Invictus

Theme
In Invictus, both black and white South Africans struggle to maintain their cultural
identities in a difficult environment.

Value
In Invictus, Clint Eastwood condemns the impulse to seek revenge. This is suggested
by the character of Nelson Mandela who advises against 'petty revenge', instead of
encouraging forgiveness as the way to achieve reconciliation.

Sample sentence on film

In Invictus, Eastwood increases the tension and impact of the Springboks' brutal
match against Australia by using hand-held cameras in the scrums; close-ups of
sweaty, straining faces; and the rhythmic beats of African drums that fill the team and
the audience with enthusiasm and hope.

Read the highlighted paragraph and accompanying annotations to see how the
TEEL structure can be used to produce an effective body paragraph.
'A person must remain committed to their values in order to create change.' To what
extent is this idea supported by Invictus?’

Many people believed Nelson Mandela would use his presidency to seek revenge for
the years of imprisonment he suffered during apartheid, but Invictus shows that
unifying his country was far more important to him than retaliation. 1 He remains
dedicated to his beliefs despite external pressure. 2 Mandela's decision to treat the
Afrikaners with 'compassion, with restraint and generosity' risks alienating his
supporters who suffered during the years of apartheid, including friends and members
of his own family. Nonetheless, he chooses to challenge expectations and respond to
fear and aggression with empathy. 3 This decision is ultimately rewarded as Mandela
is able to begin the process of uniting a country that had been deeply divided by
violence and racial hatred for many years. 4
1
 Invictus

1 The topic sentence indicates that the paragraph will focus on one of the text's key
values: resisting the urge to seek revenge.
2 The point is briefly elaborated on, using synonyms for key words in the topic.
3 Provides textual evidence in the form of the behaviour and attitudes of key
characters, supported by a relevant quotation.
4 The final sentence links clearly back to the topic, showing that Mandela's
commitment to his values contributed directly to the unification of South Africa.

Review
Morgan Freeman has been linked to one biopic of Nelson Mandela or another for at
least 10 years. Strange that the only one to be made centers on the South African
rugby team. The posters for Clint Eastwood's "Invictus" feature Matt Damon in the
foreground, with Freeman looming behind him in shadowy nobility. I can imagine the
marketing meetings during which it was lamented that few Americans care much
about Mandela and that Matt Damon appeals to a younger demographic.
Screw 'em, is what I would have contributed. The achievement of Nelson Mandela is
one of the few shining moments in recent history. Here is a man who was released
after 24 years of breaking rocks in prison and sleeping on the floor to assume
leadership of the nation that jailed him. His personal forgiveness of white South
Africa was the beacon that illuminated that nation's Truth and Reconciliation
Commissions, one of the very few examples in history of people who really had much
to forgive, and forgave it. Let us not forget that both black and white had reasons to
grieve, and reasons to forgive, and that in many cases they were facing the actual
murderers of their loved ones.
Compared to that, what really does it matter that an underdog Springbok team, all
white with one exception, won the World Cup in rugby in the first year of Mandela's
rule? I understand that in a nation where all the races are unusually obsessed by sport,
the World Cup was an electrifying moment when the pariah state stood redeemed

2
 Invictus

before the world -- even if soccer is the black man's game there, and rugby is the
white's. It was important in the way the Beijing Olympics were important to China.

Clint Eastwood, I believe, understood all of these things and also sought to make a
film he believed he could make, in an area where he felt a visceral connection.
Eastwood is too old and too accomplished to have an interest in making a film only
for money. He would have probably read the screenplays for the previous Mandela
projects. They all had one thing in common: They didn't get made. It was universally
agreed that Morgan Freeman was the right actor (Mandela and he met and got along
famously), but the story, financing and deal never came together. Eastwood made the
film that did get made.

It is a very good film. It has moments evoking great emotion, as when the black and
white members of the presidential security detail (hard-line ANC activists and
Afrikaner cops) agree with excruciating difficulty to serve together. And when
Damon's character -- Francois Pienaar, as the team captain -- is shown the cell where
Mandela was held for those long years on Robben Island. My wife, Chaz, and I were
taken to the island early one morning by Ahmed Kathrada, one of Mandela's fellow
prisoners, and yes, the movie shows his very cell, with the thin blankets on the floor.
You regard that cell and you think, here a great man waited in faith for his rendezvous
with history.

The World Cup was a famous victory. The Springboks faced a New Zealand team so
dominant it had crushed every opponent -- Japan by around 90 points, which in rugby
is a lot. South Africa won in overtime. About that team name: The South African
national teams have been called the Springboks since time immemorial (New Zealand
is known as the All Blacks). A springbok is on the tail of every South African Airlines
airplane. It's the national logo. Would Mandela change the name to one less
associated with the apartheid regime? He would not. Join me in a thought experiment.
An African American is elected mayor of Boston. He is accepted, grudgingly in some
circles. How would it go over if he changed the name of the Red Sox?

3
 Invictus

Freeman does a splendid job of evoking the man Nelson Mandela, who is as much a
secular saint as Gandhi (who led his first campaign in Durban, South Africa). He
shows him as genial, confident, calming -- over what was clearly a core of tempered
steel. The focus is on his early time in office. I believe there may be one scene with a
woman representing Winnie Mandela, but the dialogue is vague. Damon is effective
at playing the captain, Francois Pienaar, an Afrikaner, child of racist parents,
transformed by his contact with "the greatest man I've ever met." Clint Eastwood, a
master director, orchestrates all of these notes and has us loving Mandela, proud of
Francois and cheering for the plucky Springboks. A great entertainment. Not, as I
said, the Mandela biopic I would have expected.

‘The power of hope to bring change is limitless.’  Compare the way the two texts
explore this idea.

Despite their very different settings and contexts, Clint Eastwood’s Hollywood epic
Invictus, and David Malouf’s reimagining of Homer’s Iliad Ransom provide a clear
insight into the power of hope to bring about change. Malouf and Eastwood depict
societies that are governed by tradition, to where both Troy and South Africa remain
divided as a result of past animosity. Despite this however, leaders emerge that are
able to defile the conventions of “what is expected” and subsequently, embrace
“something new” and unexpected. Through the texts’ depiction of “break[ing] the
knot” and “look[ing] to the future”, both authors are able to emphasise the power of
emotional strength, all the while suggesting that change is achieved through great
personal cost. 

