Last King of Scotland

[Dubversion]

REally? To be honest I can't see how this:



suggests it refers to the media. It seems to refer to the reality. In any case I can't see why the media perception of him should be the point here. Surely the actual events ,or a version of them, is what is being portrayed.

ETA: MAkes more sense after spanglechick's post.

my comments were in reaction to blagsta's, and i WAS talking about the media

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

my comments were in reaction to blagsta's, and i WAS talking about the media

Well if you say so. I can't see that your post indicates that but if that's what you meant then fine.

How is that relevant though? Surely the film is portraying Amin as he was, not as he was portayed by the media. I've seen interviews with Forest Whitaker talking about how he was trying to show the real Amin, and not the media version.

 

[Reno]

WARNING - SPOLIERSTbh, I don't know enough of the history. I was trying to work out if the view of him being a "comedy dictator" for most of the film was supposed to portray the doctor's naive view. Wasn't convincing IMO..

You are way off the mark here. The film wasn't perfect but it was truthful to the character. Amin was an absolutely grotesque man who believed himself to be extremely funny. If anything the film toned him down. The film didn't have him talk in the extremely stilted way in which he would express himself, which probably would have been comedy gold as far as you are concerned. You seem to almost demand that he should be changed to satisfy your view of what Amin was like, while admitting that you don't know much about him.

 

[han]

What a fantastic film. I was blown away by it. The second half was so tense I thought I was going to have a cardiac arrest any second.....

It really portrayed well the nature of the psychopathic, charming, loveable but ultimately brutal character of Amin. He was both an extremely likeable character, and a mass murderer. A common combination of characteristics in dictators....

 

[Dubversion]

Well if you say so. I can't see that your post indicates that but if that's what you meant then fine.

How is that relevant though? Surely the film is portraying Amin as he was, not as he was portayed by the media. I've seen interviews with Forest Whitaker talking about how he was trying to show the real Amin, and not the media version.

It was a response to Blagsta's comment about Amin being played for laughs. Which relates to how he was portrayed by the media (hence the various scenes in the film of Amin talking to the press and making them laugh - an important element, i thought). The film was showing the contrast between how charming he could be - and thus how he was portrayed in the press - with what a fucking psycho he was.

Happy?

 

[Blagsta]

You seem to almost demand that he should be changed to satisfy your view of what Amin was like, while admitting that you don't know much about him.

Eh?

 

[soulman]

Going to see it this week so I've not read the *SPOILERS*. Haven't seen a good film for a while so looking forward to it...

 

[Ms T]

What a fantastic film. I was blown away by it. The second half was so tense I thought I was going to have a cardiac arrest any second.....

It really portrayed well the nature of the psychopathic, charming, loveable but ultimately brutal character of Amin. He was both an extremely likeable character, and a mass murderer. A common combination of characteristics in dictators....

Totally agree - and thought Whitaker was absolutely amazing. I'd be very surprised if he didn't win an Oscar for his performance. I can't stop thinking about it, tbh.

 

[g force]

It's the first performance for good few years that I think merits an oscar, which porlly means he won't get it because they think they should give it to O'Toole before he dies.

 

[Crispy]

I agree with all the compliments on this thread. Top film, if only for that performance. The ending didn't really satisfy me as much as the rest of the film and some characters didn't really finish their arcs. Still cracking entertainment though.

 

[Dubversion]

I agree with all the compliments on this thread. Top film, if only for that performance. The ending didn't really satisfy me as much as the rest of the film and some characters didn't really finish their arcs. Still cracking entertainment though.

The book ends very differently - BOOK SPOILER ALERT - the doc just flees the capital and slinks off back to the medical centre in the bush before escaping home. None of the high drama of the final reel of the movie

 

[Crispy]

I thought that might be the case. They set up some story in the first act that never got finished off as well. Kinda wished they'd gone back to it.

 

[Dubversion]

the medical compound and his life in the bush plays a much bigger part at both ends of the book. That said, it is a pretty blinding movie none the less. It looks fantastic

 

[nonamenopackdrill]

felt it had slightly racist undertones.

Oh FFS. You are joking? Is this because it portrayed some Africans in a film?

I thought it was ok. Quite entertaining. The Scottish bloke pissed me off because he was a twat - but he was supposed to be a twat and piss you off. It was a very accurate portrayal of Amin - I laughed with him which made me feel uncomfortable but got across why he managed to hide some of the early stages of his genocide - and why some people couldn't believe he'd be responsible for mass murder for a long time.

Fuck knows what you're on about with the racist undertones bit. It portrayed Africans as mostly individuals to be honest. What did you want?

