free counter with statistics Last King of Scotland, The | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

scotland.jpg
Take My Word, I’m a Madman Don’t You Know

The Last King of Scotland / John Williams

Film Reviews | January 17, 2007 | Comments (22)


The mismatched-buddies script is a reliable charmer, its strengths on display in films from The Odd Couple to Sideways, but The Last King of Scotland finds a way to put a fresh twist on the genre. Instead of a neatnik and a slob, or a self-loathing wine connoisseur and a fun-loving boob, it gives us a humanitarian doctor and a flesh-eating despot. The movie tells the story of Idi Amin (Forest Whitaker), the 1970s Ugandan dictator widely rumored to have eaten a few of his many slain enemies, and Nicholas Garrigan (James McAvoy), an idealistic Scottish doctor who — fresh out of medical school and eager to help the world’s poor —finds himself taken under Amin’s meaty wing as the ruler’s personal physician and closest advisor.

The movie begins at full gallop. During the span of just the opening credits, bright-eyed Nicholas expresses frustration with his overbearing father; makes the decision to pack up his life and move to a new place (impulsively choosing his destination with the help of a spinning globe); meets a fellow doctor’s attractive wife in Uganda; learns that the widely beloved Amin has taken power by coup; and begins having sex with the natives.

It’s an awful lot to learn about someone in two minutes, and it’s indicative of what ends up being the movie’s fatal flaw — it’s not about Amin, it’s about Nicholas.

Whitaker has plenty of screen time, sure, and he’s occasionally breathtaking, particularly when he first appears, taking the stage to address a group of villagers. We first see his broad back as he marches toward the amped-up throng below him, and then there’s a dramatic cut to his maniacal shouting face, eyes off-kilter and ablaze. After a brief speech, he joins the locals in a tribal dance on the platform, and Nicholas, the whitest face in the crowd, can’t take his eyes off the spectacle. Neither could I, and it was easy to imagine that — along with the missionary — I was about to be swept up by Amin’s charisma, only coming out of the trance in time to watch Whitaker’s Oscar-acceptance speech.

And in fact, this great scene is followed closely by another, in which Nicholas is called to the site of a car accident, where he dresses a minor wound suffered by Amin, and the film ingeniously shows how the dictator might see something of his own volatile, cocksure nature in the young Scot. They’re brilliant, subtle moments, and a movie full of them might have been a masterpiece.

Alas.

Nicholas, as director Kevin Macdonald soon makes clear, is not just any naïf navigating the halls of power. He bears the added burden of being a Symbol. Given that Amin’s Uganda was in its earliest stages of independence after nearly 70 years of colonial rule by Britain, there are inevitably deeper themes in a visit from a well-intentioned white man. By choosing the young doctor as its focal point, the movie implicitly promises the story of his journey from naiveté to complicity to disillusionment to peril. Trust me. It’s all right there in the contract. I’ll wait while you check.

The problem is that he gets stuck in the first stage of that journey, and the audience’s sympathy gets stuck right there with him. When Nicholas meets Nigel Stone (Simon McBurney), a bigoted British emissary, he’s quick to express disdain for such backward thinking. But Nicholas is so anti-colonial, so eager to approach the continent with unbiased righteousness, he ends up nurturing a blindness about what’s going on around him that strains belief. And in a story like this one, there’s a critical difference between understandably green and unfathomably credulous.

After ignoring plenty of omens about the company he’s keeping, Nicholas literally gets blood on his hands in a scene when Amin’s brutality becomes impossible to ignore. But, no. Nicholas is shaken by this, but not awoken. It takes an additional turn of events, one in which he plays a more pivotal role, to open his eyes. Of course, by then it’s too late — for both him and the movie. By this point, the audience’s eyes have been open for what feels like several days.

To work as the historical-political thriller it aspires to be, The Last King of Scotland would require the nearly impossible: viewers unaware of Amin’s atrocities, so that those horrors are revealed to the audience at or near the same moment they’re revealed to Nicholas. As it is, we’re in the position of watching a slasher movie set in a glass house. We don’t have to guess if the killer is standing outside the door — we can see him plainly the whole time.