Despite the role of tradition, both texts suggest that the power to change is limitless.
In Malouf’s Ransom, Priam exists as a “ceremonial figure” and relies primarily on
long-held traditions and emotional abstinence to exert his leadership, as showcased
through his unfamiliarity to the many “deprivations and shortages” of the agrarian

4
 Invictus

lifestyle.  Additionally, prior to his journey to “ransom” Hector’s body from Achilles,
Priam concedes that his “attention was fixed always on what was central. Himself”.
As a result, his lack of exposure to the real world has left him crippled of life’s
simplest experiences, so much so that Malouf employs Jove’s eagle, a bird famous for
its key sight as a means of alluding to the King’s utter blindness in regards to
humanity.
As a result, Priam’s notion of breaking away from tradition and abdicating his “royal
image” in order to petition for Hector's body, is initially berated by Hecuba and his
royal council, as it transgresses the boundaries of convention, allowing Malouf to
further accentuate the rote of Priam’s actions. Nevertheless, despite his “new and
unheard of” plan, Priam immerses himself into the common life and strips away any
“form of royal insignia”, thus enabling the king to emerge as “a man remade” and
briefly, relinquish the disunion between Greeks and Trojans”. Similarly, Eastwood’s
Invictus showcases Nelson Mandela as adopting the same ideology of “exceeding
[one's] own expectations” and trying “something new” and unheard of. Prior to his
presidency, the Afrikaners triumphed in all aspects of political, social and economic
life, as demonstrated in the first onset, which captures a wide shot of two opposing
fields; one stripped bare, while the other appears luscious and immaculate, thus
representing the current gulf between blacks and whites. This is further typified
through Mandela’s black bodyguards, who remain ambivalent towards the “Special
Branch cop as captured by their initial encounter, to where both groups adopt
confrontational postures with their respective parties clamouring behind them.
Regardless of this however, Mandela uses his position to force a societal change,
surprising his “new partners in democracy...with compassion”. As a result, he is able
to break ”the cycle of fear” and unite South Africa through rugby. This stark contrast
with Malouf’s Priam accentuates that, while the role of tradition prevents the king
from rectifying society, Eastwood’s Mandela succeeds at breaking this notion,
ultimately suggesting that the power to change is limitless.

5
 Invictus

Despite the trappings of society, both texts suggest that the power to achieve hope
ultimately prevails through emotional strength. Set in a time of absolute monarchy,
“King Priam” is frequently denied the opportunity to engage in “ordinary desires” and
as a consequence remains sheltered from anything outside his “royal sphere”. Despite
this, however, Priam’s obstinate determination to “ransom” the body of his son
enables him to muster the courage and embrace the concept of “chance”, a motif that
is considered revolutionary in the face of “what it [could] lead to, the violence”.
Regardless, despite the resistance bore by his royal council, further emphasising the
tie to convention as showcased through Eastwood’s Brenda, Priam’s ability to “entreat
the killer of his son” and accept Achilles’ hand accentuates that it takes great
emotional strength to “break the knot”, and bring about change. Dissimilarly, the
“most unpredictable of the Greeks”, Achilles “break every rule [that a Trojan warrior
has] been taught to live by” through his gratuitous violence performed towards
Hector’s body. This is further exemplified through Malouf’s employment of animal
imagery, to which Hecuba, in a state of fury, describes Achilles’ as a “jackal [and a]
wolf”, thus allowing the text to illustrate the “fighter’s” primal emotions in their
rawest form. As a result, despite Achilles’ desire to be “rocked and comforted” by his
mother, his reputation as a “fighter” permits him from “betray[ing] to others what he
[really feels], to the point where he is denied the pleasures of company and eats only
“out of obligation”. Contrastingly, Eastwood’s Mandela remains imbued with the
desire to create a shared identity under the “one team one nation” banner, and hence,
continues to jettison his strong opposition’s belief that “[the] country [has gone] to the
dogs”. Seemingly impervious to pain, Mandela is not only able to “come out ready to
forgive the people who put [him in prison]”, but continue to deprecate the idea of
“petty revenge”, mirroring Malouf’s firm belief that retaliation is never the answer.
Likewise, this profound strength inspires Pienaar to “be the master of [his] fate”, and,
through his use of inclusive language, he is able to coax his teammates to “be better
than they think they can be”, thereby suggesting that change is always obtainable

6
 Invictus

through great strength and unwavering courage.

Both texts, however, suggest that, while change is obtainable, it does come at a great
personal cost. In Ransom, Priam’s reputation as an “imposing figure” denies him the
opportunity to form a personal bond with his “offspring” and, as a result, he remains
“saved” from true mourning after the death of Hector, as compared to Hecuba, who
“sits stunned with grief”. This is further exemplified through Priam’s interaction with
Somax, to where, when the “cart man” sniffles, the King describes it as an “odd
habit”, demonstrating Priam’s lack of insight in regards to true loss. In addition, his
regal life has left him incredibly isolated from the “real world” to where he “takes no
part in the physical business” and rather, lives vicariously through his “herald Ideaus”
Furthermore, Malouf’s employment of childish traits, to where Priam is characterized
as an “obedient toddler”, is contrasted with his “old and frail age”, thereby allowing
the text to typify the King’s lack of exposure to life’s simplest experiences.
Nevertheless, Somax’s tenderness towards his family propels Priam to ruminate on
the true extent of his relationships, to where, by the end of the text, he makes “small
sounds” and regains his role as a father. This is contrasted to Eastwood’s Mandela
who remains isolated from his children. Like Priam, Invictus’ President Mandela is
committed to his “very big family [of] forty-two million people”, and, as a
consequence, he is denied the opportunity to embrace fatherhood. This is further
established through Eastwood’s arrangement of Zindzi, to where she remains framed
by the doorway as she exits the living room, thus demonstrating her absence in
Mandela’s life. Likewise, the story of Winnie Mandela is limited to a single artefact,
the bracelet, seemingly abandoned in a drawer and later discarded by her daughter.
As a result, despite Mandela’s attempt to share his life with her, it is unsurprisingly
meet with great animosity, signifying her reluctance to forgive her father and
ultimately, preventing the President from acquiring a relationship with his family.

Both Ransom and Invictus allude to the power of change to achieve unity and
subsequently, surpass convention. While the role of tradition seemingly hinders the

7
 Invictus

texts’ ability to achieve coherence, both leaders develop a precocious talent for “trying
something new and unimaginable”. Despite the personal losses suffered by both
Priam and Mandela, ultimately, the texts’ suggest that hope acts as an essential
element to attaining unity and embracing the “unthinkable”.

