How do the leaders in Invictus and Ransom respond to broken and divisive societies?

Eastwood and Malouf, in their respective texts Invictus and Ransom, depict vastly different
societies both undergoing a time of change and reeling from recent events, exploring the
actions leaders must take in reaction to such broken and divided societies. In both Malouf’s
retelling of the Iliad and Eastwood’s film, the leaders in the texts introduce new and
unconventional ideas in their responses to the broken societies they are faced with.
Furthermore, these leaders, particularly Mandela and Priam, stress the importance of mercy
and compassion in lieu of vindictiveness and revenge, opting to empathise with the so-called
‘enemy’ in the face of their divisive worlds. Yet where the leaders in Invictus fixate an
external sense of unification in response to crumbling societies, characters in Ransom focus
on interpersonal relationships as leaders. Hence where the leaders in both texts introduce
new ideas, emphasising compassion in lieu of revenge, the leaders in Ransom embark on a
much more personal journey in response to their discordant societies than those in Invictus,
whose response is focused externally.

In dealing with their respective dissonant societies as leaders, both Priam as the King of
Troy and Mandela as the president of South Africa challenge expectations and, despite initial
resistance, are able to break free of convention and introduce new ideas. Priam, a man who
has for much of his life known “what is expected of him” and thusly acted in a “formal and
symbolic” fashion, is faced with a wrought and ravaged city of Troy and the death of his own
son by the Greeks. In response, the King raises the iconoclastically dangerous idea of
“chance”, wondering if perhaps it is within people’s own hands to determine the course of
their lives. For a society entrenched in the belief and trust in the safety that their lives are in
the hands of the Gods, Priam ventures towards something more and recognises the
importance of introducing "something that has never before been done or thought of"--a
concept that offers "a kind of opening" for people to act according to their own will, yet
simultaneously challenges the concept of godly presence in the lives of mortals and is
consequently met with much apprehension from Hecuba. Through Priam's own iconoclastic
raising of this concept, Malouf suggests that humans have more power than they think, and
a large amount of choice, in the course of their lives. Despite the resistance Priam faces
from Hecuba, his unconventional approach to dealing with a crumbling society is ultimately
successful to some extent, as he retrieves Hector’s body through the symbol of ‘ransom’, a
physical representation of this new idea. Both Mandela and Pienaar employ similar
strategies when faced with their times of change, but Mandela, instead of a ransom, utilises
the game of rugby. In the post-apartheid South Africa, Mandela sees the divide between his
population and opts to focus on the game of rugby to overcome it, rather than dealing with
the expected issues of economics and crime. Pienaar explains rugby as being played only
by passing the ball “backwards and sideways”, symbolic perhaps of the apparent
redundancy in reaching a goal without pushing forward yet rather taking an unconventional
approach just as both Mandela and Priam do. The diegetic sounds of the grunting and
groaning that escape the mouths of the rugby players during the World Cup evoke a certain
visceral quality to the scene that lays bare sheer power of the introduction of a new idea in a
time of change. Thus both texts show the audience leaders who recognise the importance of
“change” and break free of the barriers of tradition in response to their societal troubles.

Furthermore, in both these texts the leaders of the time empathise with the 'enemy' in lieu of
taking revenge, inspiring others to do the same. Faced with a society at odds, both Priam
and Mandela argue for compromise and compassion rather than violence or vindictiveness
in approaching their issues. As the newly elected president of a post-apartheid South Africa
in which racial hostility is still prevalent, Mandela recognises that forgiveness is the most
“powerful weapon” they have at their disposal, insisting that forgiveness “starts [with him]”
and “liberates the soul”. Despite the surprise he is met with that after 30 years in jail, he
“comes out ready to forgive the people who put him there”, he is able to inspire others to do
the same, such as those at the national convention. The mise-en-scene of the scene in
which Mandela is dressed impeccably in a suit, gazing with authority and sincerity as he
speaks clearly to the convention’s people looking up at him, entranced by his words which
emphasise the idea of “partners in democracy” in a time of divisiveness between people,
demonstrates his power as a leader to inspire compassion and showcase Eastwood’s
highlighting of the importance of a leader to take initiative in inspiring others. The success of
Mandela’s approach utilising compassion and empathy rather than revenge in dealing with
the broken and divisive South Africa he is faced with as a leader can be seen in the
microcosm of his security guards as a symbol for the greater population of South Africa-- at
first they are hostile towards one another yet by the end of the movie are harmoniously
working together. The shot of Mandela standing between two security guards, one black and
one white, wearing a Springboks jersey, acts as Eastwood’s attempt to emphasise how a
leader can unite. Thus, Eastwood suggests that it is ultimately forgiveness, not
vindictiveness, that heals a broken society, an idea supported and shown in action not only
by Mandela but also Priam and Achilles. Priam decides to approach his Greek enemy
Achilles as but a “father” and a man like any other, defying expectations of revenge similar to
Mandela. Through Achilles’ attempted desecration of Hector’s body and its ultimate failure,
as the Gods “continue to defy” Achilles, Malouf suggests that revenge is not the answer to
any battle, using the moralistic high ground of the immortals to portray this. Ultimately,
despite the two main leaders of the novel being on opposite sides of the ‘divide’ and war,
Priam is able to appeal to Achilles’ “high honour” and inspire him to opt for forgiveness
instead of revenge hence consolidating the effectiveness of compassion. Thus both Mandela
and Priam as leaders attempt and are able to persuade others to act compassionately in
response to their divided societies.