Oh shit, this thread is way bigger than I thought when I posted...

 

[exosculate]

I've actually seen this film now. The Amin portrayal is indeed excellent. Unfortunately the rest of the film is a steaming pile of horse manure.

A badly strung together narrative of a geeky Doctors (a la James Bond) sexual activity in Africa is not my idea of a good plot driver. I mean how Americanised Hollywood is this film?

Its annoyed me actually, the book is better, Amins portrayal is the only worthy thing in it. That is frankly not enough.

 

[Blagsta]

There was a film reviewer on Radio 4 this evening saying pretty much the same things as I've said about it. See, I'm not the only one!

 

[corporate whore]

I thought it was a pretty good film about how the closer you get to a problem, the less you can see of it.

You, the viewer, don't see any of the horror (although it was hinted at by the British) until the doctor becomes aware of it.

Although Whittaker's got all the press, it's important to remember the story being told is the doctor's, it's not an Amin biopic.

Having said that, Whittaker's fabulous. He's fucking huge, isn't he?

 

[gaijingirl]

It really portrayed well the nature of the psychopathic, charming, loveable but ultimately brutal character of Amin. He was both an extremely likeable character, and a mass murderer. A common combination of characteristics in dictators....

I totally agree with this and really enjoyed the film - although it was very tense. I also found the Scottish doctor annoying but I guess this was the point.

I came away feeling really stunned by Whittaker's portrayal but not thinking that after a two hour film I now know everything there is to know about Amin. Even if I had a vast prior knowledge of Amin, it would be very hard to encapuslate something like that in a couple of hours. But, it was successful, in my mind as it has left me feeling curious and wanting to know more about him.

I did feel that the images of peripheral Africans seemed very similar to some other films I have seen set in Africa, all in the same area (Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda and DRC (documentaries) - but I've never having been to that region of Africa, I can't comment on how accurate they were - but at the end of the day the film was really about the relationship between Amin and the doctor and the other characters are really just peripheral.

I don't think that there's any racial stereotypes - for example the "good doctor" at the beginning (who's white) and the "good doctor" at the end who's black are almost the same character (although the latter has a much bigger role in moving forward the action). The black "good doctor" dies, the white guy lives - but is this not just history? - my understanding (albeit limited to secondary sources is that) in Africa it's largely the black who die and the white who get flown out of the country when the shit hits the fan?

Agree that Whittaker should be awarded for his role!

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Went to see this last night. Very dissapointing. It's had some very good reviews, but we both found it very dissatisfying. The Scottish doctor is a right twat who deserves very little sympathy. Idi Amin is played for laughs for half of the film, it paints a very simplistic view of Africa (either happy smiling children, singing etc or madness, violence and witch doctors), it just wasn't convincing. Left both of us with a weird taste tbh, felt it had slightly racist undertones.

Anyone else seen it?

Pretty much agree, no idea why this was considered a great film really. Whittacker was pretty good but the rest of the film was just 'meh'...

 

[Firky]

I watched it the other night but I was so drunk I have no memory of it

 

[Fledgling]

I don't think that there's any racial stereotypes - for example the "good doctor" at the beginning (who's white) and the "good doctor" at the end who's black are almost the same character (although the latter has a much bigger role in moving forward the action). The black "good doctor" dies, the white guy lives - but is this not just history? - my understanding (albeit limited to secondary sources is that) in Africa it's largely the black who die and the white who get flown out of the country when the shit hits the fan?

Good point, a scene that was perhaps the best part of the rather sudden and disappointing ending, Garrigan gets out while everyone else burns. Initially when I realised that the book and the film are different I was somewhat irritated.

I think you have to accept why the film was made in the way it was; focusing on a white character's relationship to Amin rather than simply Amin's regime. The film clearly desires to appear acessible to people with no knowledge of Amin's rise and pychosis. It's a shame that recent films about Africa seem to need a white protagonist (as with Blood Diamond, inferior to Last King IMO) to appear accessible. But given this, Garrigan is a useful vehicle to explore a few of Amin's characteristics such as his violent changes of mood, favouritism and near madness. I was impressed with McAvoy who often seems to lack plausibility (e.g. Shameless). My main criticism is that no concept of time exists in the film. I know someone else mentioned this but I found this become apparent when Garrigan has sex with Amin's wife at the hedonistic party. This scene seemed to go on for a long time and I began to think that the film was suffering from being a group of scenes explored for the wrier's intrigue rather than something more consistent and whole. But on reflection I did like the film, not what I expected but still had more dimensions that Blood Diamond (sorry, but I saw these two in quick succession).