“But it is never enough. That is what he feels. That is what torments him”. How
do Ransom and Invictus explore the idea of vengeance? Compare the texts in
your response. 
Contention: the exploration of vengeance in each piece is that it is essentially futile.
1. Vengeance is futile
2. Vengeance is a continual cycle where in if one is not liberated you will be
consumed
3. There is a better response to vengeance that is ultimately more favourable

Predicted upon the crisis of the past, Eastwood’s Hollywood epic Invictus and
Malouf’s reimagination of Homer’s Iliad, Ransom, explores the concept of
vengeance. Intrinsically linked with self and the ability to change and conform,
vengeance is depicted as a futile prospect. As it resists the ability to change,
vengeance only repeats and rebounds upon itself in a cycle of perpetuating violence
without cessation. Nevertheless both texts indicate through reconciliation and the
beauty of humanity, that the cycle can be broken, demonstrating the liberating effects
of forgiveness.

Both Ransom and Invictus initially show vengeance to be utterly futile. The futility of
vengeance is encapsulated in Eastwood’s montage at the beginning serving as a
relapse for the viewer’s of South Africa’s racial tensions. The scenes of civil war and

8
 Invictus

angry black rioters upon Mandela’s release condenses the tumultuous 4 years into a
series of short clips that highlight the futility of vengeance. The use of handheld
cameras further solidifies the turmoil linked to the vengeful behaviour of the Black
South Africans. Specially, pausing at a scene where a black man is seen lying dead
with blood pouring from his head, reinforces the notion that vengeance is vanity. The
picture of the deceased man as a result of the ANC civil war foreshadows the rest of
the film, serving as a bitter reminder of the consequences of revenge. Likewise in
Ransom, Malouf’s disparages vengeance through the use of lyrical and poetic phrases.
When the “wolf” goes out to “hunt” for the “implacable enemy” Hector, Malouf does
not depict Achilles kill as triumphant. Rather that at the moment Achilles “soul
changed colour” indicating that his vengeful killing served as no relief to his grief. To
assuage is grief, Achilles desperately violates the body of Hector, yet we see that “it
[was] never enough”. “What torments him” now is a “rough haired god” that the men
feel as “darkened his mind” Malouf’s use of dark imagery serves as reproof for the
notion of vengeance, denigrating the cycle of anguish it invites. Eastwood and Malouf
both contend that ultimately “revenge begets revenge”, symbolising its futility in that
it serves as no reprisal to one’s grief.

Moreover, each text presents vengeance as a main factor to the resistance for change.
Eastwood’s use of secondary character’s highlights how “selfish thinking” does not
“serve the nation”. Initially Brenda Mazibuko is seen as the one who resists the
change Mandela intends to bring about. Only caring for Mandela’s ‘political capital’
she resists his will to challenge the NSC decision to revoke Springbok emblems,
stating “the people want this”. Unlike Mandela, Mazibuko is blinded by her apartheid
era mindset, that would still see the demise of white Afrikaners following Mandela’s
ascension to president. Through Mazibuko’s inherently vengeful thinking, Eastwood
demonstrates how the ability to forgive and change is suppressed through her
apartheid era thinking. Similarly, Mandela’s daughter Zindzi is unable to accept
change, challenging her father in his “shaking hands” with Francois. Zindzi’s distaste

9
 Invictus

for anything related to white South Africans, indicates the impact vengeance instils.
Such vengeance against those that ‘took [hers] away” is serious to the point that a
disharmony forms within her relationship to her father. A similar notion can be viewed
in Ransom where Malouf portrays Achilles as a man denied of his normal comforts
due to the “self consuming rage” he had spurred himself into. To the point that
Achilles is also denied the pleasures of company, only eating “out of obligation”.
Moreover the idea that vengeance resists change is predominantly seen in Achilles
distaste for his new second-in- command Automedon, who “reminds him of
Patroclus”. The bitterness at the death of his “soulmate” has embittered him against
the company of his own men. Malouf utilises this to denigrate revenge in how it
causes further disharmony amongst relationships that should blossom, ultimate
vengeance can be viewed as a suppressing agent for change and an element that
divides family and people.
Despite this, both texts do not conclude that vengeance is unstoppable and incurable,
rather they demonstrate that “forgiveness liberates the soul” and counteracts the cycle
of violence. Eastwood’s depiction of Mandela, shows the viewer the power of
forgiveness. Mandela admonishes the sports council stating that it is no time to
“celebrate petty revenge”. Mandela understood that revenge was not the answer and
by taking away what the Afrikaner's “treasured”, the “cycle of fear” would only
perpetuate. Eastwood illustrates Mandela’s commitment to social change beyond his
role as president, even to the point of rejecting the beliefs of his own people. Through
Francois, who is so shocked that Mandela could “come out ready to forgive” even
after being incarcerated for “30 years in a tiny cell”. This realisation serves as a key to
realising Mandela’s dream to liberate and unite the nation through forgiveness despite
the hardships of the past. The protagonist in Invictus ultimately is the embodiment of
anti-vengeance, lauding the limitless power forgiveness has. On the other hand,
Ransom also presents to the readers how the cycle of anguish will come to a cessation
through what is “new and unimaginable”. Priam’s vision gives him the chance to
“break the knot”. Malouf indicates that his that this “knot” is the perpetuation of

10
 Invictus

vengeance and that through Priam appealing to Achilles “as a father” the “dreamlike
spell [can] be broken”. Malouf demonstrates that the ransom of gold is secondary and
that Priam’s gift is “greater than gold”. The gift of forgiveness given to Achilles
reverses the effects of violence liberating Achilles soul so that his “heels glow”.
Malouf illustrates through the “lightness” that visits Achilles how forgiveness has the
ability to counteract the most debilitating circumstances. His allusion to Somas, the
“simple carter”, who despite his mule killing his child, states that “striking her” would
do “no good”. Malouf’s contrast in the stories of Somax and Achilles ultimately give
insight into the domineering nature vengeance has. The liberation of various
characters in Ransom and Invictus, serves as an impetus to not be restrained by the
surpressing nature of vengeance.
The “cycle of fear” so aptly put by protagonist and president Mandela, is depicted as
uncontrollable, yet through the procession of the narratives can be seen to be liberated
and broken down through the power forgiveness holds. As a futile prospect,
vengeance serves as a suppressing factor of humanity, resisting change. Despite this
both Ransom and Invictus ultimately contend that to be liberated from the
tumultuousness of uncontrollable rage, one must be ready to challenge convention and
attempt the “unthinkable”.

‘The power of hope to bring change is limitless’. Discuss.