It’s hard not to pine for a movie that would have been a more appropriate canvas for Whitaker’s talent — some 200-minute epic focused mostly on Amin’s life (his early military career, his terrible reign, his eventual life of quiet exile in Saudi Arabia). The movie’s based broadly on true events, but the narrow story of Nicholas is from a novel of the same name by Giles Foden. The title is taken from a nickname that Amin gave himself, inspired by his inexplicable love of all things Scottish.

It wasn’t the only inexplicable thing about him. His alternating lack of intelligence, Ali-like manipulation of the media, personal charm, and thirst for mayhem made him a fascinating, if completely irredeemable, character. For a while, The Last King of Scotland has a good time watching him toy with his chosen circle of advisors. There are times, when he cracks patently bad jokes in a clumsy effort to be liked by those around him, that you would swear his nearest kindred spirit is not Colonel Kurtz or Hannibal Lecter, but David Brent from “The Office.” Some toadies (the dumb ones) greet these jokes with a blank stare, but most (the self-preservationists) respond with forced laughter, because Amin is powerful and might feed them to crocodiles. (OK, that last part isn’t like Brent, unless I missed another, much stranger Christmas special.)

Whitaker’s performance alone does make the movie worth seeing, and the grainy cinematography used to capture Africa’s jarring mix of natural beauty and political savagery recalls the work of Fernando Meirelles (City of God, The Constant Gardener). But as it becomes clear that we’re going to follow Nicholas’ story in an arc that would snugly fit a made-for-TV movie, this grittiness is mostly wasted.

If Nicholas ever became consciously complicit in the regime’s terror, the movie would have achieved a moral complexity that eludes it. Instead, by the time he truly understands his predicament, he’s past the point of choosing, whatever moral agency he might have had swallowed up by Amin’s scary embrace and an ultimatum — stay in Uganda, or else. In the face of Nicholas’ meek protests of his innocence, Amin says, “Do not pretend to yourself that you did not know,” and at this moment the madman has unnecessarily become the movie’s voice of reason.

None of this is McAvoy’s fault. He does an admirable job with what he’s given, especially considering the massive shadow (both literal and figurative) cast by the hulking Whitaker. But for those less empathetic audience members who crave Nicholas’ full comeuppance for stumbling into the heart of darkness, it’s hard to beat Whitaker’s whispered, chilling delivery near the film’s end as he leans toward his bloody charge — who’s been properly tenderized by henchmen and looks back at the tyrant through the one eye not swollen shut: “I think your death will be the first real thing that has happened to you.”

Whether or not Nicholas dies is not for me to tell you. All I can say is that the movie barely survives him.

John Williams lives in Brooklyn. He’s an editor at Harper Perennial and a freelance writer. He blogs at A Special Way of Being Afraid.


Volver | Pan's Labyrinth



Comments

i have been WAITING for this review.
so, basically what youre sayng is the movie kinda sucks but f. whitaker's performance is still awesome?
i dont care. i'm seeing it anyway.
xo

Posted by: WTF at October 26, 2006 9:37 PM

I liked it a bit better. I agree that the duration of Garrigan's naivete is stretched beyond the breaking point -- it was in service of maintaining his role as the audience's eyes as long as possible. After all, the story has to be told from someone's point of view, and it couldn't be Amin's. He was a monster from the start.

Whitaker was, as everyone's seen or heard about by now, outstanding. Particularly in his first appearance, as Mr. Williams describes. I'm not always a fan of handheld digital cameras, but it's the obvious choice here -- the wobbly sharpness puts you right in the crowd, and introduces the edginess and instability that the movie tries hard to sustain throughout.

Posted by: sansho1 at October 26, 2006 10:02 PM

At the risk of being flamed, I must ask this, as I am genuinely curious:

Is there a recent movie, set in Africa and/or surrounding African events and history, among the recent surge of those released, other than Tsotsi, that isn't set up from a European POV? Catch a Fire, perhaps? Why couldn't the film be from Amin's POV (which is what I was kind of expecting)? That's not to say I won't see it, but I was just wondering. Sigh. I suppose I should be grateful more films set in Africa are being more widely distributed and promoted, period.

