
Originally Posted by
Jim Kelly
I've been watching DVDs that were still in the shrink wrap, that I got a long time ago for birthday presents, but never was interested in seeing them. Yesteday I watched THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND (2006) starring James McAvoy--but supposedly about Idi Amin (Forest Whitaker). Right off the bat, I was upset with the movie because it seemed to be yet another one of those where they don't have enough faith in people to watch a movie about brown people, so they have to put some white person in the movie to act as our point of view. Sure, because we're so racist that we can't possibly relate to other people, if they are too foreign. I feel insulted by these kinds of movies.
But I did get into the story, because it was presented as based on fact. And I was thinking this Scottish guy, Dr. Garragan, is a real person and maybe the movie is based on his own biography. I didn't do any research before watching, but I believed that what the movie was telling me was true--even though Garragan seemed to have a pretty fantastic story. So after, I looked up Garragan and found out he's a fictionalized character. He might be based on someone else, but the details are sketchy. So the writers just made him up and the whole story is mainly about him. And because he's so sheltered from the reality of Idi Amin's dictatorship, he doesn't witness all of the atrocities. And the movie shields us from seeing exactly what happened in Uganda at that time and a lot of what we know is simply reported to Garragan in the movie. What we do see is quite horrific, but ithe movie largely depends on the audience already knowing the facts.
The movie is aware of its own white bias, commented on by the characters, but I'm not convinced lampshading this fact actually lets them off the hook. In hindsight, I'm kind of angry with the movie. Yet, as with most of these unwatched DVDs I have, I always suspected the movie was going to disappoint me, which is why I was so reluctant to watch it.