Predicated on crisis’ of the past, both David Malouf’s Ransom and Clint Eastwood’s
Invictus focus on the power change brings through individual’s hope in “look[ing] to
the future”. Through the lens of South African President Mandela, and Tyrannos King
Priam, both texts depict hope as a compelling factor of change. Despite this, through
seemingly insignificant characters and particular metaphors, limitless change can be
seen through Eastwood and Malouf’s allusion to elements contrasting with hope. In
the process, both texts also demonstrate how grief and vengeance limit people’s
ability to hope for change. Ultimately demonstrating that life in itself has its moments
of triumph and despondency, that are directly proportional to the power hope can

11
 Invictus

bring.

Neither Priam or Mandela restrict themselves to “thinking in the old way”. Rather
they see that to “build their nation” they have to attempt something “new and
unimaginable”. The state of Troy following the fall of Hector in battle is seen through
King Priam’s state of mind where his “grief...for a kingdom ravaged and threatened
with extinction” haunts his dreams. Outside his walls stands a man tormented by a
“rough haired god”, his mind “darkened”. Suppressed by a “self consuming rage”,
Achilles actions instigates the vision of “chance” in Priam from the goddess Iris that
gives him hope in the “rough world of men”. Priam’s vision meant that he must
escape his “royal sphere” to go against that which was “formal and symbolic”. In
doing so, Malouf, demonstrates that Priam’s hope in taking on the “lighter bond of
being simply a man”, leads to changes that even his own wise counsel deems as
“folly”. Despite this Priam knows that what he must do “is possible because it is not
possible”. Likewise in Invictus, Mandela recognises that hope for a better future
comes “wrapped in green and gold”. In order to build his “new South Africa”,
Mandela had to believe that he could “do better” to accomplish his dreams of making
South Africa the “shining light in the world”. Against the wishes of his own people,
that would see them only “celebrate petty revenge”, Mandela decides it is better to
“surprise [Afrikaners] with compassion”. Despite his incarceration in a “tiny cell for
30 years”, that would justify actions of retribution, it is only in Mandela’s hope to
“rebuild the nation” that he can reconcile “all the things they denied”to the black
population of South Africa.

Eastwood and Malouf both demonstrate that there are alternatives to hope and the
limitless change it brings. Malouf states that sometimes this change, can serve to
bring a limitless sadness. At the beginning of Priam’s journey alludes to the King’s
utter blindness. As the cart departs from Troy, Jove’s eagle can be seen “sitting high
above”. The reference to such a bird famous for its keen sight, serves as a metaphor

12
 Invictus

that represents the blindness of the King in matters of humanity. Despite this, through
the course of the journey Somax tutors the “child” Priam on the matters of the “simple
pleasures of life”. Slowly the King finds himself “peering through the crack in a
door”, the door to his own humanity. But it is through these simple interactions: the
“prattling world”, the “fish that came to investigate” and “little griddle cakes”; that
Priam learns how distanced he was from the world. It is only through his vicarious
experience of intimacy with one’s child, through the stories of Somax’ “violent
intimacy”, that Priam begins to feel the loss of Hector in more than just a “formal and
symbolic” way. Malouf’s deliberate contrast from the beginning of the journey and
the end of the journey, which ironically alludes to the absence of Jove’s eagle,
demonstrates the power of storytelling and the experience of the simple through
Priam’s newfound humanity. Despite this though, this change leads to a newfound
sense of sadness wherein Priam makes “little noises” for his son Hector. In contrast to
this Eastwood depicts newfound joy, and a seemingly limitless happiness through the
triumph of Mandela’s goals. Upon winning the World Cup, Eastwood shows two
distinct shots that represent this triumph and foreshadows a sense of thriving and
continuous unity from then on out. The first of which is a close up shot on the cup
held by the Springboks. By focusing in only on the cup itself the hands holding the
cup can be seen more clearly. The whiter hands of Pienaar with the dark skin of
Williams is clear, and through this shot Eastwood demonstrates the unity through the
World Cup Mandela has achieved for both blacks and whites. The holding of the cup
together alludes to a newfound unity for the country. An even more powerful image is
the occurences happening outside the stadium between Sipho, a child of a shanty
town, and the police officers. Upon the glorious news of the World Cup win both
Sipho and the white officers dance the toi-toi together. Being a political war dance,
reserved for native South Africans the dancing of such a dance together represents the
antagonistic gulf between blacks and whites closing. It is through these powerful
images that Eastwood conveys to the viewer that through Mandela’s willingness to
hope, that the “unhappy rift” between the two ethnicities has closed and that a future

13
 Invictus

of happiness is now a reality. Both Ransom and Invictus, depict the power of hope
also alluding to significant other factors that cause change, but the ultimate change is
also shown as either one of sadness or one of triumph. 

On the other hand both Ransom and Invictus show that despite the power hope
possesses limitless change is not brought to everyone. Upon the ransom being made
Achilles is “visited by a lightnesses” and Priam knows that “as a man remade” the “I
is different”. Malouf contrasts the Achilles of previous, who was slowly being
devoured by a “self-consuming rage, with one whose “heels [now] glow”. Malouf’s
subtle reference to the anatomical weakness of Achilles that now glows indicates the
renewal of the warrior. In that moment Achilles feels that “something in him has freed
itself”. Also a result of the hope Priam had to ransom his son and offer the gift greater
than gold to Achilles which was forgiveness, Priam dissolves the cycle of vengeance
present in Achilles. Nevertheless Malouf’s uses prolapse to depict that this change is
not unending. Achilles and Priam witness the “armed Fury” Neoptolemus who
avenges Priam through the savagery and to “proclaim...instant night” to Priam.
Despite Achilles learning to deal with grief in a manner other than revenge, his son’s
actions are analogous to his at the beginning of the novel. The behavior of
Neoptolemus’ behaviour echoes the fury and hatred of Achilles. The closing passage
that represents the demise of Troy alludes to the continuity of life and demonstrates
that change is limited to a single existence and generation. Moreover demonstrates
that although people may learn from mistakes, they will always meet death, thus
allowing others to repeat those same mistakes again. Similarly in Invictus, Mandela
also shows how one’s blindness can lead to a sense of limitless change in family
dynamics. In an indirect manner, Eastwood illustrates the distance between Mandela
and his daughter, Zindzi, through the change Mandela works for in South Africa.
Through the camera shot that shows Mandela having his photo taken with his
grandchildren but also simultaneously showing Zindzi standing off in the doorway
hints at dissolution of family. When confronted, Mandela challenges Zindzi stating

14
 Invictus

that her attitude towards the current state of South Africa is merely “selfish thinking.
[that] does not serve the nation”. Moreover when he offers Zindzi the bracelet of her
mother, she states it was “meant to [be] thrown away”. Through the interaction of
father and daughter Eastwood attempts to show his audience that despite Mandela’s
hope to “make a change” for the multitudes, he cannot reciprocate it in his own life,
ultimately alluding to the fact that change can be limited to type of person it is
brought upon. 