Posted by: Daphne at October 26, 2006 11:21 PM

i was hoping for a more appreciative review, but i'm gonna see the movie anyway. i liked james mcavoy since his bollywood queen / children of dune days, i'm not about to lose faith in him now, after all we've been through together :))

Posted by: irina at October 27, 2006 12:53 AM

I'm actually not too surprised at this review. From what I could tell, the big flaw is the focus on Nicholas Garrigan, a fictional character, if I'm not mistaken. Still, the story is fascinating, and I find Whitaker and McAvoy (whom I LOVE beyond all comprehension) to be extraordinarily charismatic and engaging actors, and I can't wait to see it myself.

To Daphne's post, I agree that it's sad that any movie surrounding African history almost always has to have a European/White protagonist, but with the colonial rule imposed upon much of the continent throughout history, you kind of expect. Now, that's not a good thing, but it's a sad fact that most people won't see it if it wasn't there. You are also forgetting Hotel Rwanda starring Don Cheadle, which of course, was phenomenal. James McAvoy made it slightly more redeeming though by saying that he appreiated how his character wasn't some white savior like so many have been before.

Thanks for the review. It was well worth the wait.

Posted by: Ann at October 27, 2006 9:00 AM

Why couldn't the film be from Amin's POV (which is what I was kind of expecting)?

Because he was a paranoid, sadistic cannibal, and by the time he began charming the Western press (scenes which ordinarily could establish some complexity of character), this would have had to be addressed, had the movie been told from Amin's POV.

To do so would overwhelm any attempt at establishing complexity -- to not do so would be a fundamentally dishonest approach, especially given our knowledge of Amin. We sit there knowing he was a monster. By using an outsider POV, it can at least be argued that Garrigan's denial of the depths of Amin's monstrosity provides some tension.

The Downfall managed to tell a story from Hitler's POV (successfully, I hear -- I haven't seen it). But that's a story that's been told a million times in a million different ways, so it wasn't necessary to give much historical context. Since LKOS is the first attempt at a dramatization of Amin's rule, we need the story from the beginning. Few people under 50 know it very well. So maybe the third or fourth Amin movie could be told from his POV, but not the first one.

Is there a recent movie, set in Africa and/or surrounding African events and history, among the recent surge of those released, other than Tsotsi, that isn't set up from a European POV?

I agree -- it's very frustrating. But the use of the European outsider makes more sense here than in some other recent movies set in Africa -- Garrigan is based on Bob Astles, who was known as Amin's "White Rat". So at least they didn't just plug in a fictional audience surrogate.

Daphne, have you seen Lumumba? You should check it out -- good movie about the first democratically elected prime minister of the Congo back in the late '50s, and told from his POV. It rises to the challenge of making a film about African politics from an African POV -- the filmmakers' approach is to dispense with any pretext of a hope, as Lumumba's murdered body is dismembered and burned in the opening scene....

Posted by: sansho1 at October 27, 2006 9:14 AM

Daphne, I couldn't feel your frustration any more, especially since I'm from South Africa. And it's not just movies about Africa - it extends to movies about native americans, etc. Look at: Geronimo, Dances with Wolves, A Dry White Season, The Power of One, A World Apart, Cry Freedom, The Emerald Forest, The Mission. There is an entire genre that could simply be called "Films about the white guy who knew/helped X". Other than Tsotsi and Hotel Rwanda, it's a short goddamn list of movies that genuine in it's exploration of the countries and people of those subjects. It drives me crazy.

THAT SAID - I adore Whitaker, and will definitely see this. Amin was a fascinating and disturbing figure, and mixing the two garauntees my viewing it.

Posted by: TK at October 27, 2006 10:53 AM

I'm currently reading the book and it's better than what the movie sounds like. (Yes folks, this was a book first.) I would recommend reading it b/c it's good and it seems like one may be able to symathize with Dr. Garrigan more in it. I have obviously not seen the movie, but in the book he seems to struggle more with moral issues and seeing that there is something seriously wrong with his friend Amin but not being able to draw back from the friendship b/c he is fascinated with the man and is too deep in his web of power and spies that he can't just simply remove himself from the situation.

Posted by: Kristin at October 27, 2006 11:03 AM

Amin is still alive. Maybe he'll go see it and someone will kill him afterwards.

