The Last King of Scotland

'The Last King of Scotland' is one of the left-field surprises of the season, bringing us the fascinating story of Ugandan dictator and all-round atrocity-committing madman Idi Amin, and featuring the underestimated Forest Whitaker in one of the most spectacular performances of his life (and nominated for the Best Actor Oscar too). This British-made film is based on the fictional memoirs written by English journalist Giles Foden, and whilst it initially only got a limited release in the U.S., it's recent Oscar-buzz (Whitaker has walked away with most of the big awards for Leading Actor this season) has given the film a bit more pep than it initially enjoyed when it was first released back in September.

James MacAvoy plays Nicholas Garrigan, a young Scottish doctor who heads to Uganda on a whim after graduating. He's there - partially - to lend a hand at a local hospital, but also to have some adventure and fun. Boy, did he pick the wrong country at the wrong time! Uganda has just recently been taken over by a new General and President, Idi Amin, a colourful and charismatic figure who is still battling with enemies who wish to usurp him. Through a chance meeting, Garrigan endears himself to the new President and Amin insists on making him his personal doctor and most-trusted advisor (Amin loves Scotland and all things Scottish). From here we see the country's eventual descent into madness and violence, and Garrigan comes to realise that he is in a very bad position - one from which it appears he cannot escape, and as things become worse and worse he realises how irresponsible he has been.

The first half of the film is deceptively upbeat and colourful. Amin is almost uniformly likeable for this portion of the movie, but all through these fun and fancy-free segments of rough-and-tumble tourism there's an undeniable and ominous sense of foreboding. We know things are going to turn bad - let's face it, Amin is one of the most notorious names in 20th century history - but just how bad, or when, we're not sure. Garrigan is initially a fairly likeable character, he is our eyes and focal point as the western protagonist in the film, but as the film pulled me further and further inside Amin's reign of terror I couldn't help but despise Garrigan's reckless and careless involvement in one of the most brutal regimes in recent times. I would've been quite angry if I hadn't've learned (quite some time after the film I admit) that this isn't at all based on a true story. Hell, it isn't even a filmic distortion of a true story... I'm not sure how I feel about this. I think the film packed more punch when I thought it was all real - I know the various details of Amin's era are real enough, but when you invest so much emotional weight in an (albeit ambiguous) identifiable protagonist like Garrigan, well it feels a little bit like a cheat. I guess I shouldn't grumble too much... if it makes Amin's story more accessible or easier to tell than I guess some dramatic licence (however grounded in the realm of fiction) is neccessary.

The biggest punch in this film is, no doubt, Whitaker's amazing performance as Idi Amin - a carefully constructed yet effortless-looking performance that highlights the man's jovial and charming qualities whilst keeping a constant undertone of wrongness underneath. Put simply, he's a scary motherfucker. MacAvoy does well as Garrigan too, and British character-actor Simon McBurney is suitably scrupulous as the diplomat Nigel Stone. An almost unrecognisable Gillian Anderson also puts in an all-too-brief supporting appearance as the wife of a doctor too. Like I said though, the big punch of the film is Whitaker... the film is pretty much all him and MacAvoy. Will Whitaker walk away with the Oscar in a few days from now? I've got a feeling it's fairly likely... he's never played a performance like this before in his life, and he plays incredibly well.

This is a better than average film about a master of barbaric atrocity... one or two scenes might make you squirm, but they really drive home how evil Amin was. It's a good film, but I can't help feeling a bit like it's the latest in a long and neverending line of revisionist films exposing western foreign policy and it's horrendously negeative effects on third-world countries. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad these films are being made - but at least Hotel Rwanda was entirely factual. I would've liked to have seen more focus on Amin in a film that's meant to be all about him... maybe show us more from his more terrifying years as the tyrant of Uganda. Then again, I guess that's more a criticism of the source material than the film itself. Don't let me put you off, this film is definitely worth seeing if only for Whitaker's magnetic performance.

Vote