| Author |
 Topic  |
|
AC 
"Returning FWFR Old-Timer"
|
 Posted - 12/08/2009 : 18:14:45
|
Geez, lighten up, yo. Sean and I have a long-running Australia vs. New Zealand debate going on, and love to bait one another.
All that's of note here is that the choking that New Zealand did as a result of poisoning is nothing compared to the choking they did in '99 (France), '03 (the mighty Wallabies), and '07 (France again). Whether they were poisoned or not is not really of interest to me - I just like revving up Kiwis, and it sounds like you're nice and revved up. Objective achieved. |
 |
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 12/08/2009 : 19:52:34
|
I note that my favorite cricketers, the Windies, are staring down the Aussies in Adelaide, behind Clobberin' Chris Gayle!
I actually know very little about cricket, but during a tour of Scotland about ten years ago, the Windies were on telly at every inn we visited. The first bowler I ever saw was Curtly Ambrose: a wild man! And Brian Lara is now legend as a batsman. I have very little idea what's actually going on, but I could still watch all day.
EDIT: And the Aussies came back to trounce, making a draw the best the Windies can hope for in this Test... |
Edited by - randall on 12/09/2009 20:41:15 |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 12/16/2009 : 23:17:25
|
I dunno ,.. all this rugby chit-chat ... Have just seen the film, much of which I watched through tears. Because it ain't about rugby. You did know that, dincha?
I'm not sure how long the feeling of unity lasted in S.A. after Mandela's ploy came good. Eastwood certainly got the whys and wherefors of Mandela's using the sport not only to start the healing process among the disparate peoples of his country, but as a political tool to instantly raise S.A. in the eyes of a world which had been ambivalent for so long.
The film is about two things really, neither of which is rugby. They are truth and reconciliation.
That's it.
PS Eastwood's direction has become so accomplished you can't see any of the joins. At times it plays like a home movie. And I mean that in a good way. 
PPS The acting is terrific.
Truth. Reconciliation.
|
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 12/18/2009 : 18:49:37
|
If it ain't about rugby, howcome there's so much goddam rugby in it? I could have gone for some more truth & reconciliation... |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea 
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 12/27/2009 : 06:09:55
|
This is... I dunno, kind of an odd movie. The first half is all politics, the second half all match. I definitely see what BaftaBabe is saying about this not being a rugby movie -- this isn't structured like a sports movie and it doesn't hit any of the same buttons as a sports movie. If it does, it's along the lines of Miracle, which suggested that the 1980 hockey team lifted America out of its '70s malaise, but even there, it doesn't quite fit. It's all about politics really. We don't really learn much about any of the rugby players -- not even Francois Pienaar, Matt Damon's character. There's an amusing scene where a bunch of little South African kids mob the only black player Chester Williams, who comes across like South Africa's Jackie Robinson. But Chester only ever gets in a couple lines and a couple scenes; I feel like we're missing a lot of context. The big plays don't hit like highlights, and we're not ever expected to really follow or understand what happening . I'm really not quite sure what to make of this movie.
The point is not that a bunch of rugby players won a big game, as much as it is that Nelson Mandela carefully and rightfully made the South African team a symbol of post-apartheid unity, and luckily enough, they were good enough to win the game. It's a nice feel-good message that you can't get down on. It's a good message, and I'm sure the parallels between the newly elected Mandela and the newly elected Obama aren't coincidental. But without those usual triggers, the game isn't quite exciting. Maybe it was a foregone conclusion for you Europeans, but I don't know anything about the 1995 World Cup and it would have been nice for the film to treat me like I didn't already know the ending (as indeed Miracle did; believe me, I knew how that game was gonna end). It's kinda sorta a sports movie, kinda sorta a character study of a newly elected leader in a difficult situation, kinda sorta a movie about political maneuvering, it's kinda sorta a lot of things. I'm not sure it adds up to a movie about anything particular. Not a bad movie by any means, but I just don't know what to make of it.
|
|
|
|
BiggerBoat 
"Pass me the harpoon"
|
Posted - 02/10/2010 : 18:57:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by randall
I'll be interested to read your views on the rugby issue, BB. Don't forget to report back when you finally see INVICTUS. You're so right that sporting rules should not intrude upon the flowing narrative, but let's concede that the flowing narrative of this particular film is all about rugby. All we're explicitly told is that a forward pass is not allowed, and that's in a children's clinic held by Matt Damon. How about just two or three more minutes at that same clinic? Rugby is to American football as cricket is to American baseball, but the rules aren't backward/forward compatible, as any fan of any of those four sports knows. The rest of INVICTUS's tech details are so tight that this one jumps out at us Americans. At least this American.
