Troublesome, yet complex portrait of the Uganda dictatorship

Rating: 7/10 (22 April 2008)

Many say that Whitaker's role is a supporting one in "The Last King of Scotland", but I disagree. I take this as a two-protagonist movie. Forest is not less than brilliant, believable in every second, even more because the dictator almost suffers from split personality. He can be a tall and fearsome general in one moment, and then shift to a joker and laugh out loud. He can also say one thing at the morning ("You're my closest counselor") and another in the afternoon ("And you call yourself my closest counselor?"). In the end, it becomes clear that he has mental disorders ("You did not persuade me!"), and Whitaker manages not only to show this with subtlety, but also to explore the populist facet of Amin - it is easy to find yourself laughing and sympathizing with him.
On the other side, McAvoy portrays the naive Nicholas fiercely, piling up, in his face, feelings in a chaotic and quick manner, as soon as they hit his character. His dramatic ark is profound: he goes from an irresponsible kid who thinks that f***ing and smoking makes him a man to someone terrified of the perilous political position he is stuck into. He is a tragic character, especially when he sees himself as a lonesome, abandoned pawn in a game of interests between Amin and Europe - and the film is brave to show the ultimate consequences of his acts.
Unfortunately, the script has its moments of concession, with self-sacrificial dialogs and weak plot twists that feel like poor tools bent on creating more conflicts and drama. It's on the already cited character development that the screenplay shows its strength. When it comes to the direction, things get complicated. While Kevin MacDonald makes a great choice in blending moments of efficient tension with cheerful party scenes, to show Nicholas silly vision of his mission in Uganda, the director presents annoying errs. The epileptic camera (not a tool, just an empty choice) and the lousy moth-who-flies-into-the-light metaphor appear in the whole movie, weakening the experience. Likewise, the editing, for some unjustifiable reason, screws up and cuts most scenes too early, giving a episodic feel to a screenplay that rarely bears this flaw, and the cinematography goes over the top and never impresses.
The pulse of the movie is on the character development and in the faithful portrait of the Uganda dictatorship. The genocide is shown in painful, gruesome details, and using Nicholas as the eyes to this tragedy is a right choice, for the dictator's true face is slowly unveiled, and, before he is shown as a despicable monster, there is access to his human image. In the ending credits, a typical, dancing song is played, and feels like a post scriptum: "The film is over, now, you, viewers, can go home and pretend this has ever happened". This is the journalism, the TV news programs that insist on softening the tragedies that happen in the world. And if this is not the pessimistic vision of Africa as it is today, it's because the movie has a different focus. It shows how irresponsibility (Nicholas'? Amin's?) can lead to monstrous deeds, and how common sense lacks for people when it comes to noticing the horrible things they do - and see.