The Last King of Scotland

This film has received the vast majority of its attention because of the powerhouse performance by Forest Whitaker. Not to diminish Whitaker, but that is a shame, because The Last King of Scotland is a fascinating film. It follows the story of a young Scottish doctor, Nicholas Garrigan, who wants to go anywhere, as long as it is away from his bland upbringing. He spins the globe and eventually decides on Uganda (after rejecting Canada). Garrigan, played by James McAvoy, finds himself in a humanitarian aid station deep in the heart of Uganda. One day, by chance, he is called upon to tend to the new president, Idi Amin (Whitaker). Amin takes a liking to Dr. Garrigan, and thus begins their friendship. Garrigan eventually becomes not only the personal physician of Amin, but his closest advisor. We enter into the world of the Ugandan dictator as Garrigan did, slowly. The man is revealed bit by bit intentionally. At what point do we truly know what kind of a man Amin is? When has Garrigan gone "in too deep" with Amin? Would we have done otherwise?
Amin is charismatic, charming, and just fun to be around. We enjoy spending time with him on screen. How sick is that? By the end of the film we find out what sort of a man Amin is, and wonder how Garrigan could have been duped (and we are duped as well). Point of view is essential to the experience of this film. Edmond Burke's famous quote was running through my head the whole film: "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." But the line is gray in this film. When do we really know that Amin is "evil"? It is very difficult to tell. We want to give people the benefit of the doubt, especially if they are as charismatic as Amin. But by the end of Scotland we know that Garrigan sat on the sidelines a little too much. It's not like he did nothing, but he did not do enough. Would I have? Garrigan had fallen "in love" with Amin (in a non-sexual way) and we as the audience do as well. Then we realize what we have done, and the shock sets in. Kevin Macdonald, the director, did a masterful job with this element of the film. Even the tone of the film adds to this. One minute the creepy music is playing and you know something bad is happening, then the camera cuts to a party and the music is happy. This must have been Garrigan's experience, knowing that something is wrong, but continually being "wined and dined" into thinking its all good. It is easier to lie to ourselves if the lie is more appealing than the truth (I guess its always that way, isn't it?).
It's not like Garrigan is a great person either though. You see him sleep with some random girl in the first few minutes of the film, which foreshadows his downfall: lust. Without giving it away, let's just say his inability to resist temptation catches up with him in the end.
As I said before, the vast majority of the attention The Last King of Scotland gets is because of Whitaker's performance, which will most likely be recognized with an Oscar for Best Actor. The performance is stunning, but it is more of a supporting than a lead role. But the film as a whole excels on so many levels. As a warning :it's sexuality and brutality are hard to watch, very hard to watch. Yet the film is an intricate portrait of a charismatic, complicated madman. The film ends with the details (how many people his regime was guilty of slaughtering, and other facts), and a shot of the real Amin, who died in 2003. It is a video taken of him which I would assume was during his exile in Saudi Arabia. He stares into the camera, then off into the distance, his eyes dancing back and forth, but slowly. Look into his eyes, stare into his stare. Does he look different than we "normal" people do? Is there any clue as to how someone could commit such atrocities? The shot is haunting and absolutely terrifying on so many levels.