A fictitious movie moment? Not this one

Roar Rookie

By DanEvansJr, 27 Jan 2010 DanEvansJr is a Roar Rookie

Tagged:: Invictus, Rugby Union, Rugby World Cup, South Africa, Springboks

Related coverage

Movies about real life events or people many times leave me wondering if a specific scene or moment in time was exaggerated for effect. With the wealth of information available via the Internet it is an argument that can be solved with some degree of certainty – usually.

Over the holidays I went to see Invictus.

As someone who played a little rugby in college and has a son who recently wrote a terrific report on Nelson Mandela, I was excited to see the movie.

It’s a good movie and provides a decent overview of the circumstances that led up to the significance of the 1995 Rugby World Cup played in South Africa.

I have not read the book “Playing the Enemy” that the movie is based on, but I suspect anyone who has and seen the movie will tell me the book is much better.

Not too surprising, with a subject as complicated as Mandela’s release from prison, his election as President and the truly remarkable moment in time that the 1995 Rugby World Cup was, how it brought a divided country together and the role the Springboks played.

I have a friend, Tony Ridnell, who played rugby at the highest level for the United States Eagles the national team, earning 14 caps in 15s International competition, as well as many others in 7’s matches.

I was fortunate enough to attend the Hong Kong 7s a couple times, which is one of the must-see sporting events in the world.

Tony played in Hong Kong several times with the Eagles and I know he agrees with me – I’ve seen the photos! Tony traveled the world representing the United States playing rugby. Not a bad way to spend a few years.

Following his retirement from rugby, Tony Ridnell launched an extremely successful global chemical distribution company called Tony Ridnell International here in Seattle.

Back to my original comment about exaggerated movie moments for effect. I thought the 747 fly-over in Invictus was not only exaggerated, but probably just a fictional movie moment – until today.

Tony posted the above photo on Facebook taken from his seat at the 1995 Rugby World Cup championship match at Ellis Park in Johannesburg featuring the Springboks versus the All Blacks.

Can’t say I’ll never doubt another movie moment that seems to (fill in the blank) to be true, but as of today I don’t doubt this famous movie moment!

Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.

The Crowd Says (44) | Page 1 of Comments

Marshall said | January 27th 2010 @ 8:51am | Report comment

Thanks for this. I don’t know the real life events too well so when I saw Invictus I was sure the flyover scene was the creation of Hollywood. Great to see it actually happened.

Reply
katzilla said | January 27th 2010 @ 8:54am | Report comment

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/rugby_union/article6998992.ece

This is an account from the SA rugby Exec at the time.

For me the movie wasn’t Hollywood enough, he kind of got stuck in no mans land between realistic and semi-fabricated Hollywood guff. The Action sequences could have been done alot better (‘Any given Sunday’ kind of action would have done us alot of favours in the USA market). The relationship that Mandela has with his family (or lack thereof) should have been worked in.
In the end the movie doesn’t really give you an insight into either what makes Mandela tick or what rugby’s about.

Reply
Lee said | January 27th 2010 @ 9:13am | Report comment

Agree that the rugby scenes could have been better, it did seem like there was confusion over whether this was a sports film or a politcial one. All in all not a bad movie though.

I have read the book, and as you mention DanEvansJr, I would say the book is much better, only because it includes so much more detail. There were aspects in the book that I was surprised the film left out and likewise other aspects from the film that were dramaticised(sp?) for effect.

The book is also based on interviews with people who were involved with Mandela, the ANC and the Boks at the time – a shame that the movie glosses over some of these other key people in the story, like Kitch Christie.

Reply
Bay35Pablo said | January 27th 2010 @ 9:30am | Report comment

Geez didn’t any of you watch the game on TV, or see the higlights? I remember that flyover and I probably had 13 beers under my belt while watching it in a pub at midnight our time!!!

