Betsy Speicher

Invictus (2009)

Rate this movie   1 vote

  1. 1. Artistic Merit

    • 10
      0
    • 9
      0
    • 8
      1
    • 7
      0
    • 6
      0
    • 5
      0
    • 4
      0
    • 3
      0
    • 2
      0
    • 1
      0
    • 0
      0
  2. 2. Sense of Life or Personal Value

    • 10
      1
    • 9
      0
    • 8
      0
    • 7
      0
    • 6
      0
    • 5
      0
    • 4
      0
    • 3
      0
    • 2
      0
    • 1
      0
    • 0
      0

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

9 posts in this topic

I have not seen this show, but my regard for Mandela sank with his reluctance to speak against the likes of Robet Mugabi in Zambia. I just can't see him as a hero with so many flaws in his view of liberty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have not seen this show, but my regard for Mandela sank with his reluctance to speak against the likes of Robet Mugabi in Zambia. I just can't see him as a hero with so many flaws in his view of liberty.

Your view of Mandela mirrors mine. I just can't square his appeasement of Mugabe. I saw Invictus, with some reluctance, but my disillusionment with the former president (and the general cultural direction of South Africa) clouded my enjoyment of the movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am disappointed with the comments so far. For starter, this thread is about the movie, not the man (a thread about Mandela the man might be a good idea, but this is not it). More important, this is the case of a movie who takes an imperfect historical figure and portrays him quasi perfect and extremely heroic. In our times, it is so much more often the contrary that I think we should really salute Eastwood (for this movie).

Personally, I thought the movie was great. It's uplifting, idealistic, and to boot you see quite a bit of rugby. I recommend it 100%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am disappointed with the comments so far. For starter, this thread is about the movie, not the man (a thread about Mandela the man might be a good idea, but this is not it). More important, this is the case of a movie who takes an imperfect historical figure and portrays him quasi perfect and extremely heroic. In our times, it is so much more often the contrary that I think we should really salute Eastwood (for this movie).

Personally, I thought the movie was great. It's uplifting, idealistic, and to boot you see quite a bit of rugby. I recommend it 100%.

Too bad you feel that way, but there can be no escaping the thousands of actual deaths caused by Mugabe, whom Mandela appeased. That's the reality which no-one's feelings, whims, hopes, desires, or expectations can erase. If the apartheid regime was cruel enough to be fought 100% as Mandela deemed it, why not Mugabe's regime which is reportedly more murderous?

The movie was uplifting, but, given the facts of the matter, it could rightly be viewed as a whitewash. You cannot just invoke "heroic portray[al]" of "an imperfect historical figure" out of context. How does one know he's merely "imperfect" and not simply "bad"?

These are the questions which the movie throws up and which must be answered. As such, they belong here, even if only in part.

Furthermore, Eastwood created two recent, unforgivably-revisionist films on World War II (Flags of Our Fathers and Letters of Iwo Jima) and one guilt-tinged screenplay (Gran Torino). As such, his Invictus should also be viewed with some suspicion. This is why historical figures should not be used as a substitute for art. If you want to write a story about a great man who took great pains to accomplish great things, then let it be original to you. You don't have to step into controversy. And if you do so, you have to live with the consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am disappointed with the comments so far. For starter, this thread is about the movie, not the man (a thread about Mandela the man might be a good idea, but this is not it). More important, this is the case of a movie who takes an imperfect historical figure and portrays him quasi perfect and extremely heroic. In our times, it is so much more often the contrary that I think we should really salute Eastwood (for this movie).

Personally, I thought the movie was great. It's uplifting, idealistic, and to boot you see quite a bit of rugby. I recommend it 100%.

This thread may be about the movie, but the movie is about the man; a specific man. I agree with Mercury's comments. One cannot escape the moral failings in not speaking up when he could have had enormous influence for the better. Would he have been as silent with a white oppressor? These questions would be on my mind during the movie. Why is a whitewash movie heroic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have not seen this show, but my regard for Mandela sank with his reluctance to speak against the likes of Robet Mugabi in Zambia. I just can't see him as a hero with so many flaws in his view of liberty.

Minor correction -- Mugabe is President of Zimbabwe. Zambia is actually in relatively good shape. Mandela in fact has spoken out against Mugabe, though not as much as many would like. So I dont mean to disagree with Arnold's point expressed here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have not seen this show, but my regard for Mandela sank with his reluctance to speak against the likes of Robet Mugabi in Zambia. I just can't see him as a hero with so many flaws in his view of liberty.

Minor correction -- Mugabe is President of Zimbabwe. Zambia is actually in relatively good shape. Mandela in fact has spoken out against Mugabe, though not as much as many would like. So I dont mean to disagree with Arnold's point expressed here.

Of course, a slip of the brain. I have been in both countries, although Zimbabwe was still Southern Rhodesia at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have not seen this show, but my regard for Mandela sank with his reluctance to speak against the likes of Robet Mugabi in Zambia. I just can't see him as a hero with so many flaws in his view of liberty.

Minor correction -- Mugabe is President of Zimbabwe. Zambia is actually in relatively good shape. Mandela in fact has spoken out against Mugabe, though not as much as many would like. So I dont mean to disagree with Arnold's point expressed here.

Of course, a slip of the brain. I have been in both countries, although Zimbabwe was still Southern Rhodesia at the time.

Rhodesia was a far better place than current Zimbabwe! It is a sad fact that Africans have not been successful at governing themselves -- as others have pointed out even Mandela was quite a failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites