“Invictus is a very good story very well told,” writes Variety‘s Todd McCarthy. Wait a minute…a “good story”? The use of this term at the beginning of an important review of an end-of-the-year film by a major director calls for a full examination of its meaning.

Morgan Freeman (center) as Nelson Mandela in Clint Eastwood’s Invictus.

I’ve seen Invictus myself and on a certain level McCarthy is right. The story of South African president Nelson Mandela (Morgan Freeman) using the symbolism of sport — i.e., urging unanimous and fervent support of the all-white Springboks rugby team in their goal of winning the 1995 World Cup championship — to unify his racially divided nation is, if you’re at peace with director Clint Eastwood‘s even-tempered, mild-minded shooting style, “well told.” I’m just not sure about the material.

To me the term “good story” is synonymous with “good yarn” — a tale that intrigues and enthralls by…well, usually by planting seeds in the beginning that germinate and sprout into a full and satisfying finale — one that feels natural and true and has a good kick or payoff. We all have our definitions for what “full” and “satisfying” means, but I suspect that what McCarthy meant when he said “good story” is one that is about goodness, or one that is “good” to hear and consider because it says “good” things about human nature, especially when a “good” man finds the strength to lead people in the direction of goodness, which is to say forgiveness and a “thumbs up” attitude that echoes Bob Dylan by saying “don’t look back.”

That aside, McCarthy steps back and, in my view, doesn’t full engage with Invictus, certainly not as much as he could if he wanted to. What is in play here is a justified respect for and allegiance to Eastwood, and McCarthy writing about the film in the same settled-down, measured, and un-throttled way that Eastwood deals with Mandela’s rugby story.

Eastwood’s film, says McCarthy, “has a predictable trajectory, but every scene brims with surprising details that accumulate into a rich fabric of history, cultural impressions and emotion.

“Once again in his extraordinary late-career run, Eastwood surprises with his choice of subject matter, here joining a project Freeman had long hoped to realize. In fact, the filmmaker has frequently dealt with racial issues in a conspicuously even-handed manner, most notably in Bird, and hiscalm, equitable, fair-minded directorial temperament dovetails beautifully with that of Mandela, much of whose daily job as depicted here consisted of modifying and confounding the more extreme views of many of his countrymen on both side of the racial divide.

“Mandela is the lynchpin of Invictus, whose title is Latin for “unconquerable” and comes from a stirring 1875 poem by British writer William Ernest Henley. Although far from a conventional biography, Anthony Peckham’s adaptation of John Carlin‘s densely packed book Playing the Enemy commences with Mandela’s extraordinary transition from imprisonment to the leadership of a country that easily could have fallen into a devastating civil war.

“As he takes office, Mandela allows that his greatest challenge will be successfully relaxing the tension between black aspirations and white fears. Pic adroitly avoids becoming mired in the minutiae of political score-settling by summing up racial suspicions through the prism of the new president’s security detail. Mandela’s longtime black bodyguards are shocked when their ‘Comrade President’ forces them to work with some intimidating Afrikaners, experienced toughs who until very recently were no doubt striking terror into the hearts of the black population.

“Directed by Eastwood with straightforward confidence, the film is marbled with innumerable instances of Mandela disarming his presumed opponents while giving pause to those among his natural constituency who might be looking for some payback rather than intelligent restraint.

“Freeman, a beautiful fit for the part even if he doesn’t go all the way with the accent, takes a little while to shake off the man’s saintlike image, and admittedly, the role of such a hallowed contemporary figure does not invite too much complexity, inner exploration or actorly elaboration. That said, Freeman is a constant delight; gradually, one comes to grasp Mandela’s political calculations, certitudes and risks, the troubled personal life he keeps mostly out of sight, and his extraordinary talent for bringing people around to his point of view.

“Where the rugby match is concerned, that talent is manifested by how, over tea, Mandela personally appeals to the captain of the South African team, the Springboks. A blond Afrikaner with no discernible politics, Francois Pienaar (Matt Damon) would just like to lift the squad from its present mediocrity. But Mandela quotes inspiringly from the poem — ‘I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul’ — speaks of leading by example and exceeding expectations, and leaves Pienaar astonished at the idea that they can dare to dream about winning the World Cup.

“Just as it’s disinclined to offer a primer on South African politics, the film refrains from outlining the rules of rugby; the viewer just has to jump in and surmise that it’s something like a cross between soccer and American football. What the film conveys with tart economy is that rugby was a white game, scorned by blacks; as one man puts it, ‘Soccer is a gentleman’s game played by hooligans, rugby is a hooligan’s game played by gentlemen.’