Posted by: Hoyt Vandenberg at October 27, 2006 12:13 PM

Sansho1: I totally agree Lumumba is a great movie that must be seen. While it isn't an African-produced movie, there is no "White man pulling us together" (unless it in sheer hate of the CIA's role here). Which brings me to my one gripe (having not yet seen the Amin film) with the review. I challenge you to prove to me that most people are familiar with Amin's atrocities. When I raved about Lumumba several years ago, nobody I worked with (for the record, graduate-level educated professionals) knew what I was talking about. They had never heard of Mobuto Sese Seko and his reign of terror let alone Patrice Lumumba. People, especially modern Americans, have incredibly short memories. I'll bet I can find 10 people in the next hour who know nothing about the Amin years. Of course they won't be the types to go see this film, but you see my point. By the way, for those of you interested in this subject, can I plug the book The Soccer Wars: it's over 20 years old but a really great take (in short essays) on post-colonial Africa and the mess the imperialists left it in leading to the ascension of the Sese Sekos, Amins and Mugabes of the world. Of course, we've all learned from that now and there's no more imperialist take-overs leading to bloody messes, right?????

Posted by: Siobhan at October 27, 2006 1:03 PM

Hoyt: Amin is not still alive. He died on August 16th, 2003.

Posted by: Siobhan at October 27, 2006 1:05 PM

At the risk of sounding naive, I'd like to make one exception to the European POV/white man pulling it all together issue. I felt that The Constant Gardener's white protagonists were very self-referential regarding their posiiton as either the guilty party or the saviors. The opening sequence in which Rachel Weisz' character launches an attack on U.S. policy and the UN is in stark contrast to the scenes in Africa, almost asking us to see that in her passion and idealism, Rachel is still a part of the white man = order and salvation paradigm. Specifically, the moment when Ralph refuses to pick up the woman making the long walk home along the roadside is one in which the movie seems to question a part of its own premise (I think the movie is stronger for it, too). This is possibly the least eloquent post I have ever written on this site, but I hope the message isn't lost in the clumsy prose.

All that said, I'd still like to see this movie, and yes, my desire is due in large part to Whitaker.

Posted by: Becca at October 27, 2006 1:59 PM

I liked your pov and have been waiting to see this. Now I know I want to.

Posted by: Maria at October 27, 2006 2:02 PM

Siobhan,

Maybe you're right, maybe the average American filmgoer doesn't know much about Amin, so the gradual revelation of his atrocities might stand as genuine tension on its own. Of course, age has a lot to do with it -- I'm 40, so I was a preteen when Amin was on the TV screen. He was the scariest MFer on the planet, as far as I was concerned.

Lumumba was 15 years or so earlier, so it stands to reason that even fewer Americans have heard of him. And considering our government's shadowy complicity in his demise, and our more overt role in installing Mobutu, it's not too surprising that our official histories don't dwell too much on the Congo....

Posted by: sansho1 at October 27, 2006 3:31 PM

Sansho1: Yes, it may be age. Since you've revealed yours, I should also admit that I am 41 and grew up and was educated in Ireland so was subject to a lot more general awareness of these issues. And yeah you're right about the Congo issue, on the other hand (this is the soap box warning for those of you who wish to skip it), if US history books do exclude everywhere that the US has meddled and installed questionable leaders, it's going to be a very short history book! End of soap box. On a related note to Daphne's original question, I just heard this afternoon on the radio that there's a new film coming out called "Catch the Fire" which is based on the story of a Black South African oil rig worker who was completely apolitical and enjoying his middle-level management job but becomes gradually drawn into the ANC struggle against Apartheid because of constant harrassment and discrimination. It's by an Australian director but apparently told from the point of view of the worker (he was an advisor on the film) and that of a special branch detective who was responsible for torturing this man. Worth checking out I think.

Posted by: Siobhan at October 27, 2006 5:03 PM

I think when we see a tremendous bolt forward in the South African or Egyptian or Kenyan film industries, we'll see a surge in African POV film making it to Western distribution. It is the POV of the people funding/creating the art which is normally presented, of course--such is art and such is humankind.

It would be great if this happened during our generation.

Posted by: ranylt at October 27, 2006 8:00 PM

I saw this movie almost a month ago, but the thing that I took away from it was that Nicholas was supposed to be a representation of the Western masses--not the administrators or politicians, but regular citizens who realized their governments were aiding sadistic tyrants but who were too preoccupied by their own post-materialist concerns to really be bothered by it too much.

