Talk:Invictus (film)

Shave magazine

The review from Shave magazine seems a bit of an odd inclusion. As best I can tell it's a pretty minor publication in global terms, it uses an odd rating system and the review itself has a pretty glaring grammatical error. Do we really need this here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.24.200.63 (talk) 11:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Plot

In the last paragraph of the plot section it says: "Supported by a large home crowd of all races". Can this be altered? As in the movie during the pre-match security briefing it's said "The tickets sold out long before the team became popular. It's not exactly going to be the rainbow nation out there. And that's the reality". Of course there were different races glued to television sets watching the broadcast of the final (the 43 million) but they weren't in the crowd at the stadium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.78.40 (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Untitled

Should critics' quotations take up such a large chunk of this page? Wikipedia isn't rottentomatoes or metacritic, so I disagree. ZdrowcaB (talk) 04:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

first actor to be 'casted' or 'cast'?

"first actor to be casted," should this be corrected to "first actor to be cast"? --wcrosbie, Melbourne, Australia 21:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcrosbie (talk • contribs)

Poisoning

The All Black team in the final were suffering from either gastroenteritis or food poisoning. Their coach at the time felt they may have been poisoned (quaintly suspecting a waitress named Suzie). One of Mandela's security team later claimed the All Blacks had been deliberately poisoned by South African government agents, (see Wikipaedia about the match itself). I am unaware of any evidence the real Mandela knew about deliberate poisoning. Internet commentary has suggested dialogue in the movie references the poisoning, and may blame Mandela, citing the dialogue when Mandela asks his security, rather than the players, what is necessary for them to do for the Springbok team to win. However I can't see discussion of this in mainstream reviews. If this was the intention of the dialogue - hinting at a darker and more ruthless Mandela - it would make the portrayal of him in the movie more complex than it at first appears. Worth mentioning, or still "[un]original research" and wait and se if something more mainstream repeats the idea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.180.89.191 (talk) 09:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Its quite a leap inferring that Mandela knew about something based on a detail that small. Probably more due to editing? The "poisoning" itself is very contentious and no proof of any kind has surfaced since '95. You refer to one of his security team that claimed poisoning by government agents? As far as I know, he recently claimed something about an Indian betting syndicate possibly being involved - not government agents. And it is still only dubious, sensationalist claims - probably to sell his new book?

Definately not worth mentioning and that's why you don't see any discussion of it in mainstream reviews. - Sahmejil (talk) 08:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sahmejil, it is widely accepted here in New Zealand that the All Blacks were intentionally poisoned. This isn't merely a fringe theory or sour grapes among die-hard All Blacks fans. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Whole other discussion, which I am more than happy to have. But what is relevant here is that I still maintain that the movie is not, and could not be concerned with "events" like this one mentioned - no matter how deeply it is believed in certain circles. Belief doesn't make fact. Sahmejil (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"it is widely accepted here in New Zealand that the All Blacks were intentionally poisoned". - wow, thats a surprise. Whats the excuse for other defeats in later World Cups? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.236.47 (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

82.42.236.47, it's not an "excuse" and this isn't about other world cups. The All Blacks lost in 1995 for a number of reasons, as is the case in later world cups. The fact remains that they were suffering food poisoning and i'm simply clarifying the fact that in NZ this isn't regarded as some fringe conspiracy theory conjured up as an "excuse" - as you put it. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 13:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Its weird how Africans still refuse to believe this happened, even though they get wholloped black and blue in every game. (and never point out how their win/lose ratio crashed as soon as they had to play the entire world, not just hand selected teams at home) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.117.1.11 (talk) 05:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Plane

At one point in the film, a plane nearly hits the stadium with “good luck” written underneath. Does anyone have any info on this? I found some minor references to the event on Google but nothing about the pilot or what happened afterword. The 1995 Rugby World Cup page had no mention of it.-- jfry3 (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there any mention in this movie of how the All Black players were poisoned? i have not seen the film but the plot description makes no mention. --Dirty great green murloc (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No. ^Khukri 12:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Trivia (deleted section)

• The word "invictus" is Latin for "unconquered." It is also the name of a short poem written in 1875 by William Ernest Henley, a British poet. The poem was written while Henley was in hospital having to have his stricken foot amputated. Mandela is heard saying lines from the poem.

• The filmmakers wanted a well-known British actor to play Francois Pienaar's father and auditions were made from December 2008-March 2009. It was finally decided to cast a lesser-known South African actor instead.

• According to Laurence Mitchell, the head of the Cape Film Commission, "in terms of stature and stars, this certainly is one of the biggest films ever to be made in South Africa.

• Nelson Mandela himself has said that only Morgan Freeman could portray him. And so Freeman was the first actor cast.

• To prepare for his role as Francois Pienaar, Matt Damon took intensive coaching at the Gardens Rugby Club under Chester Williams, who himself was a player in the South African rugby team of 1995.

