Invictus: Hollywood Goes To Johannesburg!

For the record: I did see the movie 'Invictus' directed by Clint Eastwood and starring Matt Damon (as Francois Pienaar) and Morgan Freeman (as Nelson Mandela), and I managed to read most of John Carlin's book on which the movie was based. Also, I am a 'black' South African-born scholar, a returned 'expatriot' and one-time anti-apartheid activist who was present in South Africa during those momentous years when the first 'Black President' was elected in 1994 and when the Government of National Unity was formed and clearly remember the surging euphoria of those times.

Heady days, months and years pregnant with hope, fear, exhilaration and rising expectations.

However, though John Pilger has, maybe unkindly, written: "Why the Oscars are a Con"* [Feb 11 ZNet] that: " ... Invictus (is) Clint Eastwood's unctuous insult to the struggle against apartheid in South Africa ... taken from a hagiography of Nelson Mandela by a British journalist, John Carlin, the film might have been a product of apartheid propaganda ... in promoting the racist, thuggish rugby culture as a panacea of the "rainbow nation" ...", I would like to contextualize this further and go deeper. Not that Pilger is totally wrong, far from it and in many ways I agree, but for many this might be regarded as a "backhanded swipe".

Let me also unequivocally state here that I was moved and thoroughly enjoyed the film! Eastwood has made a winner and an enjoyable movie! I have no doubt that his film, which although it did not get a coveted Oscar, will be seen by millions of people, especially younger people, like many I saw in the movie-theatre that evening, together with two other 'veterans of the struggle'. And in our after-movie chit-chat, we agreed that despite our initial hesitations and doubts, "What, Hollywood Comes to Johannesburg?", we thoroughly enjoyed the movie.

But here is my proviso: to those who have no prior knowledge of the "real" history of the anti-apartheid struggle, of its many facets, achievements and reverses, of the inner-party conflicts for power and control, this film does not depict "historical reality" and neatly sidesteps the many awkward and contentious political issues that bedevilled that era and continue to do so today.  The viewing public will see this movie as a re-affirmation of the reigning "common wisdom" as depicted in the "official" anti-apartheid struggle guidebooks, guided-tour museum handouts and expensive glossy magazines. But with so much else in the New South Africa, it is a Con.

The focus of 'Invictus' is on the 1995 Rugby World Cup in South Africa and as soon we are to have the Soccer 2010 there, so parallels will be inevitable. But times have changed in South Africa, many of the older actors have retired and the stage is held by new ones and the future may be unknown, and also uncertain but it is not entirely unpredictable.

My great fear is that, like with the "official representation" of the anti-apartheid struggle itself, you are going to be "sold" the idea that it was 'Nelson the Messiah' who waved his Magic Merlin Wand, wore his Magic Rugby jersey nr 14, smiled his famous Madiba Smile and all was well in the Kingdom thereafter and Freedom reigned!

And in THIS sense, both the book and the film is a Con, a false portrayal of a much more complex (and very deceptive) social-political reality that is, and will be, contested by many. I will come back to this later.

As I read the book by John Carlin I was immediately struck by the fact that this was not of the quality and content-matter of his 1980s 'on-the-spot' reporting as an investigative journalist for the British-based newspaper, The Independent, but seemed to be exactly its opposite, a "hagiography", or a "money-spinner" for a lucrative global market [is it that he has retired to a villa in Spain something to do with this?]. The style, the content and presentation was for me a 'made-to-order' product for a less-discerning market [audience?].

And here lies one of the greatest paradoxes of the 'transition period' to majority-rule in South Africa and for those who 'depict' it in words and film: one had to be present in South Africa at that time, between 1989 to c. 2006, to experience the enormous optimism, share the hopes, the great empathy shown to the ANC, and at the same time, experience the great fear of an ever-present threat of a "counter-revolution", that a "Third-Force" - who were active (especially in the Witwatersrand / Gauteng area and massacring almost at will) - would succeed in 'destabilizing' the Peace Process and eventual 'Majority Rule'.

This was REAL! It could have happened. But it did NOT! Counter-factual historiography could thus have a field day!  And so any number of "permutations of the truth" have been projected as the "official" one, ranging from 600 page tomes by learned academics and professors, to the newer, often shorter not only in size but in 'factual content' and expedient on the truth more often, genre of personal political biography and autobiography. 

