I have spent a fair amount of time in the beautiful and strife filled country of South Africa. I have met some of the principles who fought against apartheid, such as the Methodist Bishop Peter Storey. I have dear friends who are Afrikans such as Jan van der Watt. And I was there not long after the Springboks pulled probably the greatest upset in World Cup Rugby history. I know the story well, and this movie captures a good deal of the spirit of the people of South Africa well.
Honestly South Africa is about the most religious country I have ever spent time in. It also has more born again Christians per capita than America. I have done the lecture tours, I’ve spent time in Pretoria, Cape Town, Stellenbosch, Bloomfontein, and have loved almost everything about the country— except the besetting sin of racism and its horrible consequences. I thank God regularly for men like Mandela and Tutu and Storey. Where else in the world has there been a Truth and Reconcliation Commission where crimes could be admitted—– and forgiven, and the country moves on? What a stark difference between what Mandela and these other men set in motion compared to the aftermath of WWII with the Nuremburg Trials. In South Africa broke the cycle of violence and hatred and racism— with forgiveness and love—- and one more thing– with inspiration. A people without hope, without inspiration are capable of anything.
As the review in the NY Times this morning by A.O. Scott says, Clint Eastwood, singularly among directors, has focused his movies on the issue of vengeance (think the ‘Unforgiven’ or Gran Torino, or the Changeling etc.), or its opposite— forgiveness. Invictus is focused on the latter. And I have to say this may be the most powerful of all those films. Morgan Freeman who has given a lifetime of great performances gives the performance of a lifetime in this movie. It is best actor stuff, as he absolutely embodies Mandela in this movie– the man, his spirit, his gestures, his heart, his heartbreak. This story is full of pathos, and Freeman knows how to bring it out in the right way.
The title of the movie is in fact the title of a poem that helped Mandela keep hope alive during his 27 years in prison. Here it is—
Invictus
also known as… I. M. R. T. HAMILTON BRUCE
(1846-1899)
by William Ernest Henley (1849-1903)
Composed circa 1875.
Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit
from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable
soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced
nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody,
but unbowed.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the
Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall
find, me unafraid.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with
punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of
my soul.
It is a powerful poem, with memorable lines, and it is about the unquenchable human spirit that can overcome, even overcome evil with good. This movie is about that sort of overcoming. But it is not just about the resilient human spirit, it is about God, the God who inspires forgiveness and mercy and compassion, not the God of Jihad and revenge, by which I mean the God of Love, the God of Jesus, the God who Jesus was.
If you are like me, you will find yourself weeping at this movie, weeping to see merciful non-Christians more Christ-like than the Christians. But this movie is by no means just a tear-jerker. It is also an exhiliarating film about the relationship of two men— the captain of the Springboks— Francois Pienaar, a white Afrikaner, and Mandela. Matt Damon has proved before this film that he is a world class actor, but he shows it again in this film, even mastering, at least to my ear, the difficult Afrikans accent as he plays Francois.
This two hour film is not a perfect film. We could have wished for a little more story and back story. A bit more about the Christian faith of both black South Africans and Afrikans (see e.g. the prayer at the end of the World Cup final match) a bit more about the Truth and Reconciliation Commssion.
The rugby scenes are vivid and compelling, but for Americans who hardly know the ‘hooligans game played by gentleman’ as the movie calls it, it will look like a mildly interesting field goal kicking contest. One thing Eastwood does get right— rugby, played without pads makes American football look like a less brutal game.
