Newgnfr: The Last King of Scotland (2006) Christian film reviews

Looking for a specific film review? CLICK BELOW

0-9 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z / Trailers / DVD Store

January 28, 2010

The Last King of Scotland (2006)

Should I see it?
Yes.

Short Review: A film expressing the dangers of living frivolously in a dangerous world. So, in essence, it is a film that warns against doing all of the things Hollywood has been telling us to do for the last forty years.

Many of the thoughts I have about this film parrot what has already been published on this site. My friend Jeff offered an astute review of this film during its theatrical release. Click here to read his review.

The first thing to discuss about this film is Forest Whitaker’s performance as General Idi Amin Dada. His Oscar for Best Actor is well deserved. He navigates the delicate tightrope of this complicated character. While the character himself is somewhat of a stock piece – the brutal leader who grows more blindly egotistical and paranoid as he gains power, what is refreshing is how real Amin becomes with Whitaker as the vehicle. He isn’t a sympathetic character, but he is one who we can understand. This is a complicated maneuver for Whitaker since Amin certainly was a complex man. Amin was at once charming in public while ruthless behind closed doors. Instead of playing Amin as a type, Whitaker provides some glimpses into the manipulative man’s psychology. Whitaker handles the challenge of portraying a man whose emotional state swung more wildly than Courtney Love locked in a pharmacy.

Before we get to the film, let’s take a diversion…

The thing about Whitaker taking home the Oscar for Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role is that his role isn’t the lead. Like Anthony Hopkins’ winning for Hannibal Lector, the performance should have garnished Whitaker Best Supporting Actor. Structurally, the character of Dr. Nicholas Garrigan is the lead as was Clarice Starling in Silence of the Lambs. The Academy deemed Garrigan to be the supporting role even though he is the protagonist. To be honest, I’ve always been confused by what the Academy sees as a leading role. Yes, I get that there is an award for a guy and another for a gal and both genders can win regardless if there is a lead for both sexes (Silence of the Lambs is the best example again.) Looking at the award in this instance, there’s no rhyme or reason to Whitaker getting set up for a Best Actor nod when Ken Watanabe was marked for a supporting award has a structurally very similar role in The Last Samurai (in the role of Katsumoto). Is it simply a matter of personality or potency of a performance? This would explain Whitaker and Hopkins but then what about Tommy Lee Jones as Samuel Gerard in The Fugitive? He far out paced the lead in that film, Harrison Ford. Does it have to do with billing? Then explain William H. Macy for Jerry Lundegaard in Fargo. He received top billing for that film. I don’t have an answer here, just whining. Either the industry understands structure or they don’t. Then again, the Oscar is a political award given during a trade show so perhaps I shouldn't waste my time.

Let’s swerve back on the right track and return to the movie.

The film itself is made of somewhat predictable stuff, but still provides a well-constructed story and well formed characters. The story centers on young, Scottish jerk Dr. Nicholas Garrigan who leaves his home country to help the poor people in Uganda. While there he falls into the role of personal physician to General Idi Amin.

Garrigan lives a luxurious life as the President’s doctor and top political adviser. His duel role provides Garrigan with riches and power. What is interesting about this film is that the role also makes him as isolated and detached from reality as his paranoid leader. When things begin to unravel and Garrigan’s frivolous attitudes begin to lead to the deaths of others, the film is directed into rich moral ground.

Garrigan begins the film like many young Westerners today who think snapping their fingers along with Will Smith at Live 8 actually has meaning. They listen to Bono whimper for ten minutes and think they get it. Looking under their motives and it’s not about actually helping Africans (or anyone else for that matter) its about making themselves feel better. This amoral self-serve view allows for Garrigan to be used by the tyrant. Garrigan begins the film with a fistful of righteous bromides and but casts them aside the moment his pride and hungers are catered to. He lives to make himself feel better but then things get out of hand. Since Garrigan doesn’t have a moral center beyond his own personal gain, he is incapable of seeing the truth that surrounds him. He is complicit in the murder of a whole country before he finally wakes up out of his amoral stupor.

This film has a deep lesson to teach and does so with gravity rarely seen, let alone embraced, by the entertainment establishment. Like Hotel Rwanda, however, this film avoids presenting the massacres happening outside of the walls of the character’s residence. This drains the final act of its full potency since we aren’t given the full story of how deep Garrigan’s denial really ran. Like with Hotel Rwanda, giving a fuller idea of the level of carnage would have only made the overall point more striking. This concession made this film’s final act still hits the point hard and the lesson is taught.

Caution: This film does present a horrifying look at the results of a dismembering and a frank view of a sex act so sensitive viewers may want to avoid portions of the piece. If you’re okay with this sort of content, you’re going to find an intelligent and fascinating character piece worthy of the praise it has received.

Click on Idi to view the trailer