I went to see Invictus over the weekend. It was a very good movie. You can read my review at
Invictus Movie Review.
One thing I didn't address in my review is a comment made by Mr. Pienaar. He said to his son (Francois Pienaar, captain of the rugby team) something to the effect of "You know what happened in Zimbabwe. We could lose everything."
Now, Invictus is set in South Africa in 1994-1995. Zimbabwe didn't start their land distribution from the white farmers to the black people until 2000. That redistribution ended up with a lot of violence - white farmers where killed and a lot of them relocated to other countries.
There was violence in the 1980s in Zimbabwe as and after they gained their independence. That violence was between two factions and was more about which faction (or tribe) was going to end up with the power after independence. That was what we would call "black on black" or "tribal" violence.
So for the movie to make the comment implying the whites are going to lose everything because of what happened in Zimbabwe doesn't make much sense since the "black on white" violence in Zimbabwe happened *after* the events in this movie.
What do you think?