“In a magnificent irony, the team the mostly white South African squad ultimately faces in the title match is a mostly white New Zealand team called (because of their uniforms) the All Blacks. The climactic faceoff, played in front of 62,000 fans at Johannesburg’s Ellis Park Stadium roused by the presence of Mandela himself, lasts 18 minutes of screen time; when such an event plays out like this in real life, it’s often exclaimed that it could only have been scripted for the movies. Here, it’s real life dictating the incredible scenario.

“With the exception of the meeting with Mandela and a couple of family scenes, most of Damon’s screen time is spent in training or on the field, and it’s meant as highest praise to say that, if he weren’t a recognizable film star, you’d never think he were anything other than a South African rugby player. Beefed up a bit (or, perhaps more accurately, slimmed down somewhat from “The Informant!”) and employing, at least to an outsider’s ear, an impeccable accent, Damon blends in beautifully with his fellow players.

“Some of the most amusing and telling scenes throughout involve the bodyguards, whose body language, facial expressions and intonations of minimal lines convey much about the uncertain state of things in the country.

“Shot entirely on location in South Africa, Invictus looks so natural and realistic that it will strike no one as a film dependent upon CGI and visual effects. In fact, the climactic match would not have been possible without them, as virtually the entire crowd was digitally added after the action was filmed in an empty stadium. You really can’t tell.”

McCarthy is right again — Invictus has the best fake multitudes sitting in a stadium CG I’ve ever seen. Very impressive. Cheers to special effects supervisor Cordell McQueen and visual effects coordinator Eva Abramycheva.

Maggie Gyllenhaal‘s Crazy Heart performance works for everyone and then some, but is it leading or supporting? I saw it as supporting from the get-go, which didn’t strike me as a problem in the least. The Fox Searchlight guys were feeling differently about this a week or two ago, but maybe they’ve come around.

I shot this with my Canon Elph. Bit of a strange angle but I had to keep it close to pick up her voice. There’s a lot that goes into assembling a decent video interview piece. I have to remind myself not to shoot ones that go on for 30 or 40 minutes. It took forever to load and convert this sucker to mp4 and then cut it up into three portions. I’ve got enough aggravation as it is, and now I’m late for my Thanksgiving dinner.

The big performance in Invictus is Morgan Freeman‘s Nelson Mandela, as you might expect. And Matt Damon‘s Francois Pienaar is…well, sturdy enough. But the one you remember after these two is South African actor Tony Kgoroge, who plays Mandela’s chief security guy, Jason Tshabalala.

Invictus costar Tony Kgoroge in Manhattan last August

One obvious reason is that Kgoroge is handsome — hunky even — with a current of kindness and compassion about him. And because he’s the most prominent character in the film with an arc, starting with a posture of borderline hostility towards white Afrikaaners to a place of some acceptance and respect at the end. It’s not a great part but a good one. Like I said, memorable. As an assertive guy who’s angry but capable of growth and not too much of a pusher, Kgoroge is a steady personality who does just enough (and is given just enough lines) to keep from fading into the woodwork.

I met Kgoroge at a Manhattan party last summer. We met again a day or two later. He told me about his Invictus role but described it modestly. There was no way to figure how strong his presence would be. Anyway, I’m glad we talked a bit, and I hope he gets a bounce out of Invictus. The only difficulty, of course, is that his last name is a pronunciation problem for Americans. I can’t even imagine how to say it. If I were his agent/manager I’d get him to change it to George.

The Weinstein Co. is pushing Marion Cotillard‘s Nine performance in the Best Actress category. She has the meatiest, hurting-est role among the Nine women — i.e., the betrayed wife of Daniel Day Lewis‘s Guido. (She’s also a lead because she sings two songs while all the other actresses sing one.) But nothing she does in Nine comes close to her acting in this scene from Public Enemies. I’m sorry but it’s true.

Three and a half days before the 11.30 embargo date, Newsweek‘s David Ansen has posted a short review of Clint Eastwood‘s Invictus. Does this mean others will jump the gun and post today or tomorrow or this weekend? A respected icon like Eastwood has little to fear from traditional big-gun critics like Ansen. Their respect for him is such that they’ll always go easy if they’re not 100% delighted. That said…

“A number of sports movies have one-word titles (Rocky, Hoosiers), but they’re not usually in Latin,” Ansen begins. “Clint Eastwood’s Invictus is not your ordinary sports movie, though it comes to a rousing climax at the 1995 Rugby World Cup match between South Africa and New Zealand. The stakes are higher: a nation’s unity hangs in the balance.