Both Invictus and Ransom allude to the power of hope, signifying the change it can
bring about. Ransom demonstrates the hope is a compelling factor for change in one’s
circumstances and brings about the necessary release of tense emotions. Invictus also
shows the viewer’s that through one man’s hope a nation was unified. Despite this
both texts also hint at hope, and the change it brings, inability to accommodate
everybody. Nevertheless the limitations of hope are exceeded by the triumphant
results of the successes possessing a strong will has. Eastwood and Malouf clearly
illustrate that hope brings limitless change in a variety of manners.

"Compare how Ransom and Invictus explore the futility of revenge"

The historical fiction “Ransom” and film text “Invictus” both reflect the fruitless
nature of retribution whilst conveying the power of forgiveness in striving to achieve
unity. Set around the Trojan War of the Iliad, Malouf acknowledges that seeking
revenge is not always the answer, and that such reprisal rarely results in a lasting
solution for those concerned. Portrayed through the actions of Greek hero Achilles,
“Ransom” highlights the dehumanising essence of malevolence, who is maddened by
Trojan warrior, Hector’s slaying of his beloved friend Patroclus. Though Achilles
avenges the death, desecrating Hector’s body, his soul does not satisfy or assuage his
grief, thus accentuating the futility of revenge. In comparison, Clint Eastwood reveals

15
 Invictus

the power of forgiveness and further its strength to bridge gaps whilst a tumultuous
time rife with racial disharmony and social upheaval. Eastwood’s “Invictus”
highlights the aptitude of the ambitious black South African leader, Nelson Mandela,
who believed in uniting his nation, seeking to forgive his oppressors and move
forward in the spirit of reconciliation, thus demonstrating the futility of revenge.
As an indistinctive human characteristic, the emotions and actions associated with
revenge are neither preventable nor controllable. Ransom and Invictus both exhibit
the power of vengeance when striving to obtain reprisal and further accentuate how an
individual’s will to violate is detrimental and dehumanising to the soul. The death of
Patroclus in the opening scenes of Malouf’s text, “Ransom,” presents the formidable
task of incapacitating a soul that is completely dehumanised, thus reflecting the nature
of revenge. A soulmate and companion since childhood, Patroclus represents a
brother of Achilles with Malouf encapsulating that “he knew every movement of
Patroclus’ soul,” (page 16) demonstrating the powerful friendship that existed
between both. Set in a time of great division, “Ransom” echoes the disunion of the
Greeks and Trojans, immediately creating a pathway for attack and revenge.  A
divided atmosphere is further portrayed in Eastwood’s film text, “Invictus,” with its
opening scenes illustrating the government’s devised legal segregation system of
apartheid used to maintain their white minority rule over the black and
disenfranchises majority of South Africa. Eastwood presents Mandela’s public release
from prison and subsequent journey to presidency in a stylised montage, comprising
enacted moments and documentary footage that highlights the violence and revenge.
This sequence provides viewers with a context for Mandela’s future and establishes
the deep social divisions that confront Mandela as a president, thus embellishing the
height of retribution between the blacks and whites of South Africa. Further
employing handheld cameras to convey the tumultuous events and threat of violence,
“Invictus” highlights the ferocity of revenge and its damaging effect on a nation
brimming with racial discrimination. In coherence, Malouf presents Achilles as a man
who “felt his soul change colour,” (page 24) echoing the emotions associated with

16
 Invictus

revenge. Changing the perspectives of the narrative to focus on each of the main
characters, the reader is positioned to understand the motivations and actions of each
one, further giving a deeper insight into how each individual is governed. Subsequent
to Patroclus’ death, Achilles is engulfed and consumed with vengeful notions, as he
hunts down Trojan warrior Hector in order to avenge his companion’s early death,
“but first he had Patroclus’ killer to deal with in a last encounter out there under the
walls of Troy.”(page 21) With a lyrical and sophisticated style, Malouf encapsulates
poetic language with careful metaphors and complex imagery to portray Achilles
desire to mutilate the body of Hector day after day, “the hip-bones and the shoulder
blades of the massive back dashing hard against sharp-edged flinty stones and ridges,”
(page 26) thus highlighting his failure to recognise remorse and regret, “feeling
nothing.” (page 25) His additional need to inflict harm on Hector’s body indicates that
revenge will not bring closure, a sense of loss illustrated as he reflects feeling empty
inside, “and still it was not enough, still his grief was not consumed,” (page 33) thus
accentuating the fruitless nature of revenge and its dehumanising traits. “Invictus”
further explores a world immersed by retribution, portraying similar characteristics to
that of “Ransom” as it represents a divided nation, implacable towards their leader.
Elected as the first black president in the multiracial democratic elections in South
Africa, Nelson Mandela’s role as a leader creates a sense of bitterness by the blacks
towards their former oppressors. Eastwood enhances the emotions and actions
associated with revenge encapsulating symbolism in the opening scenes of “Invictus,”
incorporating a fence separating the blacks and whites, used to further position the
viewer in a way that appeals to their sense of fear. Considered a terrorist by the
Afrikaners as depicted in the news flashes displaying his release, Mandela’s character
in the eyes of the whites’ echoed the words spoken by a coach telling his team, “it is
that terrorist, Mandela. They let him out. Remember this day, boys. This is the day
our country went to the dogs.” A nation divided by oppression and a society
perpetuated under the system of apartheid, “Invictus” heightens the harmful nature of
revenge, while “Ransom” perpetrates the futility of performing acts associated with

