Whitaker In The Film The Last King Of Scotland
Stanislavsky instruction that, “every internal activity has an external manifestation” is a logical point of reference for any actor attempting to assume the imposing and extremely erratic and complex persona that was Idi Amin Dada. Forest Whitaker’s performance as the infamous brutal dictator Amin in the Movie, “The Last King of Scotland,” is no less informed. In a supportive role, Whitaker’s multiple award winning interpretation of this character, including the coveted Oscar as best actor in a leading role, cannot but be described as phenomenal. The movie’s protagonist, Nicholas Garrigan, played by James McAvoy is also memorable albeit overshadowed by Whitaker’s overbearing presence as Amin. The film, based on a Giles Foden novel and directed by Kevin Macdonald, is an opportune frame within which to examine “acting” as an art-form. Its plot has very little to offer beyond an amalgamation of mostly inferred historical facts embellished with fictitious tidbits for added effect about a well documented
…show more content…
horrific time in the history of Uganda. It was, therefore, conveniently so for our purpose here, left to the cast members to create the film; and this they did exceptionally well.
Before one even attempts to evaluate Whitaker’s portrayal of one of the world’s most infamous dictators, one must acknowledge a job well done because Whitaker turned a supporting role into the primary focus of the movie. The novel and screen play originally written for McAvoy’s character, Nicholas Garrigan, a naïve and cocky but well intentioned young graduate doctor from Scotland who finds himself in Uganda as the president’s personal physician, is unwittingly caught up in a world of intoxicating debauchery, overindulgence, corruption, and ultimately to his utter dismay, unimaginable violent crimes to humanity delivered with unflinching brutality. Nicholas’ coming of age unfolds before our eyes through McAvoy’s impeccable portrayals of this fictitious character from a naïve, feckless, cocky happy-go-lucky demeanor to one that is tense with fear and deadly realization. His emotional and physical aura’s progressive metamorphoses as his character becomes increasingly perceptive about the treacherous environment within which he lives, narrates a viable plot for the movie. He holds the audience captive as we marvel at his character’s irresponsible reckless sense of adventure in an unfamiliar world; fearless stupidity culminating in his sleeping with the president’s wife; rude awakening and utter fear upon realizing his near fatal predicament; and ultimate redemption in his effort to save lives and himself. He is believable in all these roles because he is able to articulate and transition flawlessly through all these emotional typologies. In this way, McAvoy holds his own as a stellar actor pitched against an overbearing character played by a seasoned actor.
Whitaker approaches this domineering, maniacal highly complex and multifaceted character with megalomania and humility. He took Stanislavsky’s teachings to heart that, “external behavior derives from an internal motivation;” he appreciated and thus nurtured a deep understanding of the emotional, contextual and cognitive bearings that derive a character’s decisions and actions. Whitaker studied and recognized the conflict that was Amin. He mastered what motivated and triggered him, his likes, of music, family, nature and an Africa for Africans and his intense dislike for imperialists, Zionists and foreign pillagers of Africa for example; his strong religious and political beliefs in Islam contradicted by his bias for and reverence for indigenous African spiritualism; his intense fears and paranoia that triggered otherwise inexplicable bouts of brutality betwixt jovial lascivious soirees and forced camaraderie. In my opinion, Amin was a man whose main nemesis in life was his lack of an education.
Naturalism as a style of acting forms the basis for Whitaker’s take on Amin. He approached the role with great humility and respect for not only his character but also for the people, place and culture he was entrusted to represent. He prepped for the role by living among the Kakwa people, a tribe in Northern Uganda that Amin supposedly was from. He delved into the biculturalism in terms of expression in language, mannerisms, daily realities and experiences of the people of Uganda on their terms, on their turf, to be able to authentically execute his role. It was pertinent to assume naturalism because Amin was a real character with his own blueprint, voice and aura. To replicate Amin, Whitaker had to identify with this blueprint, voice and aura. In other words, he had to get into Amin’s skin. This was not a particularly easy feat since what is known about Amin, even by Ugandans like me who lived through his brutal regime, is embellished with a great deal of hearsay.
Whitaker had to construct a character that is both myth and legend, one that is perceived through individual’s personal experiences, biases and interpretations of who he was and what he stood for or represented.
As an historical figure, Whitaker was tasked with presenting a world view of a controversial figure while balancing this with the realities of an emerging nation navigating its “place” within a postcolonial context. At the same time, Whitaker was challenged with a role that had no particular purpose but to replicate, not the life, but the “character” of a complex human being. This was not the story of Idi Amin but rather his “actions” to arouse the audience’s emotions. Whitaker masterfully switches his physic, gestures, facial expressions, and vocalization to assume Amin’s ever changing and unpredictable deportment. His demeanor literally changes with every scene to dramatically suite Amin’s whims, reveal his paranoia, and wreak fear in his
subjects.
