The Last King of…Hollywood?

Posted on by

the last king of scotland

I was a resident of Uganda when the film The Last King of Scotland premiered at the country’s only theatre. Filmed locally, the event brought out ‘Western’ celebrities such as Forrest Whittaker and James McAvoy, alongside the President, Yoweri Museveni (or, as the locals call him, “M7”) and nearly every member of the expatriated and Ugandan elite.  My decision to not see the film while in country was deliberate.  I was experiencing disillusionment with both Western presences (including my own) and national corruption; I feared that a fictional British depiction of Ugandan oppressor, Idi Amin, would send me into unproductively jaded territory, regardless of how well or respectfully executed it was.  All of my mzungu (the Bantu word for people of European decent) affiliations went to see it.  A few were even in it.  In contrast, none of my Ugandan friends or coworkers did. They had never seen a film in a theater before.

The Last King of Scotland was frequently referred to in critical reviews as a “Hollywood” production. Its connection to “Hollywood,” however, seemed to be made only in heated discussions about historical accuracy and imperialist tendencies. “Hollywood,” in this context, is a clearly derogatory term.  What made the film so easy to slide into the Hollywood category–even setting aside its recapitulation of the white-man-telling-the-black-man’s-story–is its predominantly Anglo-Western foundations and its massive income and distribution success; it grossed over eight times the cost of its production and played in over 45 countries. Although it is technically an international collaborative effort–UK created and produced, US distributed, filmed and crewed by/in Uganda, the weight of these contributions are not considered equal:

  • The UK weighed in with nearly all of the creation and production. The author of the original book, the screenplay writers, director, cinematographer, musical composer and production team were all citizens of the UK.  Finally, the supporting role of the doctor, whose perspective carries the film, is played by prized Scottish actor, James McAvoy.
  • The US weighed in, providing three primary cast members. One of these was Forrest Whitaker, who, in playing Idi Amin, won substantial critical acclaim for his performance. Many of the film’s staunchest critics have claimed that Whitaker single-handedly brought the movie its success.  Finally, Fox Searchlight, a huge American distribution company, was responsible for the film’s immensely successful and well-marketed release.
  • Uganda, the host and subject of the film, provided crew, production staff and actors, yet it barely disrupted the scales.

The film won prestigious awards in both the US and the UK.  These awards, however, were treated somewhat differently. At BAFTA, for example, it won “Best British Film,” while at such US awards as the Oscars, categories won were nationally-specified.  This could be, quite simply, because the movie is considered to be British-made. Or because the US didn’t want to emphasize the UK-ness.  Either way, the film often wore the label, “Hollywood.”  Ezra and Rowden speak about Hollywood as, rather than a geographically definable film hub existing in the South-Western United States, a general term that applies to any film operating from commercial or ideological frameworks (and even that generalization is too restrictive).  But Kevin MacDonald, the director, was neither aware of this broad category, nor why it was applied to his film. At a press conference held shortly before the Ugandan premier, he was quoted saying, apparently with some exasperation, “It’s not Hollywood…It might be up for Oscars and have a US distributor but it’s a British and Ugandan film.”

As a relatively neutral foreigner in Uganda at this time, the anticipation and aftershocks of the film seemed to carry undertones of what I can only describe as imperialistic denial; it also brought out subtle, but awkward displays of multiple national prides residing in a single country.

  • British residents of Uganda made it a claim to fame. There’s just no other way to put this.
  • American residents were excited to see it, but seemed to have no sense of ownership.
  • Ugandans, well, those who knew about it and cared about the film, were split.  Some that I spoke to were proud that their country could be the stage of a huge production.  They would brag about their-friend of-a-friend-of-a-friend who was an extra; they seemed sincerely happy that their story was being told to the world in a way they felt they were unable to tell it, despite the fictionalizations. Others that I spoke to were suspicious about the story that was being told and how it was being told. They felt powerless. They were suspicious that Uganda, as a mere subject of exploitation and spectacle would not benefit in any way, apart from M7, who would surely continue “getting fat.”