• Jonah Lomu is portrayed by Zak Feaunati, who was once a player of the Bath Rugby team and is currently head of Rugby at Bishop Vesey's Grammar school in Sutton Coldfield.

• Morgan Freeman and his producing partner Lori McCreary had been developing a movie about Nelson Mandela (a.k.a. Madiba) for years. They were originally trying to adapt Mandela's autobiography Long Walk to Freedom, but since the story spanned many decades it would be impossible to completely translate into a feature film.

• Before production began, Morgan Freeman and Lori McCreary made a trip to South Africa to get Nelson Mandela's blessing for the film. According to McCreary, Freeman started off by saying, "Madiba, we've been working a long time on this other project, but we've just read something that we think might get to the core of who you are..." Before he had finished, Madiba said, "Ah, the World Cup." For McCreary, that was "when I knew we were heading in the right direction."

• Morgan Freeman, who has been a friend of Nelson Mandela for many years, prepared for his role as Mandela by watching some tapes of him to perfect his accent and rhythm of speaking. However, the most difficult part was Mandela's charisma, which could not be duplicated: "I wanted to avoid acting like him; I needed to BE him, and that was the biggest challenge. When you meet Mandela, you know you are in the presence of greatness, but it is something that just emanates from him. He moves people for the better; that is his calling in life. Some call it the Madiba magic. I'm not sure that magic can be explained."

• Matt Damon made a visit to Francois Pienaar's home to ask Pienaar for assistance in preparing for his role. When Damon got to his house, Pienaar answered the door and for a few minutes they simply looked up at each other. Then Damon said "I look much bigger on camera." This broke the tension, and Pienaar prepared a gourmet dinner for Damon. Pienaar later claims he was impressed by Damon: "He's a great bloke. I was struck by his humility and his wicked sense of humor. He wanted to learn everything he could about me, my philosophy as a captain and what it was like for us in 1995. We also chatted about the game of rugby, what happens in training and about the technical aspects. We had a lot of fun."

• Matt Damon informed Clint Eastwood about Francois Pienaar's distinct physique: "You know, this guy is huge!" Eastwood replied, "Hell, you worry about everything else. Let me worry about that." By structuring set-ups and camera angles, Eastwood was able to make the average-height Damon look about Pienaar's height.

• The actors playing the New Zealand rugby team, the All Blacks, had to learn the traditional Maori war chant, the Haka, which is performed at every game to intimidate rival teams. Out of a sense of verisimilitude and respect, the crew contacted the New Zealand Rugby Association to make sure the Haka would be done correctly. They sent over a Haka expert named Inia Maxwell, who assisted in Haka/rugby training and was present when the Haka was filmed so that it was portrayed accurately.

• Nelson Mandela's visit to the Springbok training camp was filmed in an area called Tokai (Cape Town). According to Clint Eastwood, when the crew arrived that morning they discovered some unusual spectators around the site: a group of baboons. "We had to wait until the baboons exited, but as soon as the players got out there, they would stay on the sidelines or up in the trees. They looked at us like they were wondering, 'What kind of crazy people are these?'" the director laughs.

• The exterior scenes of Nelson Mandela's house were done at his actual residence in Johannesburg, while the interior scenes were shot in a home in Cape Town.

• The president's office, where Nelson Mandela and Francois Pienaar first meet, was filmed in the offices of the Union Buildings, the seat of government in the capital city of Pretoria. It marked the first time any movie had been filmed there.

• All the rugby games were filmed at Johannesburg's Ellis Park Stadium, where they had actually been played. Much of the stadium has changed since 1995, so James J. Murakami gathered extensive research to take the venue back to the way it looked, including the appropriate signage of the time. Computer graphics were later employed to complete the effect.

• Nelson Mandela's personal assistant, Zelda la Grange, complimented the work of production designer James J. Murakami and his team: "I know the house so well and they recreated it to perfection. The environment even felt the same. And then I heard Morgan Freeman speak - I didn't see who it was at first - and I thought, 'Now how did Mr. Mandela get here?'"

• When filming the games, there were only 2,000-plus extras in the stands. Using motion-capture techniques, the visual effects team was able to "sell out" the stadium with 62,000 fans.

• Costume designer Deborah Hopper had to bring back the look of 1995 in regard to the Springbok uniforms, since the current team's outfits are not the same: "There is a lot of difference in the uniforms. In 1995, the shorts were much shorter and the jerseys were cut fuller and boxier. And the fabric they used at that time was cotton; now it's synthetic. We had to have the fabric specially knitted for us." Hopper and her team also had to duplicate the uniforms of the other teams, including the logos, many of which have also changed (in fact, the Springbok on the South African rugby team's logo is facing the opposite direction from the logo of 1995).

• When the film came about, composer Kyle Eastwood was at a jazz festival in South Africa, so Clint Eastwood sent him to scout around and meet local music groups to see what he could find.

• Nelson Mandela's favourite band, the Soweto String Quartet, was hired to work on the film.

• During the making of this film, Clint Eastwood became a fan of rugby. While in South Africa, he would watch hours of rugby every night and come in the next morning and talk about the games. Eventually, he began to enjoy the games.

