The Last King of Scotland ... indeed!

The Last King of Scotland opened here in Chicago on Oct. 6. Starring Forest Whitaker as Idi Amin, famed Strongman of Uganda, Last King tells a story based on the relationship of Amin and Nicholas Garrigan. Nicholas as a recently-graduated doctor went to Uganda, in so few words, to get away from his father's cold embrace. As it turns out, he found a warm embrace (literally, many embraces) from Idi Amin himself, who took a shine to the young man for no particular reason rooted in plausibility.

I must say that Whittaker's performance was brilliant. I was going to say, "Whittaker's portrayal of Idi Amin was brilliant." But I can't go there, since I don't really know much about Idi Amin. Oh, I know a bit, to be sure, based on what I've picked up in the Western press. But we must always remember, "Victors write history books and powerful corporations, to ever increasing degrees, are controlling the press."

I truly am torn as to whether or not to recommend this movie. On the one hand are the solid performances, especially by Whitaker and James McAvoy as Amin's personal physician. On the other hand, I found the entire story line to be offensive. When the movie ended, I made it a point to look at my fellow audience members - especially the blacks, who did not like what they had just seen. I don't think they know much more about Idi Amin than I do, but I could sense they wanted a more complete portrait of a controversial figure. Particularly offensive, I'm sure, was the ending which showed the "redeemed" white doctor heroically flying off to tell the world "the truth" about Amin. Which was a scene bitter to behold, considering the doctor himself was far from being a paragon of virtue and, most importantly, the "doctor" never existed in reality.

Oh, and this fictional doctor didn't scream as he was hung up by meat hooks for "being with" Amin's wife. Quite the hero, yes?

Idi Amin did, in fact, have a close, personal advisor who was white (a British adventurer) named Bob Astles. After reading Jane Kelly's interview of Astles in the Aug. 19, 2003 edition of The Daily News, I realized that either of these would have made a far more interesting movie:

• a depiction of Astles' and Amin's relationship (or)
• a more general biography of Amin himself

I could easily see why blacks in the audience would be offended by this movie. To reiterate: The elevation of this handsome-faced, though rather railishly thin and boyish, white son of privilege to hero. Also, that bit about Amin, in the presence of his troops, trading the shirt off his back (part of his army uniform, replete with medals) for the young doctor's tee shirt bearing the word "Scotland." Not to mention, Nicolas "connecting" with one of Amin's wives at a crowded party, with her worrying whether they'd been "seen." ["How not?" I wondered.] Also offensive: The movie strongly hints that Amin was physically attracted to this pretty white boy, and vice versa.

Now I find myself wondering, "How did Africans then (and how do Africans now) feel about Amin?" Did anybody who made the movie bother (or even care) to ask? This movie was made in the UK, which makes one wonder about objectivity, given Britain's not so "Great" (actually rancid) history of colonialism. Perhaps this comment might give pause for reflection: According to "The Complete Review's" review (at www.complete-review.com): "Note that the English reviews were generally considerably more favorable than American ones, i.e. it seems to be more to English tastes than American ones."

I can't say I'm surprised.