Rugby enters Hollywood limelight with "Invictus"
“Invictus” was subjected to much controversy and debate soon after its release. The movie had been created to relate to the World the momentous occurrences that led to the victory of South Africa in the 1995 Rugby World Cup.
Clint Eastwood, the World renowned director has to be accredited for having successfully put together an inspiring cast. The main roles of Nelson Mandela and Francois Pienaar have been performed by the inspiring actors, Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon respectively,
who have over the years become big names in the contemporary movie industry.
The movie was intended to be a biographical account of the relationship between Mandela and the team Springbok after his release from prison. It was meant to depict the fundamental role that rugby and Springbok played in bringing together a nation that
had historically been torn apart due to apartheid.
However the movie has been subjected to much criticism post release. Although the team of
Invictus claims that the movie has adapted events portrayed in the book by John Carlin called “Playing the Enemy: Nelson Mandela and the Game That Changed a Nation” yet critics state that many of the historical events have been highly sensationalized
in the movie.
This has been done to capture the interest of an international audience that is most likely entirely illiterate about the events occurring in South Africa during the early 1990’s and of the relationship between Mandela and Springboks. Critics argue that
Matt Damon has enacted many scenes that have no relation whatsoever with what actually happened.
In the words of Joel Stransky, who kicked the final goal that bought the Springboks victory,
“I was on the team bus that went to the game and was sat with Francois. He certainly did not find himself in a situation whereby he was forced to elude a dozen highly armed New Zealand government assassins with his bare hands just two hours before kickoff
at his team hotel. And I can say with absolute certainty he did not drive against the flow of the traffic on the Johannesburg streets, at speeds over 100 miles an hour whilst wildly shooting foreign spies out of the taxi window with a semi-automatic pistol”.
In spite of the severe criticism it has been subjected to, it must be admitted that the movie has brought much popularity to rugby. It has resulted in a much wider international rugby fan base and has lured previously disinterested individuals towards the
game.
There has also been talk of more movies to be made that depict momentous matches in the history of the sport, which could potentially attract more fans as well as sponsors to rugby. If movies such as “Goal” and “Bend It like Beckham” are considered, it becomes
clear that rugby has been a relatively late entrant in the competition to attract Hollywood attention.
It is therefore of essence that rugby should make the maximum possible effort to capture the attention of the tycoons amongst the movie makers in Hollywood in order to guarantee it global audience.
However, it is important that rather than molding history to the interest of the prevailing audience, movie makers should focus on staying true to history. The biggest disservice that could be rendered to any sport is for its history to be refashioned in
order to make it palatable to an ignorant audience.
If a movie brings fans to a sport, it can also deter fans from the sport if they later find out that they have been made to believe in a history that didn’t even happen.
Tags: