International football (soccer) and rugby trace their roots back to mid-19th Century Britain when the two sports diverged. The differences were codified when a group of students calling themselves the Football Association set down the Cambridge Rules in 1863, with one key point outlawing the use of hands to carry the ball. This drove a major wedge and advocates of the Rugby style of football (named after the school) went on to form the Rugby Union in 1870. A further split in the rugby faction led to Rugby League and Rugby Union. Football and Rugby League would become sports of the working class, while Rugby is perceived as more of an elitist game, played in public schools and at international tournaments. These class distinctions remained as football and rugby spread around the world, as summed up by the witticism: “Football is a gentleman’s game played by hooligans; rugby is a hooligan’s game played by gentlemen.”
Advertisement
That line is used in “Invictus,” Clint Eastwood’s sturdy sports biopic charting the rise of the South African rugby team to (spoiler alert) unexpected World Cup glory in 1995. It’s worth delving into that little bit of history about the two sports because the director uses it to outline the class divide in the country at the time, which was also split along racial lines during the long years of Apartheid. The film opens in 1990; on one side of a road, we see well-scrubbed white players in rugby training. Across the road, a group of Black kids are kicking a football about on a scrappy patch of grass. Along that road comes a motorcade with the newly-freed Nelson Mandela (Morgan Freeman), greeted with cheers by the footballers and frowns by the rugby team.
Advertisement
This scene might be a little on-the-nose, but it serves its purpose well. After all, Eastwood has a lot to pack into a two-hour movie, and he is tackling two subjects that the average cinema-goer in the United States may well know little about: South African politics and rugby. This underrated historical gem is as much a Mandela biopic as it is a sports flick, so how do the two halves play out?
Invictus is a respectful Nelson Mandela biopic
Based on John Carlin’s book “Playing the Enemy: Nelson Mandela and the Game That Made a Nation,” Clint Eastwood is in absolutely no hurry cutting to the sports action in the first hour of “Invictus.” The larger context of the World Cup’s importance to South Africa’s healing process after decades of segregation is of greater concern, highlighting the racial tension as Mandela faces an enormous task of unifying the nation. This is summed up by the animosity between the white and non-white members of Mandela’s security team, who regard each other with barely-concealed hostility.
Advertisement
Anthony Peckham’s level-headed screenplay focuses on the two most important figures: Mandela and Francois Pienaar (Matt Damon), captain of the almost all-white national rugby team. Nicknamed the Springboks, we see how they had become a symbol of Apartheid, to the extent that non-white rugby fans routinely cheered for the opposition during international matches. Astutely, Mandela reasons that victory for the Springboks in the upcoming 1995 World Cup (played on South African soil for the first time) could bring the entire country together. This idea is met with skepticism on both sides, but Mandela’s wisdom and honesty gets everyone onboard, including the key figure of Pienaar.
Morgan Freeman had previously been in the frame to play Mandela in a film adaptation of the leader’s memoirs titled “Long Walk to Freedom,” a role eventually filled by Idris Elba in the 2013 movie. Freeman met with Mandela on numerous occasions during the 1990s to study his mannerisms, and he embodies the leader with great authority, superbly capturing the leader’s generosity, compassion, and charisma. We only get a few years of the great man’s life here, but the movie still works as a respectful biopic, and Freeman’s performance invigorates the slow-burning first half of the film.
Advertisement
The relatively diminutive Damon might seem an odd choice to portray Pienaar at first; it was a casting choice that forced Clint Eastwood to get creative regarding their heights (5-foot-10 vs. 6-foot-3). But it’s the acting that counts, and Damon does a quietly convincing job of revealing the growing pride and belief the captain feels as he is tasked with leading his team to victory for the whole country. Freeman and Damon share some good scenes together, and they both received Oscar nominations for their quality work.
Invictus delivers when it counts as a sports movie
Fans of egg-chasing don’t have all that many great films to cheer about, but “Invictus” delivers when it counts. We have to wait a long while, though; Eastwood doesn’t give us much rugby until the final match, and the brief moments we do get basically serve as a quick lesson for viewers who are unfamiliar with the sport. Luckily, he devotes the last quarter of the film to recreating the momentous occasion when the Springboks faced the powerful New Zealand team and their rampaging breakout star, Jonah Lomu (Isaac Fe’aunati).
Advertisement
This is where “Invictus” really comes into its own as a sports movie. Having patiently laid the groundwork for what the world cup final meant to the nation, Eastwood recaptures that mixture of excitement and trepidation that comes before a crucial match. I’ve always been a footy fan, but I remember watching the event back in 1995. After seeing Lomu destroy England with four tries in the semi final, the big question was how the Springboks could possibly manage to keep him quiet. It would’ve been good to see Lomu in action more before the final to give people who didn’t see it at the time a better idea why he was so frightening, but we get enough to know the South Africans were the major underdogs.
Advertisement
The lengthy build-up to kick off, both in the stadium and with people watching in pubs and at home, successfully captures the pre-match buzz. Eastwood’s methodical approach also works during the game itself, allowing the tension to grow as the Springboks determinedly match their opponents blow-for-blow. He uses slow motion to good effect towards the end, recreating that agonizing feeling of watching the seconds crawl by when your team is in the lead.
I was on the edge of my seat back in ’95 and I was surprised by how well Eastwood managed to evoke the same emotions, giving me tingles I haven’t felt in a sports movie since Pelé’s bicycle kick in “Escape to Victory.” Eastwood’s film may be a little bit too low-key for some viewers who are eager to get to the on-field action, which is perhaps why it rarely troubles lists of the best sport films. But it is an earnestly rousing celebration of how something as seemingly trivial as 30 players knocking lumps out of each other can shape a nation’s identity.