I find it interesting that most Ugandans who saw the film do not find Whitaker believable as Amin. This is because their perception of Amin is from what I will call a personalized view of the character. They see the backdrop of the film as set in a fictionalized reconstruction of Uganda that is unfamiliar and distorted from what they were exposed to or saw. Their lived experiences through that time were distant and distorted by fear because very few actually ventured close enough to Amin to be able to reconstruct the “true” setting of his life. Like the rest of the world, Amin’s life, outside his public parades of buffoonery and documented brutality, was an enigma. Therefore, we realize that Whitaker constructs and stages a persona of Amin from a hazy knowledge base moment by moment with great skill of imagination, wit and humor, megalomaniacal force and bravado, seduction and charisma to share a performance of a lifetime.
horrific time in the history of Uganda. It was, therefore, conveniently so for our purpose here, left to the cast members to create the film; and this they did exceptionally well.
Before one even attempts to evaluate Whitaker’s portrayal of one of the world’s most infamous dictators, one must acknowledge a job well done because Whitaker turned a supporting role into the primary focus of the movie. The novel and screen play originally written for McAvoy’s character, Nicholas Garrigan, a naïve and cocky but well intentioned young graduate doctor from Scotland who finds himself in Uganda as the president’s personal physician, is unwittingly caught up in a world of intoxicating debauchery, overindulgence, corruption, and ultimately to his utter dismay, unimaginable violent crimes to humanity delivered with unflinching brutality. Nicholas’ coming of age unfolds before our eyes through McAvoy’s impeccable portrayals of this fictitious character from a naïve, feckless, cocky happy-go-lucky demeanor to one that is tense with fear and deadly realization. His emotional and physical aura’s progressive metamorphoses as his character becomes increasingly perceptive about the treacherous environment within which he lives, narrates a viable plot for the movie. He holds the audience captive as we marvel at his character’s irresponsible reckless sense of adventure in an unfamiliar world; fearless stupidity culminating in his sleeping with the president’s wife; rude awakening and utter fear upon realizing his near fatal predicament; and ultimate redemption in his effort to save lives and himself. He is believable in all these roles because he is able to articulate and transition flawlessly through all these emotional typologies. In this way, McAvoy holds his own as a stellar actor pitched against an overbearing character played by a seasoned actor.
Whitaker approaches this domineering, maniacal highly complex and multifaceted character with megalomania and humility. He took Stanislavsky’s teachings to heart that, “external behavior derives from an internal motivation;” he appreciated and thus nurtured a deep understanding of the emotional, contextual and cognitive bearings that derive a character’s decisions and actions. Whitaker studied and recognized the conflict that was Amin. He mastered what motivated and triggered him, his likes, of music, family, nature and an Africa for Africans and his intense dislike for imperialists, Zionists and foreign pillagers of Africa for example; his strong religious and political beliefs in Islam contradicted by his bias for and reverence for indigenous African spiritualism; his intense fears and paranoia that triggered otherwise inexplicable bouts of brutality betwixt jovial lascivious soirees and forced camaraderie. In my opinion, Amin was a man whose main nemesis in life was his lack of an education.
Naturalism as a style of acting forms the basis for Whitaker’s take on Amin. He approached the role with great humility and respect for not only his character but also for the people, place and culture he was entrusted to represent. He prepped for the role by living among the Kakwa people, a tribe in Northern Uganda that Amin supposedly was from. He delved into the biculturalism in terms of expression in language, mannerisms, daily realities and experiences of the people of Uganda on their terms, on their turf, to be able to authentically execute his role. It was pertinent to assume naturalism because Amin was a real character with his own blueprint, voice and aura. To replicate Amin, Whitaker had to identify with this blueprint, voice and aura. In other words, he had to get into Amin’s skin. This was not a particularly easy feat since what is known about Amin, even by Ugandans like me who lived through his brutal regime, is embellished with a great deal of hearsay.
Whitaker had to construct a character that is both myth and legend, one that is perceived through individual’s personal experiences, biases and interpretations of who he was and what he stood for or represented.
As an historical figure, Whitaker was tasked with presenting a world view of a controversial figure while balancing this with the realities of an emerging nation navigating its “place” within a postcolonial context. At the same time, Whitaker was challenged with a role that had no particular purpose but to replicate, not the life, but the “character” of a complex human being. This was not the story of Idi Amin but rather his “actions” to arouse the audience’s emotions. Whitaker masterfully switches his physic, gestures, facial expressions, and vocalization to assume Amin’s ever changing and unpredictable deportment. His demeanor literally changes with every scene to dramatically suite Amin’s whims, reveal his paranoia, and wreak fear in his
subjects.
I find it interesting that most Ugandans who saw the film do not find Whitaker believable as Amin. This is because their perception of Amin is from what I will call a personalized view of the character. They see the backdrop of the film as set in a fictionalized reconstruction of Uganda that is unfamiliar and distorted from what they were exposed to or saw. Their lived experiences through that time were distant and distorted by fear because very few actually ventured close enough to Amin to be able to reconstruct the “true” setting of his life. Like the rest of the world, Amin’s life, outside his public parades of buffoonery and documented brutality, was an enigma. Therefore, we realize that Whitaker constructs and stages a persona of Amin from a hazy knowledge base moment by moment with great skill of imagination, wit and humor, megalomaniacal force and bravado, seduction and charisma to share a performance of a lifetime.