Director-Clint Eastwood 2009 132 minutes
Screenplay-Anthony Peckham
Starring-Morgan Freeman, Matt Damon, Tony Kgoroge, Patrick Mofokeng, etc.
Plot of 「Invictus」
Democratic activist Nelson Mandela, who had been imprisoned for 27 years as a terrorist in South Africa, was finally released on February 11, 1990, with the support of world public opinion seeking liberation.
After that, with Mandela’s efforts, the apartheid racial segregation policy was abolished, Mandela was elected president, and although reforms were carried out one after another from familiar places, conflicts between whites, blacks, and ethnic groups still remained, and he was puzzled over for reconciliation.
Therefore, Mandela, who has noticed the holding of the 3rd Rugby World Cup in his own country, decides to support the South African national team, which was said to be weak at that time, in order to make it a symbol of racial harmony.
South African National Team captain, Francois, was called to the presidential palace and was assigned a major role.
My Impressions of 「Invictus 」
How did Spring Box get stronger?
A drama about the path of South Africa, where Nelson Mandela, who came out of prison, became president, to win the Rugby World Cup.
It is one of Clint Eastwood’s series based on true stories.
I love Eastwood and Mandela, and I haven’t seen this yet, so I took a look, but it was quite disappointing.
I understand that Mandela is urging South Africa to win the World Cup in his country, but there is little picture of why the national team has become strong enough to win.
Mandela kept the name of the apartheid national team, encouraged the captain to send a poem named Invictus, and volunteered the players to teach rugby to black children, and the morale of the players increased.
It’s true, but I don’t think a weak team can win by itself.
Although Invictus, a poem written by William Ernest Henry, is wonderful.
I don’t understand why it wasn’t drawn more that the sense of discrimination that was in the players disappeared, they became proud of their team, the attitude to practice changed, the practice time increased, and the behavior of the players actually changed.
The process of how they got stronger is exciting, and that was the scene I wanted to see the most, but it wasn’t quite there.
As a matter of fact, even before Mandela became president, the South Africa national team seemed to be strong enough to be said to be a candidate for victory in the World Cup, so they tried to force it into a weak setting and make it a dramatic story.
However, it may be that they didn’t have time to draw the enough contents.
It’s a good story, but it’s empty and shallow, a happy ending, and a historical work, so it feels uncomfortable like an educational movie shown at school.
There are great actors such as Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon and, it seems to be exciting but actually it’s not good, so wasteful work.
It seems that Morgan Freeman made it, but I wonder what he is doing.
I don’t know why Eastwood took over as director with this script.
Simply, both as a sport documentary in which the team grows and as a drama of a deep person Mandela, are half-finished and thin.
I’m sure that if someone who doesn’t know much about Mandela sees this, this will be a work that is harder to remember.
Even if it was memorable, I think it would have been more memorable for them if it was drawn properly.
I wanted them to draw more about Mandela and Apartheid
Mandela was put in jail as a terrorist for about 30 years, despite a democratic movement.
Still without giving up, he earned a bachelor’s degree in law in prison, learned rugby, which is popular with whites, and learned the white language, Afrikaans, in order to coexist with whites in the future.
And he has always been a gentleman to the guards.
He is a living legend, a superman, and the intensity of Mandela is not well represented in the film.
I don’t know what to say, I think he was drawn only like tough president of the company.
One of the achievements of Mandela’s spectacular years in prison is the holding of the Rugby World Cup, which is not well expressed.
The importance of the South African national team’s success in this World Cup is not well expressed as well.
Apartheid, a ridiculously outrageous law of discrimination, was destroyed by Mandela.
And even though it is a story that the people who have discriminated against and who have been discriminated against are aiming to win the World Cup as a symbol, as a tool to unite, that awesomeness is not so much conveyed.
Even if they omit the description of the World Cup a little, it is better to draw it from the middle of Mandela’s prison era and let the audience know more clearly what Mandela is like. I think that gives more depth.
It’s also a little annoying that the cruelty of the Apartheid era isn’t portrayed much.
I think it may that they did not draw much in consideration of the white people in the world. If so, I have a gloomy feeling.
It’s been a long time since the actual event, but if it’s still taboo, it’s not like Eastwood who isn’t afraid anything.
I also wanted to see a direct depiction of people who have discriminated against and who have been discriminated against both walk up each other, not only to see that they all were cheering together.
The film is about Mandela and starring Morgan Freeman, who is perfect for Mandela, and Matt Damon, who is also good for South Africa’s captain and It is directed by Eastwood, who can add depth to the film, It’s absolutely the best casting, but it’s too wasteful.
Why isn’t this a great work?
I’m sure no one can shoot this subject again with this great casting, and even though they spent a lot of money to make this, it’s really really a waste.
There were too many subjects to draw, such as Mandela, World Cup victory, Apartheid, etc., and it may be that they could not do any of them properly.
コメント