an outsider's portrayal of racism in this country. Make no mistake, it was (and to some extent still is) there, as I've experienced from close family & friends, but the way portrayed here just does not convince.

The rugby: you get an idea of the raw brutality of the game, but no idea of the art or flair. The rugby scenes felt photographed like an American football game. I also had the impression that for every game except the final they used the same referee. Eastwood managed to make us wonder what was so exciting about a tournament that had a whole nation on edge. Nothing is made of the larger than life-characters playing in some of the games (except Jonah Lomu, who played with an "11" shave into his eyebrow, and even with him the first time we hear of him, or the feared All Blacks, is before the final) - the fullback Andre Joubert, who through the tournament became one of the key players in the squad and had a special support made so that he could play the final with a broken hand, to give one example.

History, of course, was a lot mure nuanced. Even at the opener at Newlands against Australia the stadium was packed with faces painted in the new SA Flag's colours. One also finds the likelihood of the presidential staff not knowing of the airliner passing overhead to be a bit thick - it also happened at the opening game against Australia, BTW. Nothing is made in the film of the opening or closing ceremonies, which emphasized the many cultures in our country and the uniting force the game has for the participating nations. Yes, Mandela left a legacy of reconciliation, sadly to a large extent undone by his successors, especially the aloof, distant and race-card playing Mbeki. It was however also on Mandela's watch that the notorious arms deal came into being (The wiki-link is fairly limited, but googling people like Joe Modise, Mandela's minister of defence, or Jacob Zuma, our current president or his financial advisor, Schabir Schaik should give you the info you need). But the film is not about that.

The film is passable - but it could have been so much better.

My two pennies worth.

#25 Post by **domino harvey** » Thu Jan 14, 2010 1:22 am

Blame Daryl Lorrimer for this and other recent Eastwood misfires

Site Menu