Reply
Dandy said | January 27th 2010 @ 11:34am | Report comment

What about the food poisoning of the All Blacks. The Springboks would have never won the game if Suzie had not of poisoned them. Where is that in the movie?

Reply
- Lee said | January 27th 2010 @ 11:39am | Report comment
  
  Haha
  
  I was wondering how long it would take before that started up.
  
  Who’s Suzie?
  
  Reply
Dandy said | January 27th 2010 @ 12:02pm | Report comment

Suzie the waitress.
Have a look at these links

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5727571184344259601#

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=6&click_id=581&art_id=qw961136822629B262&page_number=2

They were dominating the tournament with big Jonah tearing sides apart, if the food poisoning had not had happened the AB’s would have blown the Springboks of the park.

And I am Australian.

Reply
Michael C said | January 27th 2010 @ 12:43pm | Report comment

I remember reading about ‘Valkyrie’ that there were some watering down amendments made because there were real events that they thought the audience actually wouldn’t believe.

Ah well – I’ve read the Biggles books where Captain W.E.Johns asserted that the ‘fantastic’ events were based on the real exploits of others.

The more peculiarly fantastic sometimes – means the more real!!!

Reply
NickF said | January 27th 2010 @ 12:58pm | Report comment

2 points I was concerned with was;

1.The Springboks were watching the video of the England v NZ semi, and all focus was on Jonah Lomu, The Springbok were asking “who is this Lomu fellow”. Surely by this stage everyone in the rugby world new big Jonah.

and 2. could some one correct my knowlege, but isn’t the Haka usually led by a person of Maori heritage? The guy in the NZ jersey leading the Haka didn’t look particularly maori.

I also felt that trying to create tension and suspense in a movie from a boring final and focusing in on the strugle in the rucks before the final whistle was always going to be difficult. I also found it hard to like Matt Damon as Francios Pinear, as Pinear in 1995 during the rugby war didn’t act very ethically or honestly, when dealing with the Aussies and Kiwis (according the Peter Fitzsimons book) in the final negotiations.

I also agree that the food poisoning issue was a big deal and the Kiwis that year were by far the better team.

Reply
- True Tah said | January 27th 2010 @ 1:06pm | Report comment
  
  NickF
  
  Im sure quite a few people knew of Lomu before the 1995 world cup, but Im pretty certain Lomu had never played against South Africa before then, from memory he played against the French in 1994 where the All Blacks lost both games, and he didnt play too well. The world cup made Jonah into a figure bigger than his sport, Im sure people in places where they wouldnt have known a rugby ball from an egg would have heard of him.
  
  I thought Damon didnt do a bad job as Francois Pienaar, my gf is South African and she was impressed with his accent.
  
  I thought rugby, relative to American football, is a lot harder game to show in a movie, and it is nowhere near as glamorous. To this end, I thought the movie did a good job of those scenes.
  
  Reply
- DaMan3000 said | January 27th 2010 @ 1:53pm | Report comment
  
  Nick. I was only a young-un when I was allowed to stay up late in Dunedin and watch the Grand Final. I am pretty sure in the GF the Haka was lead by Zinzan Brooke who could look Maori or Anglo, depending on the photo. But you are right that they pick a player with Maori heritage to lead it (if there is one in the squad).
  
  Reply
Frank O'Keeffe said | January 27th 2010 @ 1:46pm | Report comment

I thought Invictus sucked to be honest.

I was really annoyed at how they built-up Jonah. Watching the movie you’d swear he was the greatest rugby player of all-time. When Damon is giving his speech during the final it’s, “We have to stop Jonah, we’re not doing enough etc.”

Not much focus was put on the quarter and semi final, which I guess is understandable, but the French game is a good story. You have the match almost being cancelled due to bad weather, and it would have been awarded to the French because SA had a bad diciplinary record (due to the Canada match). But it went ahead.

