Movie: Tsotsi (2005)

It seems that the original book this movie was based off of was set in South Africa in the 1960s, but this movie takes place after the apartheid was abolished. The poor black community and the black people of the wealthy middle class are contrasted, and there is a brief depiction of the AIDS problem and abnormally high crime rate; South Africa was Africa’s poster child after the apartheid, but this movie depicts a different side. For people who believe that South Africa transitioned smoothly into a fair community under the leadership of President Mandela, this movie may change their view of South Africa a little.

To say it briefly, this is the story of Tsotsi—an orphaned, juvenile delinquent who robs without thinking of the consequences—maturing into a kind human through his hard struggles in raising a baby he finds in a car he stole. From the moment a parent has a baby, their instinct is to want to protect that child. However, I wonder if this instinct to protect a baby would be triggered in Tsotsi, a young boy who never really had a parent’s love and repeatedly steals and robs. This may be a wonderful movie for a person who can believe this would happen, but for those viewers who have difficulty accepting this plot point, they may find the whole movie unbelievable.

Tsotsi, having a hard time caring for the baby, uses a gun to threaten a young woman in the neighborhood raising her own baby, asks her to breastfeed the baby, and becomes close with the woman. Her husband seems to have been attacked by someone on the way home from work at a factory and is missing. It is possible that Tsotsi or some scoundrel like him murdered the husband. However, this young woman doesn’t seem to be financially struggling, and the inside of her house is tidy. Whether or not you feel this movie to be realistic may make you think it is either a believable masterpiece or a fantasy depicting Africa. Either way, though, this is very sad movie.

This movie was made with three different endings. The official ending ends with Tsotsi getting arrested when he goes to return the baby to its parents. The second ending is that Tsotsi is shot in the shoulder by a police officer and barely escapes alive. The third ending is that Tsotsi dies from a shot in the chest by a police officer. I think the official ending is the best because it has some kind of hope. The second ending leaves the audience with the feeling, “What on earth is this movie trying to say?”while the third ending is too sad.

日本語→

Movie: Invictus (2009)

In 1994, the Republic of South Africa abolished the apartheid that had continued for many years and Nelson Mandela was elected as president in a general election of all races. The Caucasian bureaucrats that held the major positions of the government until then feared that Mandela would seek retribution on their positions and some began to pack their belongings in anticipation of it. In response to this, Mandela gathered the staff members on his first day in governmental office and appealed to them, “You are free to resign, but I wish to cooperate in order to make a new South Africa.” He chastised the black men of his staff who spoke of “retribution” and he persuaded them that he could not build a new nation without cooperation of all races. His own team of bodyguards became a mixed team of black and white men.

Mandela zeroed in on how sports are the best way to connect to the heart of the people and used the Rugby World Cup to be held in the Republic of South Africa in 1995 as means to unify the hearts of the nation. South Africa’s rugby team—the Springboks—were in a slump in those days, but the Springboks showed an unexpected performance in that Rugby World Cup and, in the end, managed to advance to the finals. The movie ends with the scene where the Republic of South Africa defeats top-seeded New Zealand and everyone in the audience, regardless of race, embraces each other.

I hardly knew about President Mandela, but watching this movie, I was impressed with how wonderful a politician he was. His political decisions were extremely pragmatic such as the prohibition of retribution and the utilization of sports; because he knew these strategies were politically effective, he executed them with no hesitation. However, beyond being politically savvy, he has a strength backed by idealism and humanitarianism. He is an excellent coach in politics and I think the world would be a more peaceful place if all countries had a leader like Mandela.

We may understand the connection of sports and patriotism by watching the Olympics. Even if there is criticism that people will do whatever it takes to win—bribe the Olympics, drug use, etc.—without the Olympics, people wouldn’t know what it is like to compete representing their country or what humans are capable of. Without the Olympics, there would be fewer people who are interested in countries like Jamaica and Grenada. It is wonderful that Mandela used a team sports game to unify the nation. Compared to figure skating and gymnastics, a game has a clear and objective winner. However, unlike individual sports like swimming and track-and-field where the winner becomes a hero, all the team members become heroes. In order to win, you need teamwork.

Since Nelson Mandela formally expressed that Morgan Freeman perform as him if his autobiography was adapted to a movie, the friendship between the two has deepened. When Morgan Freeman was selected as the lead actor of this movie, Freeman sent the screenplay to Clint Eastwood—whom he respected having worked together in three previous movies—and requested that he direct the movie. This movie is a product of teamwork. This movie gives the impression that all the people involved in making this movie must have enjoyed their experience.

日本語→