However, where the leaders in Invictus focus on an external sense of unification in response
to their crippled societies, those in Ransom respond to their divisive society rather through a
more internal journey. Despite their many similarities, Priam and Mandela are different in
that where the latter has a strong sense of self, never doubting his ability to be the “master of
his fate”, the former is “doubtful by nature”; thus, Priam’s response as a leader in a time of
change is focused on bettering himself on a smaller scale than Mandela’s mission of total
unification in South Africa. For Priam, who has felt a distinct sense of detachment from his
role as King of Troy despite seeing the embodiment of himself in his people, learns with the
help of Somax to get in touch with his humanity. Imagery of the natural world (“sea surface
bellies and glistens”) juxtaposed against all that is unearthly and divine (“teasing
iridescence”) depicts this constant tension between the emotional side of human nature and
the higher powers that Priam is in touch with. For “something new [and] impossible” to heal
the wounds inflicted during the Trojan war, Priam learns "ordinary desires and needs" that
were hitherto "unknown" to him, journeying towards Achilles for the simple goal of retrieving
the body of his murdered son not as a King, but as an “ordinary man”, thus demonstrating
Malouf’s view on the power and significance of sheer humanity. The use of language such
as "happy smiles" and "obedient toddler" in describing Priam's first encounter with something
as simplistic as dabbling his feet in the stream reflects the actions of a young child trying
new experiences, suggesting that, in responding to his broken and divisive society, Priam
has been born anew. Malouf’s depiction of a journey towards Achilles thus explores the
relationship between just two of the key figures in the Trojan war, while not neglecting the
raw vulnerability of a war-ravaged world that remains in such a broken society. Contrariwise,
Eastwood’s film shows leaders responding on a much larger scale, with a more romanticised
view of a broken society being healed. Unlike Priam, Mandela is already in touch with his
humanity, as shown by the close-up shots in which Mandela, normally depicted close to a
light source, is shrouded in dark shadows on his face close to the camera that exemplify his
humanness. Francois, Mandela and Priam all understand the importance of changing “when
circumstances demand it”, recognising that “times change” and they “need to change as
well”. Furthermore similarly to Priam, Mandela sees the embodiment of himself in his people,
calling them his “big family” of “forty-two million people”, yet opts to focus on a larger scale of
unifying the black/white post-apartheid divide in response to the divided South African
society. In order to adequately “serve the nation”, Mandela successfully bridges the post-
apartheid divide that exists in South Africa. Hence where the leaders in Malouf’s novel
traverse a much more personal journey in response to a broken and divided, those in
Invictus fixate on an external unification.

Ultimately, through these two texts the audience are able to see an array of actions that
leaders take in their responses to broken and divided societies and themselves question
what is effective and what is not. The leaders in both texts recognise the importance of
introducing new ideas and subverting tradition in times of change, prevailing despite the
apprehension they face from those around them. They recognise the importance of
compassion and empathy in the face of a world filled with hostility, utilising these key
characteristics to respond to their crumbling societies. However, despite the many
similarities the texts have in their leaders’ responses to societal problems, Malouf’s Ransom
ultimately focuses on a much more personal and small-scale approach in the midst of the
“dread and din” of the Trojan war, with Eastwood’s film showing leaders taking a much more
impressive approach focused on the characters around the leaders, rather than the leaders
themselves.