Then you have Benazzi’s questionable try. Was it or wasn’t it a try? Surely that would have been a good dramatic moment for the movie. And also I liked it how Benazzi said afterwards it wasn’t a try because he knew what it meant to SA, only years later to say he did score it but was just as happy that it wasn’t given because of what it meant to SA.

Maybe focusing on those things would have resulted in the movie losing a bit of focus. It’s about how Mandela used the Cup to unite a nation. There are some interesting moments in the movie. I liked:

- The interaction between Mandela’s white and black bodyguards – the original tension between them that turned into friendships.
- The story of how the ANC wanted to change the Springbok name, only for Mandela to decide otherwise so as not to alienate the white South Africans.

But on the whole it wasn’t a great movie IMO.

It’s interesting, however, to note how true Eastwood was to the games that were played. For example, in the Australia v South Africa game, Michael Lynagh scored a try by breaking through the line. In the movie you see a blonde curly-haired Aussie scoring in exactly the same fashion. He really duplicated the games that he displayed.

Reply
- True Tah said | January 27th 2010 @ 2:01pm | Report comment
  
  Frank
  
  I guess the other aspect of the French game which was missed was when Louis Luyt gave the Ref (Derek Bevan?) a gold watch afterwards.
  
  On the Lomu factor:
  
  I can recall in the leadup to the game back in 1995, the talk was how the Boks were going to stop Lomu, how a South African radio station offered a bounty for every time the big man was tackled. About how a young NZ sent a fax to the All Blacks saying “rugby is a team game, so all 14 players must pass the ball to to Jonah”.
  
  There is no doubt Lomu was the star of the 1995 world cup (he was also a star in 1999), and unquestionably he is the most famous rugby player ever.
  
  Reply
  - Frank O'Keeffe said | January 27th 2010 @ 2:08pm | Report comment
    
    Was Jonah really that great against England though? His try where he trampled over Mike Catt was very impressive, and he scored another try running over someone. But didn’t he also score two tries where he was unmarked? Shouldn’t, therefore, the credit to to the other 14 players who put him into such open space?
    
    I can understand the hysteria over Lomu by the press, the fans etc. I don’t buy that Piernaan’s instructions to his team mates was, ‘We have to stop Lomu etc’. Sounds like Hollywood making things more dramatic than they were. Surely they’d have to worry about a Merthen’s drop goal, about territory, about cutting back errors, about all those other great players etc.
    
    Reply
    - NickF said | January 27th 2010 @ 5:54pm | Report comment
      
      Yes he was. Watch this video on youtube
      
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlsMTrGa_4k
      
      Reply
- Mike G said | January 27th 2010 @ 2:14pm | Report comment
  
  Whilst I don’t think the movie “sucked”, as you say Frank…I have to admit it wasn’t as good as I’d hoped it would be. As others have said, it seemed to me that Eastwood etc didn’t know how best to deliver the message, so what we got was a mishmash of styles…The game sequences were crap & could’ve been handles a lot better.
  Shame really, as the 1st half of the movie was pretty good
  
  Reply
  - Frank O'Keeffe said | January 27th 2010 @ 4:28pm | Report comment
    
    Actually Mike I may have been a bit harsh with my words. I’m actually around about where you are. I did enjoy the first half of the movie, and agree the game sequences were crap. I did enjoy the first half of the movie like you did though.
    
    Reply
sheek said | January 27th 2010 @ 1:48pm | Report comment

I would be interested to know exactly how many of the run-on All Blacks were suffering the after affects of food poisoning. I definitely seeing recall Jeff Wilson spewing. But I can’t really recall anyone else that was visibly sick.

While the world knows that some of the ABs – not all – suffered food poisoning, some of those weren’t playing in the final.

So how many of the run -on team was actually affected???

Food poisoning or not, no-one expected the Boks to win, but these kind of upset victories happen regularly. No doubt every Kiwi will go to their deathbed believing the ABs would have won without food poisoning. We all have to hang onto something to believe, don’t we…..

BTW, I remember the fly-over also.

Reply