Last week saw the release of Clint Eastwood’s latest film Invictus, an historical biopic of Nelson Mandela set against the backdrop of the 1995 rugby world cup, starring Morgan Freeman as the man himself with Matt Damon as springbok captain, Francois Pienaar. As this is not necessarily a review I’ll keep the background and plot points to a minimum as this can be found practically anywhere. What I do want to do is analyse the film and the issue of historical film in general. Essentially the film is a failure and here is why.
The biggest problem with Invictus is that it neither follows a convincing historical narrative nor presents itself as engaging drama. In order for it have some sort of historical credibility it needs to form some kind of argument. Its not that the film has any overt anachronisms as such; however it simply packages what the audience knows and perceives of the man and throws it back at them. After watching the film I feel no differently about Nelson Mandela or South African history than I did before, there is no in depth exploration of the social situation underlying the need to win the world cup and only basic ideas are flagged: Nelson Mandela had a hard time in prison, South Africa’s struggle with the legacy of apartheid etc but these ideas are not explored in sufficient detail to create some form of argument. Historical narratives work best when we know the outcomes, once we are not relying on unfolding drama, as an audience, we are able to explore the events which lead to the finale. The problem lies herein; the fact that South Africa won the Rugby world cup in 1995 is pretty much common knowledge and while not forwarding some form of historical narrative the film also fails dramatically because of this knowledge. The extended rugby scenes hold little tension and essentially seem to be a little self-indulgent. I don’t particularly have a problem with using history for dramatic purposes however the film sits in some form of pointless middle ground. For those who are aware of the events surrounding the 1995 world cup there is little historical exploration but there is also a concession for those who don’t. The film needed to consistently follow a historical or dramatic narrative and ended up following neither.
Clint Eastwood has always been a director who works with large brushstrokes and this black and white approach made Gran Torino an outstanding, compelling and enthralling drama. This approach doesn’t quite fit the mould with Invictus though, and coupled with the presumed ignorance to rugby for an international audience creates scenes where events are explained directly through the dialogue rather than being fully developed and suggestive. For instance, a scene where the Springboks are sent into poor townships to bring rugby to the black community should explore the issues involved with this. In reality though this just serves as a beginners guide to rugby for those who may be clueless. Furthermore, the events of the world cup are explained to Mandela and to the audience by the discussion of a wall chart placed within his office. It must be noted that I am not challenging the right of Clint Eastwood to make this film. There has much discussion over a Hollywood version of a South African story however the moment we enable a monopoly of representation on history is where self serving and teleological histories begin to occur. Clint Eastwood has every right to provide his interpretation of South African history; it just happens that he doesn’t do a particularly good job of it. When Invictus is looked at years to come it will hopefully tell us a great deal about the way in which Hollywood views the current world climate however we will need to wait for this interpretation to become fully apparent.
If Invictus isn’t a success, which films have tackled history more successfully? I would suggest Paul Greengrass has provided two of the more important historical documents in recent times with Bloody Sunday and United 93. Both these films helped to bring about some form of resolution to an aggrieved community by sufficiently providing historical explanation and honouring the memory of those involved in these events. These films are closer to successful documentaries than they are narrative films and this is what makes them so harrowing yet enthralling to view. Another successful recent example, and another representing the troubles in Northern Ireland, is Steve Mcqueen’s directorial debut Hunger. Examining the 1981 IRA hunger strikes, and in particular, Bobby sands, the film investigates Police Violence, the morality of hunger striking, and the causes and effects of these actions. It was certainly not IRA propaganda as some members of the press suggested and is one of the clearest historical films in recent years. If these three suggestions seem a little miserable then Frost/Nixon is the best recent film to use history for dramatic rather than historical purposes. Making no pretence to examine times gone by, the film is simply fantastic entertainment, playing out a battle of words as if it were the final bout of Rocky; a surprise given Ron Howard’s recent fondness for Dan Brown adaptations.
I have no issue with directors using history for dramatic purposes as long as that line is clearly defined. The biggest problem with Invicitus is its ineptitude in deciding what it wants to be. Too simplistic to provide good history and not remarkable enough to provide good drama it sits like a damp squib in the middle. Hopefully there will be better films made about Mandela’s presidency in the future, however for now we can sit back and applaud some of the more successful historical films of recent times.
By Sam
No comments:
Post a Comment