Okay, so I got round to seeing this, or should I say, they got round to releasing it over here. I have to say, I thought the rugby scenes were very well done. The actors were obviously at the least very competent amateurs, if not actual professionals. The choreography was excellent although the one thing that was missing was the bone-shaking intensity you would have got in a real match, which tended to give the action sequences an air of amateurism about them. That said, this was set 16 years ago before the game became as truly professional as it is today, so I can forgive them to a degree.
I can appreciate that you non-rugby watchers wouldn't have necessarily picked up on the nuances of these sequences, but how could you if you don't know the game? The effort and skill required to make a break at international level is incredibly high, but we were shown the attempts which were sucessful, which may give the illusion that it's easy to run around the opposition and score a try. They may have benefitted from showing a few occasions where it wasn't so easy and they were held up, just to give some context.
As for the accents, I felt that they had been toned down a bit. Listen to Mandela and a standard south african accent and you'll find them a lot heavier and more gutteral than those portrayed here. I didn't have a problem understanding, but as I pointed out earlier I have a lot of saffer friends so I'm used to it. It's an interesting point though, how much you should concede in order to boost international sales. I would hope that realism should be the predominant factor but I'm not stupid enough not to realise that films aren't just about the art but the profit - and that means accessability. To subtitle a film that is officially in the language you speak would be to concede that it's too difficult to understand. I'd rather that than a homogenisation of language though, so waddaya gonna do? |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/16/2010 : 14:27:23
|
I was quite touched by it, but it probably helped that I saw it right after the appalling The Wolfman. Even at the time, though, I felt that it was pulling at the heartstrings a bit too shamelessly.
In terms of explaining the sport, BiggerBoat is totally correct that it is no different to when we watch an American football film. I don't understand the detailed rules but the general idea is not exactly rocket surgery, and the same here. I think it is quite right that the backwards passing is the only thing that is explicitly explained.
Like aahaa says, Lagaan is by all accounts a really good film (although I haven't seen it myself), so I don't think anyone should rule it out on the basis of its being from Bollywood, especially as Indians care far more about cricket than anyone else. I've seen a couple of other (O.K.) Bollywood cricket films and Lagaan definitely sounds like it is the best.
I thought Freeman and Damon's accents were very patchy. It didn't occur to me that they might have been intentionally watered down or that anyone could have been unable to understand them as they are. Mandela's delivery is so distinctive that I really just think that Freeman wasn't able to capture it too well.
I didn't actually know the result, and it wasn't obvious until the pacing towards the end indicated it. So I certainly don't think that the film assumes knowledge of that World Cup.
4/5 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/05/2010 : 23:31:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Like aahaa says, Lagaan is by all accounts a really good film (although I haven't seen it myself), so I don't think anyone should rule it out on the basis of its being from Bollywood, especially as Indians care far more about cricket than anyone else. I've seen a couple of other (O.K.) Bollywood cricket films and Lagaan definitely sounds like it is the best.
How about this one Sean? Have you seen it aahaa? |
|
|
|
aahaa, muahaha 
"Optimistic altruist, incurable romantic"
|
Posted - 03/06/2010 : 10:03:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Like aahaa says, Lagaan is by all accounts a really good film (although I haven't seen it myself), so I don't think anyone should rule it out on the basis of its being from Bollywood, especially as Indians care far more about cricket than anyone else. I've seen a couple of other (O.K.) Bollywood cricket films and Lagaan definitely sounds like it is the best.
How about this one Sean? Have you seen it aahaa?
Yep, I have seen Iqbal - it is a nice film and doesn't focus on cricket solely though that is the major theme. Doesn't either trivialise or sensationalise the protagonist's handicap of deaf-dumb. Lagaan, however, is in a class of its own.
By the way, The entire film can be seen on YouTube (legally, if I may add) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsGX3f97Wmo&feature=fvsr (first 3 minutes is advts.). No subtitles though. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 03/06/2010 : 10:08:13
|
| How strange (about the legally). My Hindi's not that good, unfortunately, but maybe one day... |
|
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 03/06/2010 : 10:45:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
How about this one Sean? Have you seen it aahaa?
I haven't seen it. It's on my list now. Netflix here doesn't have it so I may have to Youtube it... |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Invictus
