First word on ‘Invictus’ – Drama or piece of furniture?
I convinced myself early on that Clint Eastwood’s Invictus would be a wooden clunker and I even went so far as to predict that the much-ballyhooed Eastwood Oscar mystique had played itself out. It’s foolish to make such a call before I’ve even seen the movie, but even the trailer did nothing to sharpen my interest.
Well, journalists and bloggers have finally seen the thing and even though there’s an embargo in place, David Ansen’s short review went live earlier today over at Newsweek. It’s a respectful review to be sure, but it’s far from a rave and even within Ansen’s modest praise germinate the seeds of doubt:
“Anthony Peckham’s sturdy, functional screenplay, based on John Carlin’s book Playing the Enemy, can be a bit on the nose (and the message songs Eastwood adds are overkill). Yet the lapses fade in the face of such a soul-stirring story—one that would be hard to believe if it were fiction. The wonder of Invictus is that it actually went down this way.”
Sturdy? Functional? Is this an Ikea catalog or a movie review? Is Ansen choosing between the Ramvik and Invictus coffee tables?
On the nose? Overkill? Two Eastwood hallmarks that are the kinds of things that drive me away from most of his movies that he doesn’t happen to star in.
It’s only one review and I’m sure there will be more that come closer to raves. Even if there aren’t, the respect people have for Eastwood might trump any misgivings about his style – there’s a fine line between simple and simplistic and most people seem happy to give him credit for the former – but I still can’t shake the feeling this one will be quickly forgotten.
With ten best pictures nominees it’s hard to imagine Invictus not getting nominated (it’ll be even harder when the NBR unveils it in their own Top 10 in a few days) and the truth is its very middle-of-the-roadness is actually an asset in this regard. I always have a problem separating what I like from what the Academy will like, but because safe predictions aren’t worth making I’m going to go ahead and stick with my belief that Invictus gets snubbed. Even if I’m wrong about that (and I probably am), there will be no best director nod for Eastwood and Invictus isn’t going to win the Oscar.
Please feel free to send in any good recipes for crow you happen to know. I’m probably going to need them.
Filed under: Buzz
Tags: Clint Eastwood, Invictus
Glenn Kenny just included it in his top films of the decade list. no joke.
http://somecamerunning.typepad.com/some_came_running/2009/11/the-seventy-greatest-films-of-the-decade.html
True, although there’s some movies in his list that come with extremely mixed responses from critics far and wide. Mr Kenny, whom I respect greatly, appears to be stirring the pot with his list. I don’t think we can conclude that its inclusion here is necessarily indicative of a home run from Eastwood.
I shall wait to serve you your crow.
An odd list, it contains lots of choices that vibe with my own taste but others I was indifferent to or disliked. I wonder too whether it is advisable to include films in a best of a decade list that were seen for the first time this year or even in the past few weeks – the recency effect can distort relative judgment. Maybe giving oneself a little more distance from the decade will offer a more personally enduring appraisal of what it had to offer.
Did I say that actually meant it was a masterpiece? No.
Sounds like Invictus is a dramatic piece of furniture — the kind that many AMPAS members like to acknolwedge by placing their statues on the mantel.
Some folks just get into Eastwood’s groove. I don’t tend to unless he’s actually in the film.
His directness and simplicity can be appealing with the right material, but there’s a very fine line between simple and simplistic and for me he tends to cross it.
I’ll shut up about Invictus now until I see it for myself.