And it is exactly here where Nelson Mandela, according to this new officially accepted wisdom, stepped into the breach. At the 'symbolic level' and 'level of appearances', he rises to the occasion, from humble herd boy from Qunu, to the founder of Mkhonto we Sizwe and world-acclaimed freedom fighter, and, in true 'Hollywood-style', single-handedly comes up with the snappy catch-phrases and 'solutions' that heal the centuries-old breaches and prevents a 'race-war', more blood-letting and looming political deadlock.

This is what the book and film depicts: a Heroic Figure rising above the conflicts-on-the ground (despite fiercely contested regional turf-wars between warlords in Natal, the massive workers' upsurges and trade union struggles that started in the early 1970s, the Soweto students' revolt of 1976 and the huge community struggles that had led to "township revolts-cum-uprisings" over community-control of resources in the 1980s and so on). They appear as a backdrop on the stands of the stadium: the howling, cajoling, loud and bubbling masses, but with no power, no means of intervention into the political scene, now occupied by "professionals" on both sides.

Real history vanishes as hapless Clio, the Muse of History, is again shorn of her innocence and becomes a handmaiden of Hollywood. It is not a matter of "visual and filmatic representation" only: these huge social struggles and the masses, the real dramatis personae, recede to the background; and to the fore emerges the single Heroic figure, and, as in Attenborough's 'Gandhi' or countless Hollywood-epics from 'Spartacus' onwards, "The Saviour". And this is what is so deceptive in the "Hollywood-representation" or fetishization of this theme: it is "surreal", made for the screen, a mass-product made for a "passive" audience to "consume", for reviewers and critics to acclaim, disagree on or dismiss, a "cultural commodity".

And thus it is this paradox which requires further problematisation: for me, the real focus of the book and film was a small window-of-opportunity, a brief, frozen moment-in-time and an almost "out-of-context" historical moment that makes John Carlin's book and Clint Eastwood's film "marketable" for a mass audience. The world of film and cinema resounds with such "frozen moments in time", Eisenstein's "Battleship Potemkin" being one of the best known.

Some critics would regard these as "cinematic manipulations" and emotive pulling-at-the-heart-strings: as we are "drawn-into" the action on the screen, we need to be 'entertained' by the telling of the story or narrative, the casts' role interpretation, an appreciation of the brilliance of the director and his crew, the visual drama.

Now, with historical hindsight, we know that it was the "behind the scenes" of furious negotiating, the wheeling-and-dealing, where the "real stuff" of the political process was being hammered out - BUT IN SECRET, WITHOUT ANY POPULAR MANDATE, AND WITHOUT ANY FORM OF DEMOCRATIC ACCOUNTABILITY! By focussing on the Big Man, the role of the Individual-in-History, the wider script, the bigger picture and the secret machinations and dirty political horse-trading is forgotten, hidden and removed. Hidden from history is the true 'Birth of the Nation', elevated into the standard history-texts and academic wisdoms are the ephemera and 'the charismatic'.

In fact, in today's context, Winnie Madikizela-Mandela, has again grabbed the headlines by describing these 'secret deals' as a 'betrayal' (The London Evening Standard, 08.03.10): and by uttering in public what many South Africans have long been thinking: " ... Mandela is now a corporate foundation. He is wheeled out globally to collect the money and he is content doing that. The ANC have effectively sidelined him but they keep him as a figurehead for the sake of appearance" [she has now subsequently denied this though!]. But in essence what she says is true: the ANC today is a puppet of the capitalist corporate world, domestically and internationally.

It operated Goon Squads and targeted dissidents and political opponents - that this has been going on in exile [in Angola and Tanzania in the 1980s and inside the country], the 1980s 'Black-on-Black' violence is not touched upon. The air-brushed "victorious liberatory struggle" of the ANC-publicity glossy mags is thus a fiction!

A new ANC-linked Black kleptocracy, or 'Black Moguls' of a rich oligarchy got 'filthy-rich' while the masses of breadwinners and wage-earners lost their incomes and employment as urban industrial jobs haemorrhaged and were 'outsourced', moved to low-wage areas or out of the country or were closed down and no compensation was given.

A familiar neo-liberal story, with the irony being is that it is a Black-run State that is on the receiving-end of Black community and workers' protests and anger today: scenes in the townships today are similar to those of the militant 1980s, with permanent mini-uprisings against the lack of "service delivery", basic public infrastructural investments, roads, water, health, schools etc. Statistics tell of the 'widening gap' between the rich and poor, which after 15-17 years of ANC-government is a frightful indictment of their policies !

