Revenge'S Futility In "Ransom" And "Invictus"

The novel “Ransom” by David Malouf and the new age film “Invictus” directed by Clint Eastwood both echo the futile nature of revenge while focussing on and expressing the power that mercy possesses in the struggle to create peace and eventually accomplish unity. Malouf’s reinvention of Homer’s Iliad teaches us that revenge is not the answer to these kinds of problems. In “Ransom”, Greek warrior and hero Achilles attempts to get vengeance by desecrating Hector’s body after Hector slayed his most beloved friend Patroclus. In all his attempts to get vengeance, Achilles in unsuccessful as he becomes more enraged every time Hector’s body is fully restored. In comparison, Eastwood’s “Invictus” uncovers the dominance that forgiveness holds and its ability to bring two opposing groups together is times of social unrest and severe racial discrimination. In “Invictus”, Eastwood portrays the new South African president, Nelson Mandela, as a very powerful man who believes he can unite the nation through forgiveness of those who put him in jail 27 years earlier and moving forward with the goal of reconciliation at the forefront of his plans. Through his actions he perfectly demonstrates the futility of revenge.

Revenge is the action of harming or hurting someone in return for an injury or wrong suffered at their hands. Both “Ransom” and “Invictus” reveal the power of revenge and how striving for vengeance can lead to further destruction of the soul. At the beginning of “Ransom”, the death of Patroclus lights the fire to Achilles rage and eagerness for vengeance. Malouf explains the friendship between Patroclus and Achilles being so close that “he knew every movement of Patroclus soul”. In “Invictus”, Eastwood portrays Mandela’s release from prison as a very important time for the future of South Africa. He has the choice of getting revenge on those who put him in prison or forget the past and begin rebuilding the country. In the film, Eastwood presents Mandela’s public release from prison as a montage of footage consisting of raw footage and re-enacted parts that show the viewers the violent retribution between the blacks and whites. At this time in the film, Eastwood draws on the viciousness of revenge and its destructive impacts on the nation.

In “Ransom”, Malouf portrays Achilles as a man who has little to no control over his emotions. He describes him as a man who could “feel his soul change colour”, which emphasises his inability to control his temper and highlights the way his emotions are associated with revenge. Malouf portrays Achilles desire to mutilate Hector’s body day after day through the use of emotive language, “the hip-bones and the shoulder blades of the massive back dashing hard against sharp-edged flinty stones and ridges”. Achilles need to inflict damage on Hector’s body suggests that retribution does not bring the end to something, a feeling of emptiness comes over his as he reflects on his actions, “and still it was not enough, still his grief was not consumed”. This accentuates the futile nature of revenge and the way is degrades the soul. “Invictus” portrays parallel characteristics to that of “Ransom”, as it explores a divided nation, unappeasable towards their leader. Nelson Mandela is considered a terrorist the instant he is elected as South Africa’s new president. Whites’ perspective of Mandela is portrayed by the words of the coach of the Springboks Rugby team, “it is that terrorist. Mandela. They let him out. Remember this day boys. This is the day our country went to the dogs”. Eastwood uses these words to highlight the feelings of the whites and their harmful intent of revenge.

Eastwood’s “Invictus” and Malouf’s “Ransom” both include the fruitfulness of forgiveness, however “Invictus” focusses more heavily on the power of reconciliation. Malouf introduces forgiveness quite late in the novel during Priam’s journey to Achilles. Somax, the carter, helps to enable Priam to appreciate the power of forgiveness through his own experiences. He tells Priam of his sorrowful experience with the death of his son and how his beloved Mule had played a major role is his death. “It was her fault, that little off-side mule I’m so fond of, Beauty.” Somax reveals that in his immediate angry and frustration his indistinctive action was to harm Beauty, yet his inner morals prevailed and her just hugged her. Malouf teaches us a valuable lesson through Somax’s words “but what would have been the good of that?” reminding us that retribution never satisfies our rage.

Eastwood portrays the prosperity of forgiveness from the beginning of “Invictus” through Nelson Mandela’s actions. Mandela refuses to let this new nation fall back into the discriminatory policies that it was once ruled by. When Jason Tshabalala, the head of his security branch, challenges him why there are white security guards in his office, Mandela perfectly echoes his forgiving spirit and view by saying “forgiveness liberates the soul. It removes fear. That is why it is such a powerful weapon.” Through his actions, Mandela encourages the people of South Africa that it is possible to be “better than they think they can be”, which further stresses the power of reconciliation and pointlessness of revenge.

David Malouf’s novel “Ransom” and Clint Eastwood’s film “Invictus” explore the uselessness of revenge and the power that care and compassion has when seeking unity. In both “Ransom” and “Invictus”, Malouf and Eastwood highlight the concept of retaliation in their respective settings. Both texts scrutinise the indistinctive action of retaliation when there is always a better option in forgiveness. Yet “Ransom” primarily focusses on the fruitfulness of forgiveness through the characters of Priam and Achilles whilst “Invictus” focusses of Mandela’s vision and goal to re-unite the nation through the power of reconciliation. Malouf and Eastwood skilfully present to their audiences the pointlessness of retribution when its used to attempt to solve problems that often seem too great to overcome.