17
 Invictus

reprisal, exhibiting how an individual’s will to violate is detrimental and

dehumanising to the soul.
Forgiveness is the only reaction which does not merely re-act but acts anew and
unexpectedly, unconditioned by the act which provoked it. Malouf’s historical fiction,
“Ransom” and Clint Eastwood’s film text, “Invictus” both capture the fruitful essence
of forgiveness, through characters displaying acts of compassion and understanding,
which ultimately suppresses the vengeful atmosphere that resides in both. Utilizing
the best features of literary storytelling, Malouf focuses on a bare minimum of scenes
but takes his time to blend character reflection with almost poetic descriptions of
setting. Somax, the carter, characterised as the “common man” in “Ransom,” becomes
instrumental in shaping Priam’s ability to “break the knot,” further enabling him to
understand the power of forgiveness through Malouf’s lyrical choice of expression.
He relays to Priam his sorrowful experiences endured in the past outlining the death
of his son, highlighting how his cherished mule had a part to play in his passing, “it
was her fault, that little off-side mule I’m so fond of, Beauty.” (page 140)
Embellishing the immediate response of reprisal, Somax reveals how his indistinctive
retort upon finding his son’s body amongst the reeds was to strike her, “I felt like
punching her where she stood,” (pg. 141) yet his inner charisma prevails as he simply
embraced her, further highlighting “but what would have been the good of that?” that
wouldn’t have brought him back.” Somax’s magnanimous nature is echoed
throughout Eastwood’s “Invictus,” with the film encapsulating the importance of
forgiveness, demonstrating its strength to bridge the gap between the white and black
communities. As the father of the new South Africa, President Nelson Mandela
refuses to allow his domain to be tarnished with the discriminatory policies that he
and so many others have struggled against for so many years, remaining resolute in
his view that, “forgiveness liberates the soul. It removes fear. That is why it is such a
powerful weapon.” Eastwood incorporates inclusive language, woven through
Mandela’s inspiring speeches directed at “your country” to highlight his ability to
forgive, and systematically encourages his citizens to believe they can be “better than

18
 Invictus

they think they can be,” thus highlighting the futility of revenge and the power of
reconciliation. Mandela advises against vengeance, instead imploring his people to
share his vision, stating “we have to be better than that, we have to surprise them with
compassion, with restrain, and generosity,” further echoed through Eastwood’s use of
the black bodyguards as symbols to accentuate Mandela’s forbearing ambition of
eliminating racial disunity. The enemy he states is “no longer the Afrikaner, they are
our fellow South Africana, our partners in democracy.” While Eastwood employs the
forbearing nature of Mandela, Somax’s simple acknowledgment of the futility of
revenge emboldens Priam’s desire for a peaceful resolution to the pain he is suffering
for the death of his son, Hector, at the hands of Achilles. Malouf constructs this
strengthened resolution in Priam’s beliefs so that his style of writing complements this
character’s preoccupations, juxtaposed with his physical situation, further utilized to
perfect each character’s unique perspective. Priam ultimately entreats the killer of his
son, pleading with Achilles to return Hector’s body, “I have come to ask you, man to
man, as a father, for the body of my son,” (pg. 175) with the transpires ending with
Priam on his knees, reaching out to Achilles, in fellow-feeling, enhancing the strength
of forgiveness. Malouf incorporates a sense of fatherhood to convey his message,
positioning the reader to consider the depth entwined in these emotions as Priam asks
Achilles to remember his own son and father, further reminding him of his mortality
and striking him to the core. In sharing Priam’s grief, Achilles ultimately recognises
the futility of revenge and thus both establish a sense of shared humanity. The poem
“Invictus” is emphasized throughout Eastwood’s film, used as a powerful symbol to
highlight its source of inspiration and survival, enabling Mandela to seek forgiveness
and move forward in the spirit of reconciliation. In coherence with Priam’s emotions,
the poem is utilized as a voice-over when the Springboks rugby captain, Francois
Pienaar, visualizes Mandela in prison, demonstrating its power in helping him stand
when all he wanted “was to lie down.” Furthermore, the lyrical nature woven into the
poem is used to highlight Pienaar’s awe of Mandela and his ability to forgive,
commenting, “I was thinking about how you spend thirty years in a tiny cell and come

19
 Invictus

out ready to forgive the people who put you there.” As a result, Francois is able to
escape the limitations and thwarted worldview he inherits as a white man born into
the apartheid system, thus embellishing the strength of forgiveness and its ability to
reconcile a nation.
A unified agreement can prosper only if a peaceful and cohesive environment is
maintained. The notion of amity and harmony is mirrored throughout Malouf’s
historical fiction “Ransom” and Clint Eastwood’s film text “Invictus” as both
perpetrate the value of conquering accord when emotions of revenge are manifest.
Malouf presents the life-cycle of man, contrasting traditional male roles through age,
class and status which are evoked by the changing perspectives of young warrior,
elderly king and common man to accentuate the importance of concord. Weaving
elements of metaphoric language and similes into his poetic statements, Malouf
describes Priam’s quest to reclaim the body of his son from the Greek camp as a
journey that transforms and ultimately unites two enemies. After decades as king of
Troy, Priam’s determination to reinvent how he will be remembered and perceived, as
a king who performed an extraordinary act of heroism in order to save his beloved son
is highlighted through Malouf’s ability to switch between the primary and secondary
characters throughout his text. Upon arrival at the Greek camp, Priam states he has
come to Achilles’ home undefended, imploring with the great warrior as a father to
another father for the return of his son. The passion intertwined in Priam’s intreats
strikes a chord within Achilles, in stating, “no more, don’t speak again, you will have
what you came for,” (pg. 187) highlighting how an act of humanity can sway an
individual’s perceptions. Ultimately, Achilles is able to reach a state of peace by
releasing his immoral intentions as Malouf depicts the transformation from a human
who confronted grief with revenge to acceptance and forgiveness thus used to
embellish the aptitude of unity. Alike Malouf’s “Ransom,” Eastwood’s film
“Invictus” also demonstrates the futility of revenge, portrayed through the events
relating to the 1995 Rugby World Cup final, ultimately becoming a tribute to the
purity and determination of Mandela’s vision of a united South Africa. By

20
 Invictus

reimagining the Springboks rugby team as a symbol of unity, President Mandela

embraces the notion of a harmonious nation, giving all South Africans the opportunity
to redefine their relationship to each other and to their country, claiming notoriously
“this country is hungry for greatness.” The effectiveness of this ambitious strategy is
captured through Eastwood’s ability to depict the transformation of the crowd at the
rugby game from a booing mass waving the flag of apartheid, to the cheering fans
proudly displaying the flag of unity. Acceptance of the new anthem further illustrates
Mandela’s intention of securing a “rainbow nation” and the fruitful nature of unity
amongst his country as Eastwood incorporates wide angle camera shots of above
South Africa in the final scenes of the film to depict the compliance and recognition
of the nation, with the song reverberating around the country. Achieving the difficult
task of securing national unity amongst a nation consumed with racial discord is never
an easy accomplishment, yet Mandela’s bodily presence becomes a powerful symbol
of hope for the future, Eastwood enhancing this completed goal in displaying the rural
areas of South Africa celebrating the win of the rugby world cup. The camera shots
move from Ellis Park Stadium to a small liquor store in the heart of South Africa’s
pastoral areas, both revelling in the essence of greatness, further utilized by Eastwood
to portray the strength of Mandela’s goal of a harmonious nation in reaching the
grassroot level, thus promoting a safe and innocuous atmosphere for South Africans.
The ideals reflected in “Invictus” comply with Priam’s character as a “man remade”
(pg. 209) in the final scenes of “Ransom” as the elderly king reflects on his
memorable journey and feels as though he is “divinely led as by music” (pg. 211). In
coherence, Achilles relishes in a sense of refreshment with Malouf utilizing language
techniques that depict both men’s sense of enlightenment, signifying the best answer
to revenge is peace. Priam exists the Greek camp in a “state of exultant wellbeing”
since his journey has transformed his identity as the text portrays the stream they pass
as “gently sloping” and “barely reaching their hocks.” (pg. 210) Furthermore, Achilles
“too is visited by a lightness that is both new and a return,” referring to his growth in
seeking redemption and overcoming the hatred to form peace with his enemy. The

