Where did this dictator come from. and what made him tick?

Rating: 8/10 (28 November 2016)

Try to imagine what it might be like if you were a Western European and witnessed—from the inside--the beginning and development of one of the most notoriously brutal African dictators of the 20th Century. What might it have looked like to you? This is exactly what Giles Foden did when he wrote his fictionalized historical novel, The Last King of Scotland.
In writing his novel, Foden gives us a chance to try to get into the regime of Ugandan dictator Idi Amin and get an up close and personal look at this brutal clownish figure from the 1970s. Like Hitler or Jim Jones, there is a curiosity to know more about where such people come from and what makes them tick. Call it morbid, but nevertheless, it is still there. In the movie version of the novel, Scottish director Kevin Macdonald--principally known for his documentary, Touching the Void (2003)--shapes Foden's novel and brings it to life.
As the movie opens c.1970, a young Scottish doctor, Nicholas Garrigan (James McAvoy), is fresh out of medical school but feels that he will always live in his father's shadow unless he breaks from the family and practices medicine far away. Seeking to make a difference, he chooses to practice in the underdeveloped African country of Uganda. Nicholas starts to work in a free clinic with another white doctor and his wife, Sarah Merrit (Gillian Anderson). When he hears about a local coup, he thinks it would be interesting to go to town and see a rally with the new leader.
Nicholas and Sarah go to the planned demonstration where they see Idi Amin (Forest Whitaker) addressing a large crowd. On their way back to the clinic, he is stopped on the road by the local authorities because Amin is in need of medical help. While he is treating Amin's injured hand, the two make a connection. Amin becomes interested in the way Nicholas handles himself and admires Nicholas' tee-shirt with the word, "Scotland" on it. He wants to trade his uniform for Nicholas' tee-shirt. The fact that both identify with the Scots and dislike the English is something they have in common.
Shortly thereafter, Amin sends his limo to pick up Nicholas, gives him a tour of his palace, and meets his wives and children. Then, in a jovial way, he asks him to become his personal doctor, and offers to let him run Uganda's top clinic in Kampala. Nicholas accepts and abruptly leaves the clinic. As he enters into Amin's social functions and is taken into Amin's confidence, Amin starts to call him 'his personal adviser.' Nicholas' naivete is no match for Amin's charm, and he is soon ensnared into Amin's inner circle. Soon, British agents are asking Nichols to 'keep in touch' if there in anything that they should know; Nichols scoffs at the idea of informing on Amin.
As Amin's personal doctor, Nicholas notices his growing paranoia. But, living in a somewhat cloistered life, Nicholas doesn't realize the brutality of what is going on in the country. It's only when he is personally degraded that he discovers some of Amin's atrocities. And, it is only when he becomes the object of that brutality—as a result of an affair with one of Amin's many wives--that he personally experiences it.
What's amazing to me about this movie is that—until the very end—there is little violence to portend what is really happening in the country. We know—though Nicholas' eyes---that Amin is concerned about his world image. We know that he is negotiating about Palestinian and Israeli hostages from a hijacked airplane. But, the movie only skims the surface of these important historical issues, because that is not really what the movie is about. It's about the relationship between a naive personal adviser (later called a 'personal monkey') and the web of deceit spun by the brutal sociopath that controls him.
'The death toll during Amin's regime will never be accurately known. An estimate from the International Commission of Jurists is that it was not less than 80,000, and more likely around 300,000. Another estimate, compiled by exile organizations with the help of Amnesty International, put the number killed at 500,000.'--Quoted from Wikipedia
It's important to note that the time frame of this fictionalized story is from 1971 to the incident at Entebbe in 1976, and Amin's regime was to last until he was deposed in 1979. What we really don't know--and can't know from the above quote--is the time pattern of Amin's ordered tortures and killings: What would a time chart would look like, with TIME as the X-Axis and KILLINGS AND TORTURES as the Y-Axis? From this chart you could see: 1) Did these killings and tortures start gradually and grow over time? 2) Did they occur at a constant rate throughout his regime? 3) Were they concentrated more in the later years of his rule? 4) Were there any external events that triggered when they occurred?
Since we can only estimate the raw numbers, we are even FURTHER afield as to the pattern of their occurrence. When you factor in that we are seeing a fictional account of Amin though the eyes of a cloistered and naive white Western European, what you are left with is a story of what might have happened. Again, I say that the movie and novel are more about the relationship between Garrigan and Amin than what I suggested at the beginning of the review: the witness and experience—from the inside--of Amin's entire regime.
Does this movie give us more insight into the mind or motives of Amin? Probably not. But, Forest Whitaker gives us a powerful portrayal of this historic figure. Whitaker could have overplayed Amin, but he didn't. His portrayal seems right on the mark!!