|
Tuesday, 13 February 2007 18:43 |
By KRISTIN ERHARD
Gripping. Disturbing. Harrowing ó just a few words to describe director Kevin Macdonaldís latest film, ìThe Last King of Scotland.î The film, adapted from a novel by Giles Foden, features Forest Whitaker as Ugandan dictator Idi Amin and James McAvoy as Nicholas Garriagan, Aminís personal physician and close confidante.
Despite what the filmís title suggests, The Last King of Scotland takes place in Uganda. Set in the1970s during President Idi Aminís eight-year-rule of the country, this film is a historical narrative with a hint of Hollywood love scandals and drama ó a mix that makes the filmís historical legitimacy questionable.
At
the beginning of the film Nicholas Garrigan, a young Scottish medical
doctor, sets out on a mission to rebel against his fatherís insistence
that Garrigan pursue a medical practice like his own. With a
backpackerís mentality, the young Garrigan spins a globe and stops it
with his finger on Uganda ó his chance destination to start his own
medical practice.
 NaÔve and
impressionable, Garrigan arrives in Uganda, a former British colony
that Amin seized in a coup díetat. Garrigan first sees Amin during a
rally outside the village where Garrigan works.
Afterwards,
Garrigan encounters Amin on the side of the road and tends to his
injured hand. It is in this scene that the viewer learns of Aminís
infatuation and cultural appropriation of all things Scottish when he
trades his generalís jacket for Garriganís Scotland soccer jersey. (The
film derives its title from Aminís fondness for the Celtic ìwarrior
nation.î)
Soon after this
exchange, Amin beckons Garrigan to Kampala, the capital of Uganda,
urging him to be his personal physician. Garrigan accepts the offer
and, later, gifts such as a Mercedes convertible and a lavish
apartment, abandoning his practice in the rural Ugandan village.
Amin appeals to
the doctorís idealism and white-liberal desire to be embraced by
Africa, requesting not only medical, but political advice. Garrigan
soon finds himself entangled in a political mess when he learns that
the seemingly charismatic leader is really a monstrous and despotic
dictator who has made Ugandaís economy his personal bank account. Amin
was responsible for the deaths of over 300,000 Ugandans during his
regime.
Whitakerís
ability to slide seamlessly from a magnetic leader to a monster
contributes to the psychological-thriller aspects of this movie.
However, McAvoyís performance as the white-liberal protagonist did not
attract my sympathy in the midst of the disturbing reality this story
is based on.
This film made
my toes curl during the violent scenes. The graphic violence made
everyone in the theater gasp and cover their mouths. Although
Whitakerís performance is frightening, ìThe Last King of Scotlandî is
truly horrific because it is based on a historic, rather than
fictional, antagonist.
My only caveat
with this film is that it is one in a plethora of Hollywood-thrillers
with Africa-has-gone-to-hell overtones. It seems to follow suit with
other movies such as ìHotel Rwandaî and ìBlood Diamond,î which aim to
inform, but result in a sense of immutability about the violence and
strife of African nations (not to mention that it is delivered as a
form of entertainment). I applaud the informative nature of these
films, yet canít help but criticize the desperate portrayals, love
scenes and other Hollywood spins that discredit what is factual.
ìThe Last King
of Scotlandî is a well-crafted film that critiques the dynamics of
power and corruption in politics. It is also a morality tale that shows
how easy it is for a well-intentioned outsider to become lost in a
culture that he or she doesnít understand. With that in mind, I urge
viewers to think about this and other films about politics and
suffering in Africa as one of many sources to gather information and
gain understanding about world history and politics, but certainly not
an end in itself.
ï
Kristin Erhard, who works for the Daily Planet, is a senior at UNC Asheville.
|