“Invictus (which means ‘unconquered’) takes place at the intersection of sports and politics. Its hero is Nelson Mandela (Morgan Freeman, naturally), who, in the aftermath of apartheid, has just been elected South Africa’s president after serving 27 years in prison.

“During his incarceration, Mandela studied his Afrikaner enemies and was wise to the role sports played in the national psyche. South Africa’s less-than-sterling rugby team, the Springbok, was as beloved by whites as it was despised by the black population, to whom it had become a symbol of oppression. Yet Mandela, taking a huge political risk, refuses to give in to his supporters’ demand that the team be dismantled and renamed.

“To do so, he sees, would only stoke fear and racial paranoia in the Afrikaner population. Enlisting the team’s captain (Matt Damon) to his side, Mandela challenges him to turn its losing ways around. His goal is to use rugby to bridge the racial divide in his country.

“Invictus is not a biopic; nor does it take us deep inside any of its characters — Eastwood views Mandela from a respectful middle distance. It’s about strategic inspiration. We witness a politician at the top of his game: Freeman’s wily Mandela is a master of charm and soft-spoken gravitas. 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.”

I’m inclined to respect the embargo unless the dam breaks, in which case holding back won’t matter.

An Invictus screening begins in 28 minutes (i.e., 6:30 pm) so I don’t have time to write anything about my chat yesterday afternoon with Crazy Heart costar Maggie Gyllenhaal. Okay, I can repeat the general feeling out there that her performance as a 30ish single mom who falls in love with Jeff Bridges‘ roly-poly alcoholic country music star is a quiet, unforced, true-heart thing. More lived-in than “performed.” A supporting standout, in the view of most I’ve spoken to.

Crazy Heart costar Maggie Gyllenhaal at the end of our sit-down yesterday at a low-key place on Tenth Avenue — Tuesday, 11.25.09, 3:25 pm

Gyllenhaal also has the most beautiful eyes I’ve been close to in a long time. There’s something extra-vivid about them live. The last time I saw eyes this radiant and intense was when I got close to Elizabeth Taylor at a Manhattan party in the early ’80s.

I shot some video of our discussion but it’s taking forever to load and convert. Later tonight or tomorrow morning.

Mary Walsh is a Canadian comedian who’s created a running bit out of ambushing Canadian politicians as her character, Marg Delahunte. She recently tried this with Sarah Palin during a book signing. I say again — Palin is a flesh-and-blood incarnation of Martin Sheen‘s President Gregg Stillson in David Cronenberg‘s The Dead Zone.

A fundamental reason why so many people of taste and refinement have been talking with great admiration about Peter Capaldi‘s In The Loop performance as the sewer-mouthed Malcolm Tucker is due to envy and dream-fulfillment. Capaldi’s tirades have not only made him a dark-horse contender for a Best Supporting Actor nomination but instructed (or reminded) some of us that profanity can be artful — it can be delivered with absolute precision and beauty. You just need a team of brilliant writers feeding you the lines.

In The Loop‘s Peter Capaldi

Swearing can be emotionally cathartic for the speaker, but it’s almost always ugly for the listener. Which is why Capaldi’s imaginative and vigorous motor-mouthing in In The Loop is such a trip. Most if not all of us sound coarse and ill-mannered and pathetic in a 15 year-old boy sort of way on those rare occasions when we swear about something or someone. It would be wonderful — bliss! — if we could swear like Tucker on occasion, or even just once.

The Loop artisans and masons, of course, are the writers. Capaldi just makes their stuff sound right, but of course that’s what all acting basically is, isn’t it? Yesterday Dark Horizon‘s Paul Fischer posted an interview with Capaldi that went like this at one point:

Fischer: “Now, this film is as much about language as it is about character. I’m just wondering how much input did you have into the way that he speaks? I mean – and his use of language. Was there any improv at all, or was it all there on the page?”

Capaldi: “It’s largely all done on the page, particularly with Malcolm, because the writers take a lot of time and put a lot of labor into constructing for him, very, very baroque sentences, and ways of speaking. So, my job is to sort of do a congenial check, to make it look as if this highly-polished text is just tripping off my tongue. So – yes, there’s always a gray area.

“[Actors] throw in bits and pieces. How we do the show, or how we did the film, which is the same way we do the show, is that we nail the text. That’s our first responsibility. We shoot a couple of passes where we nail the text. And thereafter, we’re allowed to do sort of rougher versions, where we can loosen up and throw in our own words, if we like. And also, throughout the process, we have days when we improvise around the material. And sometimes a line or whatever comes up that works, and the writers put that into the shooting script. But I wouldn’t — you know, I would say it’s their work, largely.”

