Hey Everyone!
After about 3 hours I have finally finished my first body and introduction. I know that my first body is on the long side, so could anybody potentially highlight any parts that can be left out instead. Also, any feedback would be great! Scrutinise as you please.
Leadership is not about title, but about actions. Compare the way both ransom and invictus explore this idea. The notion of a successful leader is a highly elusive one. Despite their vast differences in setting, “Ransom” and “Invictus” equally suggest that although title is a key defining feature of leadership, the most accomplished luminaries are those who initiate change through their actions. David Malouf and Clint Eastwood both depict societies on the verge: Troy faces annihilation by the Greeks, while South Africa pends an uncertain future as it emerges from the injustices of the apartheid era. Of these societies, certain individuals emerge who are able to diverge from their identities and oppose societal conventions required of them. Such a requirement can only be achieved at a great personal cost, and both authors explore the repercussions that the burden of leadership has on the individual. However, Ransom and Invictus question how the value of a leader is dependant upon the benefits their actions ultimately may bring.
Both texts argue that the most proficient leaders must diverge from their identities and do what is most unconventional at times. King Priam in Ransom, an absolute monarch, had always observed “what is established and lawful”. Being the “ceremonial figurehead”, Priam had upheld and met every social expectation required of him as leader of Troy. However, he mourns over his kingdom “threatened with extinction” as deeply as he mourns the death of his most beloved son Hector. Through the divinations of the Goddess Iris, Priam understands his role as a leader and instead chooses to discard his “dazzling eminence” and approach Achilles “as a father, one poor mortal to another”. But the idea for his ransom is both “novel” and “unthinkable”. Based upon embracing “change”, it is in itself both sacrilegious and subversive even to those closest to him. To Hecuba, his dearest wife, the image is a “shocking one”. Being “more tied to convention than she believes”, Hecuba fails to comprehend why “Priam of all men would say such things”. They (the royal council) are primarily concerned for Priam’s “royal image”, and imagine the “violence” such a “human” approach could lead to, reflecting the intrinsically conservative desire to defend tradition and “what is established” that is commensurate of early societies. But Priam is determined to pave his own legacy, the image he plans to leave “is a living one”. Even when brought forth the royal cart with the “marks of the adze still visible” and it’s “elaborately carved wheels”, Priam simply insists for a “common work cart”. The purpose of the royal cart was to alert the public that they were in the presence of royalty. It ultimately symbolises how Priam became encapsulated within his own “royal sphere”, since everything within the cart was meticulously chosen and specifically tailored for a king. However, Priam’s demands emphasise his resolve to dismiss his royal status and apparent identity, with the commoners cart symbolic of Priam’s desire to be “seen as another man”, evidently making his journey a more personal one. Similarly in Invictus, Nelson Mandela’s dream to unite his “rainbow nation” under one flag is met with much social backlash. After being elected as President, the White Afrikaner minority pend an uncertain future as the Black majority anticipate revenge. However, despite being a proud black South African, Mandela ultimately surprises both factions with the “compassion” he had been denied. His first day in office sees all white staff packing up their belongings, refusing to even meet his face. After calling back all staff, Mandela reassures the room full of anxious Afrikaners that the “colour of their skin” does not “disqualify” them at all, but instead reaches out for “[their] help” in order for South Africa to become a “shining light in the world”. They had previously expected him to take the “satisfaction of firing [them] himself”, but the relieved faces, sighs and arms that begin to drop suggest otherwise. Brenda’s concerns over him “risking his political capital” by intervening in the sport committee’s decision to drop the Springboks and to instead restore the team “they had cheered against all their lives”, echoes that of Hecuba’s concern over Priam’s “unexpected” act. Like Priam, Mandela dismisses such notions of his “royal image” and instead insists that “as their leader” he must show them that “they are wrong”. In an attempt to dismantle the social divisions that exist between society, President Mandela must do what is “unexpected” and uses the Springboks to achieve his goal. His belief that the unfortunate “Boks” will win the World Cup does not renew any “hopes up”. Being a “damn disgrace” that “don’t stand a bloody chance in the world cup”, the Springboks’ captain Francois Pienaar becomes determined to do so after finding inspiration in Mandela’s own unlikely rise from a political “terrorist” incarcerated for 27 years to president of the nation. This inspires Francois to not just win the world cup but to embrace President Mandela’s vision of the Springboks, once a prominent symbol of apartheid and its horrible injustices, as a vehicle to achieve unity and national reconciliation. Being in charge of people who are in dire need of leadership, Pienaar and Achilles resemble each other in the sense that both require the help of wiser men in order to realise their own roles as leaders. Priam’s “unprecedented” act touches Achilles and appeals to him, giving him the chance to break free from the “grey clogging web” and find the “true Achilles”. Mandela’s dealings with Pienaar instils a new sense of renewal in him. As Invictus progresses Pienaar is shown to flourish not only as a leader, but with a new sense of identity. He goes as far as to adopt Mandela’s own inclusive catchphrase, evidently seen at the end when he thanks Mandela for what he has done “for our country”. Hence, both characters portray successful leadership as being determined through actions rather than by birth, and that “what seems foolish is just what is most sensible at times.”
Home
Help
Search
Login