As for Nicholas, I don't think he goes to Uganda to help the poor, as you say. He wants to go to do something different, and he doesn't care what it is as long as it's not with his father--classic rebellious semi-adult behavior. The fact that within a few hours of being in the country he has sex with a native then attempts to have sex with the doctor's wife really portrays him as a man more concerned with his own pleasures than the possible consequences his actions may have; this, in my opinion, is why the ending is so brutal and disturbing.

I think his continued naivete is also meant to symbolize the back-and-forth attitude the West had towards Amin, as well as their denial of the fact that a man aided by the West was committing such atrocities. They, like Nicholas, didn't want to believe it because it would make them complicit in the atrocities. And since Nicholas was the type of man who took little responsibility for his actions, he serves as the representation for the entire West.

Posted by: dypole at October 28, 2006 10:38 PM

I saw this over the weekend, and I agree totally that I wish it had been more about Amin than Nicholas.

I was born three years before Amin lost power, so I knew absolutely nothing about him. Now I want to know the real story, and the movie got me reading about it. I'll check out Lumumba, too. So hopefully even if the movie isn't about the real story, it will get people interested in the real story. That was certainly the case with me.

Posted by: Alison at October 30, 2006 4:10 PM

I just saw LKOS. Towards the last third of the movie, it left me shaking uncontrollably . A couple of reasons.
Uganda is my home country. I had gone to see how much yet another white POV moive on Africa could be mucked up (confusing the languages, shot in a different geographical area, etc). I must say that LKOS (shot in part in Uganda) was quite accurate in its portrayal of the seduction of Uganda. I think that the Scottish doctor's POV worked because it led you down the usual path of a white "saviour" who wanted to make a difference and the consequences of it.
Second, I was born in exile in part because of Idi Amin, and I like many Ugandans, lost many family friends and relatives to his regime. Identifying ones self as Ugandan on the international arena usually illicits the response "Idi Amin." From all accounts he was very charming; multi-lingual, physically powerful and intimidating. He put Saddam Hussein to shame, but managed to live out his life in exile.
LKOS was an oppourtunity to go home this afternoon, revisit our brilliant dances and remember some of those alndscapes that I've only dreaed about for years. At the same time, it reminded me of the place I come from.

BTW, it's really belittling for folks to call other people native when they are referring to the local people in a far-away land. Belittling in the same way that other actors with more screen time that the white woman are not named in the cast of characters. (Oh did I ever need to vent that one out!)
Forrest Whitaker is brilliant as Idi Amin. The plays on colonialism extend to the British-Scottish history is brilliantly acted, and the Scottish doctor's choice of poisons is amazingly portrayed by Dr Garrigan.
I won't be surprised if the Oscar eludes Whittacker, but I'd be honoured to see his acting prowess rewarded for his Idi Amin.

Posted by: jobitek at November 5, 2006 11:50 PM

I appreciated the choosen niavety. Dr Garragin knew what was going on and turned a blind eye. People do it all the time. And I loved that it was Amin who pointed that out to him. By doing so, I think the director shifted the focus back to Amin. Also, the african doctor at the end acts as a brilliant voice of reasoning as well. See this movie!

Posted by: Thizzle at January 22, 2007 6:13 PM

I had to walk out of the cinema after shouting at the screen( this is unusual for me) I trully find it difficlt to believe that Dr Garragin didnt understand that buy sleeping with one of Amin's wives, he was signing her death warrent. What was he thinking? And why didnt he have the grace to take the African doctor with him on the plan? Dr Garragin made his intentions very clear from the start which were to sleep with as many women as possible, preffably black and married, to live life on the edge and have as much fun as possible with no regard for any one but his selfish self.

Posted by: Helen Wilson at January 24, 2007 8:57 AM

There are plenty of films made about Africa which are not told from a European point of view, by directors like Ousmane Sembène and Moussa Sene Absa of Senegal; Souleymane Cissé of Mali; Moufida Tlatli of Tunisia etc.
It would be good if they were more widely known in North America, but they don't have to be.

Posted by: squiggle at January 26, 2007 6:47 AM