What Tennessee Williams plays and film adaptations didn’t feature a handsome (or pretty) young Southern-studcat figure in a prominent role? I’m thinking, I’m thinking. Night of the Iguana, of course. The 1961 film of Summer and Smoke only had Laurence Harvey so that too was an exception. Boom, Last of the Mobile Hot Shots…what others?

In Jodie Markell‘s Loss of a Teardrop Diamond (Paladin, 12.30), the object of desire is played by 28 year-old Chris Evans.

It’s hard to define what makes an appealing movie poster, but the one for Michael Tucker and Petra Epperlein‘s How To Fold A Flag just “does it right” on some level. One look and I said to myself, “I want to see this.” It makes what is clearly a left-humanist portrait of Iraq War veterans seem very plain and true and backyard American. Who’s the artist or agency, I wonder?

“With How to Fold a Flag, a diffuse yet fascinating account of four U.S. Army vets readjusting to civilian life, documakers Michael Tucker and Petra Epperlein continue their sympathetic, insightful examination of individuals involved — as soldiers or civilians, willingly or otherwise — in the Iraq War,” Variety‘s Joe Leydon wrote from Toronto last September.

How to Fold a Flag: in theaters 2010 from Nomados Film on Vimeo.

“Unlike The Prisoner or: How I Planned to Kill Tony Blair or Bulletproof Salesman Tucker and Epperlein’s latest effort comes across as a kind of sequel to their 2004 debut feature, “Gunner Palace, which focused on soldiers of the 2/3 Field Artillery unit assigned to one of the volatile areas in post-Saddam Baghdad.

“Pic does suggest that each of its subjects will survive, and maybe even thrive, as they continue to distance themselves from what they did, and what was done to them, in Iraq. But for some of them, full recovery is a distant, albeit attainable, goal.”

In the same way that one formerly Democratic U.S. Senator (Connecticut’s Joseph Leiberman) and two conservative Democratic Senators (Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu and Arkansas’ Blanche Lincoln) have stubbornly pledged to kill the public-option portion of the health care bill in defiance of common sense and against the wishes of almost everyone, I was the only Envelope Gold Derby Buzzmeter pundit to say “no” to Precious as a Best Picture finalist. In so doing I singlehandedly kept it out of the unanimous column.

I voted as I did not because Precious won’t be Best Picture nominated — of course it will — but because portions of it are so ugly and unpleasant and horrific to sit through that they literally made me convulse. Someone had to stand up and at least symbolically say no. To me the Precious crimes — i.e., the ones committed by Mo’Nique in the context of the film — are not relatable aspects of the human condition. They are so malignant that it’s very hard for me to nod and go “fine, good, well done” even within the remove of dramatic depiction.

I didn’t vote as I did because Precious isn’t a powerfully-acted film that’s finally about caring and compassion — it is that, at least in the third act — but because I feel that a depiction of parenting this cruel and sadistic and beyond-the-pale deplorable — in effect a slow murder of a child by her own mother — must be responded to with an initial vote that says “uhhm, well, okay, it’s a good film and I realize that Dave Karger and all the others are right…but not now.”

Here’s a summary of the yesterday’s L.A. Times/Envelope Gold Derby Buzzmeter poll results, which will be refined and updated as things move along.

The only two unanimous choices for Best Picture (i.e., chosen by all 20 pundits) are Up In The Air and The Hurt Locker. The other big-vote getters are Precious, Invictus, Nine, Up, An Education, Inglourious Basterds and A Serious Man.

Again….where is A Serious Man? You’d think that critics and pundits, at least, would understand that (a) now (i.e., mid November to early December) is the time to mix tea-leaf predictions with convictions and persuasions of their own, (b) a lack of soothing emotionality (and a chilly, analytical or even clinical vibe in place of same) is sometimes a hallmark of great, world-class filmmaking and (c) the fact that A Serious Man is ruthlessly brilliant and hilarious and honed like an effin’ diamond…you’d think that critics and pundits might recognize this fact and, you know, have it count for something in their calculations? No?

The leading Best Actor contender is A Single Man‘s Colin Firth, followed by Up In The Air‘s George Clooney, Invictus‘s Morgan Freeman, Nine‘s Daniel Day-Lewis, Crazy Heart‘s Jeff Bridges and The Road‘s Viggo Mortensen,

And in the Best Actress, An Education‘s Carey Mulligan is in the lead, but only a notch ahead of Precious star Gabby Sidibe. Next comes Julia & Julia‘s Meryl Streep, The Last Station‘s Helen Mirren and Bright Star‘s Abby Cornish.