|
||||||
|
|
A Black & White Reason To Be Skeptical About Clint Eastwood’s Invictus
While I’m analyzing trailers (see my Avatar examination which I posted earlier today HERE)… Below is the first trailer for Clint Eastwood’s Invictus, which I actually posted a couple of days ago – an obvious Oscar contender for all parties involved: Eastwood and stars, Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon. Edmund Mullins at BlackBook magazine critiques the film’s all-to familiar resistance to allowing the black man’s (or woman’s) story to singularly carry a film, providing reasons to be skeptical about Clint Eastwood’s Oscar contender. As I watched the trailer, my thoughts echoed his exactly. Mullins states…
Indeed, indeed… my sentiments exactly! I had somewhat similar observations with the poster, which you can read HERE. We could even add a film like Glory to the list. So… here we are… once again. And I don’t expect this trend to change anytime soon. Invictus bows in theatres on December 11th. 12 comments to A Black & White Reason To Be Skeptical About Clint Eastwood’s Invictus |
  
|
||||
|
Copyright © 2010 Shadow And Act - All Rights Reserved  View in: Mobile | Standard
|
||||||
I don’t think anyone said that this was a biopic on Nelson Mandela. Ultimately, this is a sports movie that obviously has a political bent. I’m guessing since you and Mullins are American, you are unaware of the magnitude of this event, which is one of sport’s biggest upsets.
I’m guessing you’re unaware of Nelson Mandela’s magnitude to Africans across the planet to understand these opinions…
Firstly I agree with Henry, the movie is primarily about how Mandela used the SA rugby team (symbol of apartheid) to unite the country after its recent democracy. There were two main players, Mandela and FRANSCIOUS Pienaar (the fact that the Mullins cites a current soccer player’s name shows his level of understanding of the history of his subject matter). Pienaar was the figure head, hence why he is facing forward, whilst madiba pulled strings and rallied black support behind the scenes… hence (i presume) the layout of the poster.
The true beauty of this true story lies in how mandela used it to build comaradie between the races and how the springbok rugby team performed one of the biggest underdog victories of all time with united support. So no it is not a film about mandela, it is a film about many things.
PS Tee Smif – personally, as a south african, I think you are missing the point
You both (Henry and Kyran) are missing the entire point of the post. It’s not an attack on Pienaar, and his status as a figurehead; rather, it’s about Hollywood’s lack of interest in telling stories in which a black man/woman’s story carries a film entirely – especially one that’s based on historical events.
There almost always seems to be this need to essentially neutralize the potential power such a casting choice would have, by either creating a white character to provide that equilibrium, or, as in this specific case, they opt to tell a fact-based story in which there already is a white character that can be that neutralizer.
I’m just weary of this film because it seems that Morgan Freeman’s not pulling off that accent.
Rediculous. This is exactly the line of thinking that keeps people feeling divided. While I agree race relations are not where they need to be across the board, this is, to me, a clear case of someone digging to find the race card somewhere. With all the progress that IS being made by proactive people in society today, Mullins should really think about choosing his battles and becoming part of the solution, instead of dragging a legitimate debate down with his nonsense.
The first thing I would like to say to anyone casting dispersions on the film based on a very brief look at it via a trailer, is perhaps you should read the book.
The fact that we’re getting mixed up on Hollywood’s need to this and that, before being open to the catharsis the book and no doubt the movie, will try to impart, is a sad omen to race relations. It’s obvious the binary of Mandela (black) and Pienaar (white) is the most effective (albeit convenient) mechanism in which to convey opposites. It’s nothing new.
The book is about Mandela’s ability to see the bigger picture; his amazing ability to put the past behind him for the betterment of the future.
Get off your high horses and for crying out loud, can we stop whining about accents.
The Color Purple is a critical and box office success from 25 years ago about a time that many American whites would either supposedly want to forget or, despicably, choose to relive. Still, the fact remains all those dollars didn\’t come from African-American wallets.
Filmgoers like myself – and I live in New Hampshire and am politically the antithesis of liberal – seek out good stories. I know Eastwood\’s work, and whenever Freeman and he work together, the final result has consistently been a fine human story, a universal one.
as a south african living in that time, i could pick that film apart piece by piece, and regardless of oscar ambitions and all the other fascile bollocks that comes with the making of any big hollywood film, im happy that story has been told to an american public who would never have the stomach to digest a more real take on it… the guys name is Francois Pienaar, not Francoius or Steven, and hes a big tough ugly rugby player, not a handsome young hollywood actor, and as for Freeman, i have seen few worse takes on Mandela… however, within the context, it is a great story, an epic to be sure… for those of you interested, try to get hold of the real game, its available on some torrent websites, and also check out the documentaries, cause this is a little too glossy.
Tambay you hit right on the head… this is not only a hollywood movie habit but one on television as well. I don’t know which is worst that these issues still exisit in 2009 or those who refuse to believe they exisit at all…
I agree that this is a Hollywood problem. But, having seen Invictus, this is a film that is focused on Mandela. Mandela is the hero of this film. No question. It is his character that carries the film. Yes, all the previous examples (Glory, Cry Freedom, Last King of Scotland) have white protagonists. It is their story. But, Invicitus is different. Go out and see for yourself.
(1) The issue should have been raised in the context of the movie Morgan Freeman has been trying to make for years (A Long Walk to Freedom) which was abandoned in favor of portraying Mandela in Invictus
(2) HOWEVER, the above said, a movie about South African relating to each other in some ways better puts Mandela’s post-1994 challenges in context than anything else. His work pre-1994 is a different kind of inspirational story: perserverance, character, sacrifice. His work post-1990 was political brilliance well detailed in the movie, which was vastly directed towards the way all groups were relating to each other. In the movie, this is beautifully symbolized by keeping the Bok (a debate still ongoing in SA) versus adopting a new flag and anthem. The RSA is a nation of brilliant contrasts and the movie turns movingly on this.
(3) This aside, the accents were both terrible. Freeman sounds like yoda and Matt Damon sounds like Matt Damon with the most tentative howzit I’ve ever heard. The bizarre use of giant veneers to attempt to make Freeman look like Mandela is also really unfortunate. Both of them likely should have dropped the language coaches and hung out with a few South Aficans for a few months to start to get the cadence and accent right.