On watching "The Last King of Scotland"
I went to the UFU movie night this evening, partially to enjoy pizza, cookies, and popcorn, partially to hang out with cool people, but mostly to watch the movie being shown, “The Last King of Scotland.”
The movie, starring Forest Whitaker, who won an Oscar for his role as the president of Uganda, General Idi Amin Dada, follows a young Scottish doctor, Nicholas Garrigan (James McAvoy), who travels to Uganda to help poor Africans at a mission hospital and winds up as Amin’s personal physician.
The movie, which is based upon a true story, was very good, very engaging, and very interesting. However, it was also disturbing and scary (I hate suspense and even remotely frightening movies, so I am not a good judge of this I suppose).
One of the great things about the movie is the sympathetic portrayal of Garrigan. If you were reading about this guy, you would totally judge him. He was responsible for at least two peoples’ deaths in the movie, he was aware of the extreme corruption and awful, murderous regime and did nothing about it, and he remains Amin’s physician for an incredible, ridiculous amount of time.
However, while watching the movie, that thought never entered my head. I never really judged Garrigan, and all of his decisions seemed totally logical. Everything he did was a result of outside factors that he had no control over, and everything seemed turned against him.
I guess that is kind of a movie’s job, to tell a story about a sympathetic character whom the audience never judges. But I thought that “The Last King of Scotland” did an excellent job.
Plus, any movie like “The Last King of Scotland” which attempts to educate the audience about poorly known historical events is automatically very significant. I knew nothing about Amin’s rule in Uganda before I saw the movie.
I think that for most Americans, corrupt and violent regimes in different African countries kind of run together, until most can’t tell the difference between Amin and Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia, Paul Kagame of Rwanda, and Laurent Kabila of Congo.
Overall, I really liked this movie. I don’t think I was as impressed with Whitaker’s performance as the Academy apparently was, but I thought that “The Last King of Scotland” acted as a powerful statement about Uganda and the regimes that have shaped it.
— Sarah Pfander
Comments
Whitaker was phenomenal, the film itself was passable. I agree that these sorts of films are important, though, as long as they’re reasonably well-made so as not to tarnish the art form.
Posted by: Kumars Salehi | April 26, 2007 5:01 PM