Mandela was a wise man– he knew that sport had a chance to begin to unite and heal his nations wounds. And he deserves full marks for playing that card at just the right moment. Unlike ‘the Blind Side’ which is a sports movie with a bit of a moral, this is a moral movie that just happens to focus on rugby. I would urge you to go see this movie, and see what you think. For me it revealed once more how triumph can come after, and even through tragedy when the Gospel of forgiveness is actually believed, and lived out.
posted December 11, 2009 at 10:38 pm
I remembered the ’95 RWC clearly (yes, there a few of us that are rugby fans!) and, as someone who sat on the edge of their seat hoping South Africa could pull off the upset, also found great inspiration from the multiple layers of back-stories. This should be a fun movie.
posted December 12, 2009 at 7:06 am
Having lived in Limerick Ireland (the home of Munster Rugby) for the past 2 1/2 years, I can say that Rugby in many respects does seem more violent than American football. However, having had more time to really get into the sport, the tackling rules are much tamer than American football. Sure, if you don’t have pads it will always look fierce, but American football players NEED the pads because of the different tackling. One of the best examples is in Rugby you have to wrap up and carry you man to the ground. I look forward to seeing this movie and to see not only the Rugby on film, but a solid sports film–a rarity.
posted December 12, 2009 at 8:40 pm
I actually didn’t enjoy the movie as much as I thought I would. The trailer was actually way more inspiring than the movie itself!
The movie has some real good historical background and I enjoyed that. But there are just too many poor directorial choices. The sport scenes aren’t really that thrilling. And I don’t think it is because I don’t know the sport of Rugby too well because I have also watched Lagan (an inspirational Cricket movie and that movie’s sports scenes were very thrilling). Also, they don’t really explain the game of rugby too well in the movie either.
Plus, and this is big for me, they made a really poor use of the soundtrack. They played songs and background music at all the wrong times and places that one would normally expect music (inspirational music for example being played at non-inspirational times or way after the inspirational moment) or sometimes there just wasn’t really any music to really hear.
Anyway, the movie is pretty good. I just liked the trailer much much more and I think it better caught the sprit of what this movie was trying to be!
posted December 12, 2009 at 9:00 pm
P.S. I also liked the acting. But maybe that’s just because the South African accent is really cool!
posted December 13, 2009 at 7:10 pm
I got to watch the movie with a South African friend whose upstairs neighbor for a few years was one of the players on that team. In fact, the scary unstoppable wing from the All Blacks used to play pool with him as well. It provided a very different perspective on the movie.
I wanted to ask you a question, Dr. Witherington, that came to my mind while discussing the movie. This friend is a white South African, and as such, he has mixed feelings about Nelson Mandela. He was part of a generation that only say the end of Apartheid, and he himself voted in favor of allowing the black population the right to vote. Furthermore, he will tell you that he believes Mandela truly fought as president to produce reconciliation between Afrikaners and the black population. However, he can’t get past Mandela’s history of terrorism. (For any commenters reading this who are unaware, the reason Mandela was in jail for 20+ years was not simply that he was a political dissident. It it because he co-founded and lead Umkhonto we Sizwe, the ANC’s militant wing, which committed violent acts against the government.)
Whenever I discuss this sort of thing with him, I find myself unable to come up with a very good answer, other than pointing out that those things were done in the past. So, what is your view on a man like Mandela, whose present positive actions would seem to outweigh his past criminal activity? What if someone with a similar background ran for president in America?
posted December 13, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Hi Josh: Thanks for this thoughtful comment. I would say that Mandela is a mixed bag and I would rather focus on Peter Storey and Desmond Tutu, both of whom, as a Methodist I am proud of. What I would say about Mandela’s ‘resistance movement’ in his earlier years is that, that is what it was. What do you do with government sponsored terrorism and torture against Blacks in South Africa? Just because a government is elected doesn’t make it legitimate when only a minority are allowed to vote! So, while I wouldn’t condone any violent actions by whatever side, I would simply say that Mandela was responding to government sponsored torture, violence and injustice. Two wrongs don’t make a right of course. I spent time in Pretoria with a theology prof who had been tortured and jailed, indeed violated by guards again and again. There can be no justification for such behavior, even if authorized by a government. So I think the critique of Mandela has some justification, but not nearly so much as the critique of the apartheid government and its tactics and practices in various ways.
BW3