In three months time we will be witness to the Soccer 2010 World Cup Games to be held in South Africa. Dave Zirin's article puts this in perspective: " ... (the) displacements, crackdowns on informal trade, even accusations of state-sponsored assassinations - have an echo for people from the days of apartheid. It's provoked a fierce, and wholly predictable resistance ... Over 70,000 workers have taken part in strikes connected to World Cup projects since the preparations have begun, with 26 strikes since 2007. On March 4th, more than 250 people, in a press conference featuring representatives from four provinces, threatened to protest the opening game of the Cup unless their various demands were met. These protests should not be taken lightly ...".

Yes, exactly and visit the website of the Anti-Eviction Campaign , or Abahali BaseMjondolo] for more details of recent community struggles and of the vulture State in trying to "hide the evidence" of its own complicity in the dispossession, robbing and forced-removals of communities.

In conclusion, I would urge readers and viewers of the film take the above provisos into consideration, as I really DID enjoy the film as good movie "entertainment": the accents, the dialogue and the settings are "authentic" (in this I give kudos to Eastwood and his South African advisors and script-writers). BUT with the proviso that both the film and the book, however well-written or acted, depicts a South Africa that is an ABSTRACTION, a one-off event that was "stage-managed" and skilfully scripted, rehearsed, and now filmed for mass-consumption.

This is NOT the real South Africa that will meet you as you step off the plane at any of the new international refurbished airports in June, as you get travel on the magnificent autobahns (a cautionary note, South African drivers tend to take their, and thus your lives, into their own hands), stay at the luxury air-conditioned hotels (it will be the South African winter though, so bring your winter woollies and keep the heater on folks!) and take-in the magnificent natural splendours of the local fauna and flora.

An initial version of this article first appeared as a comment on David Zirin's article on Invictus and the World Cup

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter

Services Subscribe to newsletters News feeds Share this article Facebook Google Laaik.it Yahoo! Digg del.icio.us

Comments

If you come across comments that are injurious, defamatory, profane, off-topic or inappropriate; contain personal attacks or racist, sexist, homophobic, or other slurs, please report them and they will be removed.

 

responses to this article

Invictus was a good movie It gave a small taste of those crazy times but it has certainly been simplified and distilled. As a movie it works. As a piece of history, well like any movie, it is far from accurate. A silly thing like Mandela's PR being black bothered me - we all know . .more the person behind his day to day scheduling is a white women - can't have that though, doesn't fit into the nice simplified story we are trying to create. Let's be honest, overseas reporting of the whole apartheid story has always been simplified. The evil nasty white man, especially the Afrikaaner, and the poor helpless black man. Black and white, good and bad, easy peasy, stop the presses. Of course it was never like that. Much of the time it was madness, where good and evil was often blurred. In my opinion, Rian Malan perhaps got the closest to capturing the madness in "My traitor's heart". So yeah, enjoyable movie - reminds us of the birth of the Rainbow nation and the promise we had of great things to come ... but it leaves a bitter after taste as we look around how the ANC squandered the opportunity and went on to chose greed and racism instead of making SA great. . .less by Sad days on March 15 2010, 18:39 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Invictus / SA Movies are great but here I sit listening to the news; South Africa is full of crime, corruption, murder, non-service protests and taxi strikes. Seems like the majority have been brainwashed to believe "SA is the greatest place to be". Not so, it is . .more becoming more and more scary every day. I love my country but feel so helpless and in denial to pretend everything is fine soccer 2010. . .less by Lesley Fahey on March 15 2010, 19:41 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