21
 Invictus

returned lightness reflects the aptitude of achieving unity and symbolises his
restoration of sight also echoed through Mandela’s ability to transform a symbol of
division and injustice into one of unity and hope. By wearing the Springboks rugby
jersey, Mandela perpetrates his support for the team at the world cup as Eastwood
depicts it as a defining moment in South African history which highlights its
transformation from apartheid to multi-racial democracy.  In claiming “never, never
and never again shall it be that this beautiful land will experience the oppression of
one by another and suffer the indignity of being the skunk of the world,” Mandela
highlights how a nation can only prosper if a peaceful environment is maintained. 
David Malouf’s historian fiction “Ransom” and Clint Eastwood’s film text “Invictus”
explore the fruitless nature associated with revenge whilst conveying the faculty of
compassion in striving to succeed unity. The concept of reprisal is emphasized
throughout both texts as Malouf and Eastwood heighten the circumstances entwined
in vengeance portraying it as an indistinctive human characteristic, neither
preventable nor controllable. Yet the perception of forgiveness prevails with
“Ransom” highlighting Priam and Achilles ability to reach a unanimous decision,
while Mandela’s mission to lead his country into the future encapsulates the power of
reconciliation. Thus, Malouf and Eastwood depict the futility of revenge in portraying
its inability to resolve complications that may seem insurmountable.

Invictus Quotes

Nelson Mandela became president in 1994 taking over from President de Klerk. He
was released from prison in 1990 (imprisoned since 1964 on Robben Island). Francois

22
 Invictus

Pienaar captained the Springboks to victory in the 1995 Rugby World Cup held in
Johannesburg. SA defeated New Zealand.

Values

Adopting the moral high ground, Mandela believes that ‘forgiveness liberates the
soul’.  Mandela tells his Afrikaner employees: “The past is the past. We look to the
future now. We need your help.”  SA will be “a shining light to the world”.  “To build
our nation, we must all exceed our own expectations.”

Springboks

In the past, the non-white South Africans have cheered for any team, but the
Springboks.

Mandela knows that the Afrikaners, “our partners in democracy”, treasure their
national rugby team. He knows that “if we take that away, we lose them.” “We prove
that “we are what they feared we would be”. We have to be “better than that”. He
recognises this is an important time of nation-building that demands that we use
“every single brick available even if that brick is wrapped in green and gold”.

Brenda warns Mandela, “You are risking your political capital.”

He tells the meeting, “You elected me as your leader. Let me lead you now”.

Mandela risks losing the support of members of the African National Congress who
support changes to the Springbok colours and a change of name to Proteas. Eastwood
depicts the President as a man who is conscious of the need to “surprise” the
Afrikaans by embracing, rather than demonising, the national rugby team.

Resistance

The newspaper editors question whether Mandela can “run a country”. (The
Afrikaners typically believe, “they are going to take our jobs”.)
23
 Invictus

Zindzi does not like being cooperative with the policemen who “sent us out of the
home”. Mandela accuses her of only thinking of “your personal feelings”. “It does not
serve the nation”.

This is mirrored by Pienaar, who urges his team to learn the new national anthem and
arranges a “change of pace” for his team by taking them on a tour of Robben Island.

The poem: Henley

Mandela explains to Pienaar that poems (the power of the imagination) helps to
“inspire ourselves to greatness”. Mandela explains that on Robben Island he found
inspiration in Henley’s poem, which helped him to “stand” when all he wanted to do
was to “lie down”.

Stories

Beginning and ending the film with references to Mandela’s resolve to become “the
captain of my soul” and the “master of my fate”, Eastwood highlights the inspirational
power of literature that inspires Mandela to reinvent his nation and his people in a
dignified way. He avoids resorting to the “tools of violence”.

During his visit to Robben Island which he has instigated with the team, Pienaar tries
to understand the deprivation of liberty and the soul-destroying conditions. He closes
the door and in this arm’s width cell, he looks out over the stones in the courtyard.
During flash-back video footage, Pienaar imagines the President with other prisoners
cutting the stone during the night that is as “black as the pit from pole to pole”. He is
acutely aware of the strength of Mandela’s “unconquerable soul”.... every rule [that a
Trojan warrior has] been taught to live by” through his gratuitous violence performed
towards Hector’s body. This is further exemplified through Malouf’s employment of
animal imagery, to which Hecuba, in a state of fury, describes Achilles’ as a “jackal
[and a] wolf”, thus allowing the text to illustrate the “fighter’s” primal emotions in
their rawest form. As a result, despite Achilles’ desire to be “rocked and comforted”

24
 Invictus

by his mother, his reputation as a “fighter” permits him from “betray[ing] to others
what he [really feels], to the point where he is denied the pleasures of company and
eats only “out of obligation”. Contrastingly, Eastwood’s Mandela remains imbued
with the desire to create a shared identity under the “one team one nation” banner, and
hence, continues to jettison his strong opposition’s belief that “[the] country [has
gone] to the dogs”. Seemingly impervious to pain, Mandela is not only able to “come
out ready to forgive the people who put [him in prison]”, but continue to deprecate the
idea of “petty revenge”, mirroring Malouf’s firm belief that retaliation is never the
answer. Likewise, this profound strength inspires Pienaar to “be the master of [his]
fate”, and, through his use of inclusive language, he is able to coax his teammates to
“be better than they think they can be”, thereby suggesting that change is always
obtainable through great strength and unwavering courage.

