This is an obscure, but fairly accurate historical novel that details the antics and character of Ugandan dictator Idi Amin. The book recently went Hollywood and is now playing at a theater near you. This review looks at both the book and the film.
First the book. The plot of the novel follows the journey to Uganda of a newly minted Scottish doctor, Nicholas Garrigan. By happenstance he becomes the personal physician to Amin. Then as he gradually is drawn into a web of intrigue and evil, the doctor is both horrified and captivated by his spectator role wherein he sees the wicked brilliance of Amin manifest itself.
Author Foden uses the device of Garrigan’s presence to draw from the historical record what Amin really did and said. Through this device Foden produces what is really a biography of the tempestuous leader. Although some remarks are probably doctored, the bulk of Amin’s dialogue and virtually all of his public utterances, including texts of his telegrams to President Nixon and to the Queen, are accurately rendered.
Garrigan was there from the beginning. He saw the jubilation resulting from Amin’s coup ousting Obote. He witnessed the expulsion of the Asians. He cringed at Amin’s many anti-British blusters and ultimately recognized that he himself was a toy for Amin’s anti-white paranoia. Garrigan viewed the growing violence close up, often in graphic detail. He was even once imprisoned at State Research Bureau headquarters. Betrayals—some small, some large—plagued Garrigan as he became enmeshed in Amin’s web of control and fear. Dr. Garrigan was there for the Air France hijacking and the Israeli raid. He was later implicated in the assassination, by bomb, of British businessmen. Finally, as he belatedly tried to extricate himself from Amin’s control he was caught up in the Tanzanian invasion. He had one final encounter with Amin just prior to the latter’s escape to Libya.
The novel is written as Garrigan’s memoir on what was happening. His ruminations on his own frailties ring hollow, yet he comes across sympathetically as a man caught in a whirlwind that he is unable to escape. There is a subplot that pokes fun at efforts by British intelligence to recruit/use Garrigan. Throughout the course of the novel (as the author intended), by relating their conversations, Garrigan provides insight into the character and machinations of Idi Amin. Amin is portrayed unsympathetically as fiendishly mad, cunning, calculating and controlling. But as noted above, Foden did not paint the portrait this way, Amin’s words and actions spoke for themselves.
Now for the film. “The Last King of Scotland” starring Forrest Whitaker is quite entertaining. It deviates substantially from the book’s story line (the screenplay is much simpler, does not cover the full period and attributes others’ actions to Garrigan). Still when seen on the screen, the fictionalized plot clearly remains a vehicle to take a critical look at Idi Amin himself. Whitaker does this extremely well, capturing in his dialogue and expressions the character of the mercurial, slightly mad dictator. But his portrait is not a caricature. Whitaker gets inside Amin’s skin and elicits something of the man’s cunning and ability to read others so as to instill fear and respect. Although Whitaker paints a more human face on Amin, he faithfully brings out Amin’s total self-centeredness, his bluster, insecurity and intrinsic evilness. It is truly an award-winning performance.
The movie was filmed in Uganda so, especially in the rural scenes, faithfully replicate the era. However, Kampala today is not the Kampala of the seventies and those who know the contemporary city will spot the new buildings and airport terminal. Such lapses, however, do not detract at all from the movie. In short, the setting was really quite authentic. Africanists will approve of the Swahili usage, which was correct albeit a bit odd when Amin did his own translations. (He did this in the book too.)
Some critics faulted the film for using a white man’s perspective, Dr Garrigan’s, to bring Amin into focus. I had this criticism in mind while watching the film and indeed found it valid, but it is true for the book as well. Dr. Garrigan is so naïve, so un-tuned to Africa, so stupid in fact, that his encounters with power, violence and intrigue leave you gasping with disbelief. Yet, it is essentially this aspect of his character that permits the rather simplistic plot of the story to move ahead. He gradually begins to understand just what the hell he has gotten himself into. (In the film) Garrigan is not a sympathetic figure. Even his one effort to redeem himself and escape from the vortex of violence founders in his own incompetence.
The broader outline of the film tracked historical events culminating in the hijacking of Air France aircraft and the Israeli raid on Entebbe. This permitted the reiteration and re-staging of some of Amin’s actual observations regarding the British, imperialism and Ugandan independence. Whitaker did this superbly well. Yet finally, although there were references to Amin’s bloody reign, and the aura of impending violence overhung every scene, only a few scenes brought home the reality of the terror that Uganda suffered. In short, Whitaker is such a good actor that he did for the film what Amin did for Uganda. The focus was on him as sort of a half-baked genial troll, not on the horror of his actions.
