This is a racist movie based on a racist book and yet it deserves to be watched. In a way, it commits the same mistake than the humanity committed during Idi Amin's government: indifference. Idi Amin was a horrible dictator who killed hundred of thousands of people; however, his brutality was something else than a picturesque commentary about a jovial savage only when he kidnapped white Jews in 1979; before this date, his crimes were just anecdotes in small newspapers and the cry of his potential victims never was listened.
The movie shares the same sin; the important crime, the thriller of the story is the persecution of a white Scottish doctor who became assistant of Amin. We suffer for his possible death but we, as spectators in The Last King of Scotland, do not care for the lives of the thousands of people from Uganda who were being killed. Their death is just a set of photographies in the movie; just background of the story that is important, the possible death of the white character.
With the exception of the death of Amin's wife, we are only worried for the death of white people because, for the movie, they are the only wise and good characters. The chief of security of Amin is a black person and not Bob Astles, Amin’s English advisor who actually helped him to build the security necessary to perpetuate his crimes. The movie does not tell us that Amin was trained and educated by the English army and that in this army he learned to use brutality to destroy his enemies. The movie is also silent about European and Israel's help to Amin even after he had committed some massacres in Uganda.
So, if the movie is racist why should we watch it? Well, for two reasons, one is the wonderful work of James Whitaker; he is able to give the necessary humanity to the monster that Idi Amin was; with his wonderful work, he is able to prove that even the worst of the criminals shares with us some human condition. Second, because it is good to remember the atrocities of Amin and the guilty silence of the rich countries. This world that cries just when people from one nationality dies; this world that does not protect the victims when their skin have color; this world that hides the crimes of its white politicians (is Kissinger in Jail?); this crazy and old world is the same that produced Amin and that would produce other brutal criminals if we do not do anything to avoid the rivers of blood that indifference and hate produce between us.
3 comments:
I generally agree with these sentiments. I just spent 30 minutes googling trying to find a piece that echoed my views. I also noticed the lack of importance the film places on women. Notice how it was two women who had speaking roles? To an extent, I guess that can be expected somewhat, however I think there could have been a deeper and more meaningful female character, one who does not get brutally killed or exiled.
The film should have dedicated more time to the brutal killings under Amin's regime, not on the character development of the wealthy white Scot. It did seem patronizing how the film invented this entirely fictional character to be Amin's adviser? Surely the role could have worked with a black actor?
Anyway, that is just a few of my observations. On the whole, great review!
I find this description of the film rather biased. The film mentions numerous times that Amin was trained by the British army.
As for the Israelis helping Amin, that seems unlikely, given the way he sided with the Palestinian kidnappers at Entebbe. And what about Gheddafi's support of his regime? If you want to blame all of Africa's problems on the white man you can, but in the end it won't get you very far. In the end it was Saudi Arabia who gave Amin refuge, after he converted to Islam.
Post a Comment