Invictus

The new movie of Clint Eastwood is ambientada in the first year of government of Nelson Mandela. The president of South Africa, in his emulation for joining a people at the edge of the civil war, uses the world cup of rugby that has to be played in his country. Risky company if it is born in mind that this sport was a symbol of the white oppression in the apartheid.

If by something Eastwood has been meant throughout the latter years in which he has devoted himself to direct his movies it is for being one of these outstanding figures who guarantee the highest level to you. Invictus is not an exception. Without stopping being the typical sports movie, it has something that makes her different.

On the one hand he would emphasize that the production design is impeccable. Every plane, every phrase of the script, every detail in the art has a justification. Nothing remains, nothing is missing. Quite in his measured joust.

The sports movies usually remember me in major or minor measurement to the movies of masses of the 20s and 30s, when the Soviet movies (for definition without individual protagonists) and the Nazi (especially in the always appealed documentaries of Leni Riefenstahl).

Those two movies, which were separating in many things, were joining in the leading role that assumes the mass as group capable of changing things. Of course, it was separating in that one was exalting only the mass as revolutionary element and other was using it to exalt a leader.

The sports movies tends, for definition, it is to be closer to the facismo for that one of that a few heroes in the field of game make to vibrate to the mass. In this case, what happens is showier because the movie is located with entire equidistance these two cinematographic models.

It is true that the team (led by the captain interpreted by Matt Damon and the black only one that dresses the green T-shirt and gold) and Nelson Mandela (interpreted by big Morgan Freeman), they are the protagonists of the movie and those that the movie dignifies.

But also the fact it is that like the really excellent of the movie there is like a people, which only was lacking the rifle to face definitely, it ends up by being reconciled. No value had had the risks that (at least in the movie) it assumes Order it and the victory of the national team of rugby, if one had not achieved that blacks and white persons were happening of the hand in the search of a common target; the victory in the world cup.

This is, undoubtedly, the distinguishing element of the movie. He accompanies a few interpretations of high level to all this. Matt Damon is more than correct in his representation of François Piennar. Although personally he is an actor who has cost me very much that I liked, I have to admit that every time the best hae.

But over all big Morgan Freeman stands out. Spectacular the stamp that it has obtained imitating that of the proper one Order it. For it, I recommend to see it very much in original version. For those that you should not be accustomed, think that they do not speak too rapidly and many scenes, to the sports being, they are of “action“ and one speaks little.

The decision to turn into movie the book The human factor of John Carlin was containing, at least, 3 risks;

Invictus, with personages so known in the real life was demanding a very meticulous casting to meet on the suitable actors of level. Since I have already justified, I believe that Clint Eastwood gave in the nail. Perhaps it did not also have it difficult bearing in mind the times that it had already worked with Freeman.

Another risk was that a personage as Order it is deeply anticinematographic. At least the image that we have of him is that of a big person, started to the others, arranged to everything for reconciling two conflicting families, which it turns into someone very flat and little given to the conflict.

The solution finds it in giving leading role to the people of the street, to the South African village. But it was containing a difficulty; how can you speak about so many people simultaneously and, simultaneously, give little depth to the "mass"?

Eastwood solves it with big workmanship. The agents of his personal safety it is composed by targets and blacks who will be evolving the same way as the history advances. And to underline the fact that the change does not take place only between the persons next to the mythical politician, he adds two more elements; a mass that at first boos it and that in the end there choruses his name and a nice child who pushes the T-shirt back before the world cup and finishes embraced the team in the last minutes of the final.

Finally, the historical thing is usually insipid. That usually goes to that the real historical facts ficcionizan to make them more "agreeable". On the other hand, in Invictus, it gives the sensation that has wanted to respect the historical situations that happened without resting on things that they did not spend.

For example, it had been much easier to write the script that the president and the captain should see more times than it goes out in the movie. He had had more time to construct a relation that, in fact, is sustained in the distance.

Nevertheless, Eastwood has been capable of making use of elements that should have happened in the reality to give relief to a friendship that goes further away. The visit to the prison and the later reflection that Damon does with his fiancée in the room of the hotel.

It seems that the American director reinforces his interest in the racial conflicts in Invictus after triumphing with Big Torino and, otherwise, in movies like Flags of our parents and Letters of Iwo Jima. Personally I believe that this time has reflected better in conflict than in Big Torino, in a great speech less maniqueo.

In what it never fails Clint is in explaining well what one proposes to make to come to the spectator. And there does not fit any doubt that Invictus is not an exception. If you have not seen it, do not get lost it. In my opinion, one of his most interesting movies.