Both texts, however, suggest that, while change is obtainable, it does come at a great
personal cost. In Ransom, Priam’s reputation as an “imposing figure” denies him the
opportunity to form a personal bond with his “offspring” and, as a result, he remains
“saved” from true mourning after the death of Hector, as compared to Hecuba, who
“sits stunned with grief”. This is further exemplified through Priam’s interaction with
Somax, to where, when the “cart man” sniffles, the King describes it as an “odd
habit”, demonstrating Priam’s lack of insight in regards to true loss. In addition, his
regal life has left him incredibly isolated from the “real world” to where he “takes no
part in the physical business” and rather, lives vicariously through his “herald Ideaus”
Furthermore, Malouf’s employment of childish traits, to where Priam is characterized
as an “obedient toddler”, is contrasted with his “old and frail age”, thereby allowing
the text to typify the King’s lack of exposure to life’s simplest experiences.
Nevertheless, Somax’s tenderness towards his family propels Priam to ruminate on
the true extent of his relationships, to where, by the end of the text, he makes “small
sounds” and regains his role as a father. This is contrasted to Eastwood’s Mandela

25
 Invictus

who remains isolated from his children. Like Priam, Invictus’ President Mandela is
committed to his “very big family [of] forty-two million people”, and, as a
consequence, he is denied the opportunity to embrace fatherhood. This is further
established through Eastwood’s arrangement of Zindzi, to where she remains framed
by the doorway as she exits the living room, thus demonstrating her absence in
Mandela’s life. Likewise, the story of Winnie Mandela is limited to a single artefact,
the bracelet, seemingly abandoned in a drawer and later discarded by her daughter.
As a result, despite Mandela’s attempt to share his life with her, it is unsurprisingly
meet with great animosity, signifying her reluctance to forgive her father and
ultimately, preventing the President from acquiring a relationship with his family.

Both Ransom and Invictus allude to the power of change to achieve unity and
subsequently, surpass convention. While the role of tradition seemingly hinders the
texts’ ability to achieve coherence, both leaders develop a precocious talent for “trying
something new and unimaginable”. Despite the personal losses suffered by both
Priam and Mandela, ultimately, the texts’ suggest that hope acts as an essential
element to attaining unity and embracing the “unthinkable”. ”, as captured by their
initial encounter, to where both groups adopt confrontational postures with their
respective parties clamouring behind them. Regardless of this however, Mandela uses
his position to force a societal change, surprising his “new partners in
democracy...with compassion”. As a result, he is able to break ”the cycle of fear” and
unite South Africa through rugby. This stark contrast with Malouf’s Priam accentuates
that, while the role of tradition prevents the king from rectifying society, Eastwood’s
Mandela succeeds at breaking this notion, ultimately suggesting that the power to
change is limitless.

Despite the trappings of society, both texts suggest that the power to achieve hope
ultimately prevails through emotional strength. Set in a time of absolute monarchy,

26
 Invictus

“King Priam” is frequently denied the opportunity to engage in “ordinary desires” and
as a consequence remains sheltered from anything outside his “royal sphere”. Despite
this, however, Priam’s obstinate determination to “ransom” the body of his son
enables him to muster the courage and embrace the concept of “chance”, a motif that
is considered revolutionary in the face of “what it [could] lead to, the violence”.
Regardless, despite the resistance bore by his royal council, further emphasising the
tie to convention as showcased through Eastwood’s Brenda, Priam’s ability to “entreat
the killer of his son” and accept Achilles’ hand accentuates that it takes great
emotional strength to “break the knot”, and bring about change. Dissimilarly, the
“most unpredictable of the Greeks”, Achilles “break... every rule [that a Trojan
warrior has] been taught to live by” through his gratuitous violence performed
towards Hector’s body. This is further exemplified through Malouf’s employment of
animal imagery, to which Hecuba, in a state of fury, describes Achilles’ as a “jackal
[and a] wolf”, thus allowing the text to illustrate the “fighter’s” primal emotions in
their rawest form. As a result, despite Achilles’ desire to be “rocked and comforted”
by his mother, his reputation as a “fighter” permits him from “betray[ing] to others
what he [really feels], to the point where he is denied the pleasures of company and
eats only “out of obligation”. Contrastingly, Eastwood’s Mandela remains imbued
with the desire to create a shared identity under the “one team one nation” banner, and
hence, continues to jettison his strong opposition’s belief that “[the] country [has
gone] to the dogs”. Seemingly impervious to pain, Mandela is not only able to “come
out ready to forgive the people who put [him in prison]”, but continue to deprecate the
idea of “petty revenge”, mirroring Malouf’s firm belief that retaliation is never the
answer. Likewise, this profound strength inspires Pienaar to “be the master of [his]
fate”, and, through his use of inclusive language, he is able to coax his teammates to
“be better than they think they can be”, thereby suggesting that change is always
obtainable through great strength and unwavering courage.

27
 Invictus

Both texts, however, suggest that, while change is obtainable, it does come at a great
personal cost. In Ransom, Priam’s reputation as an “imposing figure” denies him the
opportunity to form a personal bond with his “offspring” and, as a result, he remains
“saved” from true mourning after the death of Hector, as compared to Hecuba, who
“sits stunned with grief”. This is further exemplified through Priam’s interaction with
Somax, to where, when the “cart man” sniffles, the King describes it as an “odd
habit”, demonstrating Priam’s lack of insight in regards to true loss. In addition, his
regal life has left him incredibly isolated from the “real world” to where he “takes no
part in the physical business” and rather, lives vicariously through his “herald Ideaus”
Furthermore, Malouf’s employment of childish traits, to where Priam is characterized
as an “obedient toddler”, is contrasted with his “old and frail age”, thereby allowing
the text to typify the King’s lack of exposure to life’s simplest experiences.
Nevertheless, Somax’s tenderness towards his family propels Priam to ruminate on
the true extent of his relationships, to where, by the end of the text, he makes “small
sounds” and regains his role as a father. This is contrasted to Eastwood’s Mandela
who remains isolated from his children. Like Priam, Invictus’ President Mandela is
committed to his “very big family [of] forty-two million people”, and, as a
consequence, he is denied the opportunity to embrace fatherhood. This is further
established through Eastwood’s arrangement of Zindzi, to where she remains framed
by the doorway as she exits the living room, thus demonstrating her absence in
Mandela’s life. Likewise, the story of Winnie Mandela is limited to a single artefact,
the bracelet, seemingly abandoned in a drawer and later discarded by her daughter.
As a result, despite Mandela’s attempt to share his life with her, it is unsurprisingly
meet with great animosity, signifying her reluctance to forgive her father and
ultimately, preventing the President from acquiring a relationship with his family.

Both Ransom and Invictus allude to the power of change to achieve unity and

28
 Invictus

subsequently, surpass convention. While the role of tradition seemingly hinders the
texts’ ability to achieve coherence, both leaders develop a precocious talent for “trying
something new and unimaginable”. Despite the personal losses suffered by both
Priam and Mandela, ultimately, the texts’ suggest that hope acts as an essential
element to attaining unity and embracing the “unthinkable”. 

29