World cup 2010, Rainbows, Original article: "Mandela let us down" - Winnie. Earlier article: "Winnie Mandela is right" - Musa Xulu. Another article: "I didn't give Ms Naipaul an interview" - Winnie Mandela. Now this article (as above): "But in . .more essence what she says is true: the ANC today is a puppet of the capitalist corporate world, domestically and internationally" - Selim Gool. Reading collective postings on this matter leaves one with the impression that everyone believes she did say to Ms Naipaul what was reported. Winnie's supporters seem not only unambiguously in agreement with the reported utterrings but, even after her categorical denial of them, they continue to strongly support most fiercely what she now says she didn't say ! Selim Gool even affirms both "what she says is true" and her denial in the same paragraph. Huhhh?? Get your head around that lot, if you can..... it kinda sounds like Bill Clinton's infamous denial "I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman". World cup 2010 will have to work hard to outshine the political side shows at this rate. Chikurubi Kid :) . .less by John Austin, LONDON on March 16 2010, 21:53 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Dear John ... You live in England, no so? You have access to the newspapers being printed there and to a public library, not so? I even mention the Date and Newpspaper of the publication of the interview by Ms Naipaul with Ms Madigezela-Mandela: The London Evening . .more Standard, 08.03.10 [8th March, 2010], and it DID appear in the print version AND on the Net: so that the "interview" is REAL and thus did appear, and that was what I commented upon: "What Winnie Mandela says (about the Mandela's name being used) ..." etc. And, so, Ms Naipaul did make an interview (and most proberbly taped it also - as 'back-up'). But maybe you should focus on the more substantive issues (the 'real' issues) I raise instead of yourobtuse remarks about "the political side show"! . .less by Selim Gool on March 17 2010, 15:42 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Dear John (2) Here you can find the original interview: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23812947-how-nelson-mandela-betrayed-us-says-ex-wife-winnie.do "How Nelson Mandela betrayed us, says ex-wife Winnie" By Nadira . .more Naipaul 08.03.10 "My husband and I have just crossed Africa. On the final leg of our journey we had finally come to South Africa - a place that now went hand in hand with the name Mandela. My husband had been reluctant to come here but then he had followed his instinct and it had brought us to the Soweto door of the mystifying Winnie Mandela, a much celebrated and reviled woman of our times. .." . .less by Selim Gool on March 17 2010, 16:02 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

@Selim Gool Yes, Selim, I am in London & I accept most of what you write. I actually enjoyed your article & it presented as generally balanced & honest. However, timing is everything & the world feeds on sound bites. With WorldCup2010 the focus is . .more again acutely on SA. It is a pity that Winnie has yet to learn restraint. It is also a pity that her utterrings (even denied ones) have to permeate everything SA (even the positive). Into this heady mix, including your article, are two Mandelas. The Jekyll & Hyde character, so to speak, of the Rainbow Nation. I did not say the alleged utterrings were not published - they were. My comment arises out of the ongoing SA commentary taking it as said (even though she says it wasn't), & going on to support that which she herself is now denying. Either of the Mandelas will draw reaction & focus on SA - one mostly positive, the other a lot that is rotten. It is unfortunate timing perhaps that your article had to draw on "that interview" now to make your point. A little judicious editing might have made a world of difference, viz:- ""But in essence [much/some of] what she [is reported to have said] is true: the ANC today is a puppet of the capitalist corporate world, domestically and internationally" - Selim Gool. Her credentials in your article do you & SA no favours. Detainee :) . .less by John Austin, London on March 18 2010, 12:36 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Dear John ... (3) O.K. Lets leave it at that then! I am pleased you: ".. actually enjoyed (the) article (and found it) generally balanced & honest." If I have a "point" to make, then it is to warn against a one-sided or "simplistic" reading of the past (i.e. "History") . .more and then transposing this onto the big screen, a-la Eastwood. Yes, I should I have also included some 'soundbites': like when Damon, as Pienaar, huffs, puffs and flexes his mighty thighs, to say nothing of his mighty vocal chords (in a correct Afrikaas accent), and then after a meeting with the Great Man, becomes a "believer", persuades his Springbok players, previously a bunch of losers who whinge, moan, groan and, worse, do not want to sing the National Anthem, to do exactly that (now to be sung in isiXhosa) then its a bit much; or when Morgan Freeman, who has the 'real' Mandela's 'visual presence', his tics, gestures and manerisms down pat, comes into the rugby stadium for the final, not only wearing the Springboks colours (hated by 'Blacks') but also the captain's nr 14 jersey, the 'symbolism' becomes overpowering - the 'Man of Destiny'/ 'Man of History' and 'Saint' merge into a symbolic whole, as a gigantic advertisement for the Rainbow New South Africa. My point? Eastwood chose 'symbolism, resonance and gesture' over 'substance': Disneyfying a much more complex reality. . .less by Selim Gool on March 18 2010, 13:59 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Name
Subject
Comment