Monday Movie Review: The Last King of Scotland

The Last King of Scotland (2006) 8/10
Young Scottish doctor Nicholas Garrigan (James McAvoy), seeking adventure, decides to work in Uganda in 1971, arriving just as Idi Amin (Forest Whitaker) takes power. Through a chance meeting, he is invited to become Amin's personal physician, and eventually becomes deeply involved in Amin's inner circle.

Late in the movie, a character urges Garrigan to return to Europe and tell the story of what's happening in Uganda. "People will listen to you," he says bitterly, "You're white."

The character is, of course, pointing to the "othering" of Africa. It is full of black people, and so white people in Europe and North America pay little attention, no matter how severe the problems are. This certainly isn't confined to the 1970s—think of how few people in the U.S. knew about Darfur until quite recently. Yet how can such a line of dialogue be allowed to stand in a movie that does exactly what it claims to be bitter and weary over? The Last King of Scotland takes the compelling story of the Presidency of Idi Amin Dada, and tells it through the lens of a fictional white person.

(Historical notes: This IMDb post suggests that Garrigan is a composite of three historical characters; Bob Astles, Mbalu-Mukasa, and an unnamed Scottish doctor, as well as the Minister of Health. Wkipedia, on the other hand, refers to Garrigan as a fictionalized Astles.)

The movie cannot overcome this conundrum. It wants to tell the white European version of the story, while criticizing that there is a white European version. Further, Garrigan is fundamentally ignorant of what's going on around him. He wants to see the world, to philander, and to get laid. Which is fine, if that's the way you're going to draw the character, but it's also a limited point of view. The audience isn't told exactly what Amin is doing until Garrigan is told, and in this case (unlike in most movies), the audience is actually more ignorant. Garrigan is asked "Do you know what's going on in this country?" and replies "Some of it," but we know none of it (except what we may be bringing to the table apart from the film). Amin's crimes against his people are told all in a rush, a whoosh of information and atrocities meant to shock without really informing.

Is Garrigan a symbolic character? Does he represent "Europe" or "the whites" or some such concept? Maybe, but the script doesn't really seem smart enough to have thought it through that far.

As Amin, Forest Whitaker is hypnotic and fascinating. He is like a toddler walking around with a loaded gun, so damn friendly, so damn scary. McAvoy also does a great job in a demanding role.

By the way, this movie is a testament to the need to overhaul the Oscar nomination process. McAvoy is a textbook lead; the movie is told entirely through his character's eyes. Whitaker is a textbook supporting actor, he has a strong presence in the movie, but his primary role is to have an effect on McAvoy. Yet Whitaker won Best Actor, not Best Supporting, and McAvoy was overlooked entirely.

(The bitter cross-post of General Amin)