Considering The Last King of Scotland spurred on by Ezra and Rowden’s call for analysis that employs a more transnational perspective, that looks beyond the “Hollywood” and into the “hybridity” (2), reveals a few points of divergence, in spite of my resistance.  One of these points is that the film debuted at US and Canadian film festivals in September 2006 followed by a fairly exhaustive festival gambit including the UK, Germany, Greece, Sweden, and Norway before being released in UK and North American theaters. It continued to be shown at obscure festivals in Serbia and Burkina Faso after this.  The film’s circulation and success in the film festival circuit not only destabilizes the notion of ‘Hollywood-ness,’ but also distinctions made between the art-house and the mainstream.  The Last King of Scotland was, to some extent, one of those movies that managed to please the common denominator, as well as the critical crowd.

It ought not to be overlooked, however, that the wide ranging success of The Last King of Scotland, may be due, in large part, to its being filmed in Uganda. There was no, “stand in” used, as Ezra and Rowden call it (8).  Originally slated to shoot in South Africa, the producers took a last minute risk by asking President Museveni permission to film; he accepted.  Ezra and Rowden might argue that this decision was responding to an “anxiety to cultural authenticity” (4).  And the production’s effort toward authencity does seem to have been, for lack of a better word, authentic.  Discomfort arises, however, when the author of the book infers, twice, in the article he posted about the Uganda premier, that film’s location was crucial to its critical success. He writes that, when M7 gave permission, “Whitaker’s road to the Oscars was assured.”  Then, inferring upon the words of director, Kevin MacDonald he writes, “MacDonald is certain these accolades would have been fewer if The Last King had not been filmed in Uganda.”  Was this an effort for authenticity, or a contest in legitimizing bravery? I would like to add that it is difficult to scathe off suspicion (even while familiar with the logistical issues that Uganda presents) that the movie did not premier locally until two days before Whitaker took home his Academy Award. At least some of the big stars showed up, right?  Though, they stayed at the country’s fanciest hotel (by far).

I must say that it is fascinating to see how pride fairs when facing in what Higson’s describes as, “the diversity of reception” (19).  According to the article posted by Giles Foden, which includes a very intimate account of the foreign entourage attending the Uganda premier, tension was high.  He reveals nearly too much about how jittery and inappropriate they felt:  “What if they hated it? Is it right to have the same gloss and glamour here as you would at a premiere in London or Los Angeles, or is it inappropriate?”  Other foreign accounts convey a similar tension.  For example, in an article entitle, “Uganda gets last king,” CBS News says, “after months waiting to see the Oscar-nominated film “The Last King of Scotland,” Ugandans welcomed what they saw as a realistic portrayal of their blood-thirsty former dictator, Idi Amin.”  This short excerpt bears implications of the Ugandan people’s forced anticipation, to which they responded with grace.  The Washington National’s coverage was a little more forthright, but still delicately worded: “Some Ugandans said they hope to eventually see African lives rendered more fully in mainstream cinema, perhaps with an occasional romantic comedy mixed in with the agonizing historical dramas.”

Regardless of such tensions, there are two things that a broad variety of nations and cultures (including ‘Africa’) agreed on: 1. Whitaker gave an uncannily accurate performance of Idi Ami; 2. Idi Amin’s brutality was significantly downplayed. Do these two points of agreement carry equal weight?  Does the second cancel out the first? It seems as though, unlike the “international aesthetic” described by Baer and Long (150), or the “Third Cinema” that Ezra and Rowden’s show resisting “cultural imperialism” (4), The Last King of Scotland maintains a ‘white,’ watered-down, high-budget, narratively-strategic version of the truth that somehow balanced “hybridity and difference effectively enough to avoid breakdown of the significant loss of its global hegemony“ (11).  Perhaps this was the only way that the movie could have such a wide reach.  It needed the “emotional identification” and “sense of familiarity” that only Hollywood can provide in order to sustain the interest of a broad audience (4).  In other words, in order to get the world to ingest the story, it had to serve up what Ezra and Rowden call, “cinematic McNuggets” (6). The only problem is, there’s not a single McDonald’s in Uganda.

Online References & