tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13095695.post5587606381180734985..comments2023-10-22T17:40:51.323-04:00Comments on Tativille: New Film: InvictusMichael J. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12333893240336518881noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13095695.post-22247391298336184712009-12-27T08:57:22.259-05:002009-12-27T08:57:22.259-05:00Great, thanks so much!Great, thanks so much!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06698977605002764529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13095695.post-26858902691577365052009-12-27T01:06:12.590-05:002009-12-27T01:06:12.590-05:00Sweeney-
I can see your point that to explain the...Sweeney-<br /><br />I can see your point that to explain the rules of rugby would be someone out of place in a South African story about South African people. However, that doesn't stop Eastwood from including the scene where the Springboks, for the purposes of boosting national morale, and interest in the team amongst black South Africans, teach the game to black children. I caught one concrete rule there -- that you can only pass the ball laterally or backwards -- but the rest of that sequence was mostly wordless images from the generic inspirational sports montage school. I don't know why there couldn't have been a few more concrete rules laid out here, organically integrated into a scene of the team teaching people to play rugby. What other narrative purpose does this scene serve other than that?<br /><br />You and Anderson have made it very clear that cross-cutting is important to Eastwood's technique. Fine. It's still overdone. How many shots of the computer generated crowd do you need to know they're rooting for the team? How many shots of the child outside the stadium do you need to understand that he's now rooting for the team? How many shots of the clock do I need to see to understand time's running out? <br /><br />We've all agreed on many other Eastwood films, but if you both think this truly is one of the better American films of 2009, then we disagree about this one.Matt Singerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09435763315169249477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13095695.post-28334496610325685592009-12-26T21:45:43.633-05:002009-12-26T21:45:43.633-05:00Dear Chazz,
Thank you for asking. I will be publ...Dear Chazz,<br /><br />Thank you for asking. I will be publishing my list, and those of a couple others, 1/3/10. Concurrently, I will also publish a small poll at TEN BEST FILMS (tenbestfilms.blogspot.com). Please do check back after the first of the year for my choices and the group results. (As a post-related hint, however, INVICTUS did not quite make the cut.)Michael J. Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12333893240336518881noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13095695.post-12712000452405344882009-12-26T20:56:03.514-05:002009-12-26T20:56:03.514-05:00What does your top 10 of 09 look like, Michael?What does your top 10 of 09 look like, Michael?Charles Lyonshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06135535052328833447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13095695.post-67178965942336965252009-12-26T12:31:37.147-05:002009-12-26T12:31:37.147-05:00I must agree with Rob that a tutorial on the sport...I must agree with Rob that a tutorial on the sport would have been out-of-place in the film - given that rugby could have been anything universally meaningful to white South Africans. Besides I too, rugby novice that I am, could follow the play relatively easily. To get back to Matt's question, this is Eastwood's first forray into sports filmmaking, with the noteable exception of "Million Dollar Baby" (which of course is a genre/sub-genre all its own). I don't think it particularly suits his talents, which I think you were inferring.<br /><br />As to the "slow" rugby scenes, I really didn't have a problem with these either. My issue was with the slow-motion, which certainly was employed to maintain continuity across the cross-cut passages. The cross-cutting itself is a pivotally important part of both the narrative structure and of Eastwood's directorial style (Eastwood is the closest to Griffith of any contemporary Hollywood director I know). My issue, again, was with the slow-motion employed across these passages, which at once felt gratuitous (in terms of facilitating audience recognition) and more than likely needed to visually clarify the celebration. I would be interested, however, to watch the whole passage without this technique - or some partial employment of the strategy.<br /><br />This criticism, and the others voiced above aside, I would agree that it rates among the better American films of the year, for its registration of the present in this nation and the development of the violence theme that Rob notes. Even Eastwood with a few hiccups stands shoulders above most in the industry (which as always is the moral of the Cahiers-Sarris brand of auteur criticism that I tend to employ on this site).Michael J. Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12333893240336518881noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13095695.post-69561773543213409062009-12-22T17:32:19.934-05:002009-12-22T17:32:19.934-05:00I don't understand why he has to make rugby &q...I don't understand why he has to make rugby "clear to American audiences." This is a South African story about South African characters - everyone knows the game there. To insert a tutorial would be irrelevant and insulting to the characters. <br /><br />In any case, I'm unfamiliar with the game and grasped the outlines of how it works through what Eastwood provided (tie-ups, field goals, touchdowns). And as for the "slow" rugby sequences, I thought they were the culmination of his pattern of cross-cutting. During the game, he repeatedly cuts back and forth between micro and macro instances of the divisions instilled by apartheid. There's the security team, his relationship with his daughter (who wants her father to be more vengeful), and the nation's relationship with the rugby team. In the final sequence, he combines all these elements in an extended bit of cross-cutting that acts as the culmination of all of these strands. <br /><br />While you've both mentioned the film's faults - it's descent into sentimentality, the sickly sweet score - I think it's overarching structure, it's exploitation of sports as politics, and it's handling of the revenge theme make it one of the better American films of the year.R. Emmet Sweeneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18063859726441944532noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13095695.post-17405024232334335042009-12-22T02:03:40.356-05:002009-12-22T02:03:40.356-05:00Mike-
Using your knowledge about Eastwood's f...Mike-<br /><br />Using your knowledge about Eastwood's films you were able to appreciate the film on its most interesting grounds; i.e. its connection to the rest of his work. It appears I liked the movie less than you did, although we certainly agree about Eastwood's choice of music, and a big part of my distaste for the film was the extremely poor handling, in my opinion, the rugby sequences.<br /><br />Though you didn't mention them much in your review, this is clearly a sports movie in the classic, inspirational mold. And despite all the connections to Eastwood's career that you cited, the world of sports movies is something he's never really tackled before (at least to the best of my knowledge). But you're far more the Eastwood expert than I. I'm wondering whether there is some Eastwood sports movie out there I'm forgetting, and whether you can justify those lengthy, incomprehensibly shot (not to mention <i>slooooooow</i>) rugby sequences as speaking to some larger Eastwood idea. I struggled to grasp what he was going for in spending so much time on the rugby while simultaneously refusing to film it in such a manner that would make it clear to an American audience unfamiliar with the game.Matt Singerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09435763315169249477noreply@blogger.com