• Scott Eastwood, who plays fly-half Joel Stransky (whose drop goal provided the Springboks' winning margin in the final), is the son of director Clint Eastwood.

Inaccuracies

I have deleted this section for a few reasons: Wikipedia discourages trivia lists, it's unsourced, and also the film is based on a story, it is not a documentary dedicated to every last little detail, so the inaccuracies are actually differences from reality. Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm in agreement. Good work. Luigibob (talk) 21:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

If it was a documentary, it would not be historical inaccuracies, but lies. I think the section should be restored, but maybe we could cut down a but on it? Really, like there was the wrong advertising sign somewhere? Does that actually count as a historical inaccuracy? :) --OpenFuture (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a documentary, but isn't a fiction as well. Movie definitely intends to make an impression that it covers historical events, all major scenes in the movie had their counterparts in reality, also all personal names are preserved. Movie abounds with striking mistakes (like rugby rules violations) which will be noticed by many people over and over, and they will attempt to add those into he article anyway. So it's not 'insignificant or inessential', as suggested by the definition of trivia, therefore this isn't trivia. We should restore this section. Yurivict (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the section was that it was entirely unsourced. With regards to a historical film there is room to include innaccuracies in articles, but it needs to be sourced from reliable sources. An example would be The Patriot. There was barely a single review of it which didn't mention the innacuracies. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Lord Cornwallis. WP:FILMHIST has guidelines about this. Erik (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

OOps Sorry. The following comment was written before I read Erik's link. The guidlines state that inaccuracies must have been pointed out by a reliable source, and not rely on comparison between history and the film, which would be verifiable, but not encyclopedically relevant. This is a biographical drama based on real events, so I think that there should be a Inaccuracy or "Historical Accuracy," as there is with 300, or "Historical Inaccuracy" section as there is in Pearl Harbour and Bonnie and Clyde, or a Historical inaccuracies and omissions section as there is in The Last Emperor . The information in the deleted section was interesting, and at least one point, about the number of years Mandela spent in the island prision, was sourced. Why not leave at least that? --Timtak (talk) 10:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Timtak, these films you mentioned have cited passages. If you want to have a "Historical accuracy" section (with "accuracy" as neutral terminology), check out these potential references for inclusion: 1 and 2. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the section claiming that the film suggests that the final was played in Cape Town instead of Johannesburg, as the only shred of evidence to support this is the name of a street as the president leaves the stadium. This, to me, is a filming error not an historical inaccuracy, South Africa's opening matches were held in Cape Town, so it is in fact historically accurate to have the scenes which take place there. The Stadium used in the final and match against western Samoa, is clearly named Ellis Park stadium. User:GlosterBoy

I didn't know Ellis Park was in Johannesburg, and thought the final was in Cape Town until I read this section. The film clearly plays out like it's in Cape Town, and scenes before and after are filmed in Cape Town. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have added the inaccuracy of François Pienaar not singing the national anthem, I have seen in an interview he gave some years later that his reason for not singing was that he was overcome with emotion at seeing Mandela wearing a Springbok jersey with his number on it, video clips of the anthems clearly show an emotional looking Pienaar but I cannot find a reference to state this reason on the article, I feel an explination is needed especially as the film shows Pienaar encouraging the rest of the sqaud to learn and sing the anthem, any help would be appriciated. User:GlosterBoy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.21.184 (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the inaccuracy concerning food poisoning should be deletede cause there are no conclusive proofs about it. --Rivet138 (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Rivet138

There certainly is proof of food poisoning, you can see players vomiting on the sidelines during the game (real 95 RWC final footage, not the movie). There just isn't any proof of a conspiracy, that doesn't mean it wasn't a conspiracy just very well executed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.96.33 (talk) 02:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Reception

I just wanted to make a comment about the Reception Section from this article. Most of the time, the reviews on wikipedia are written in a certain format. Usually it starts with the overall reception, and the rotten tomatoes and/or metacritic. Then it goes off and talks about individual reviews - but sometimes it can be moshed together. Not that its hard to follow or anything, but I just feel like the way it was written here is far nicer looking, and easy to read. I like how the opening paragraph gives you the review summary and ratings from Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, and then a few individual reviews are selected and separated like that. In the case where there are a mixture of reviews, it would be a big help there as well because it would be easier to read and see the reviews that are positive or negative.

I'd like to see more of this - but I'm sure for the articles that already exist it would be a hassle to start changing them, but on new articles I'd like to see this. Is there any way to give this style as a format or something like that? Maybe on the help pages this could be how it is recommended... but I dont know how that would be done or if it would work.Joeyo14 (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Invictus (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100125194005/http://www.dentonrc.com/sharedcontent/dws/drc/localnews/stories/DRC_Invictus_1225.e7dafb8.html to http://www.dentonrc.com/sharedcontent/dws/drc/localnews/stories/DRC_Invictus_1225.e7dafb8.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)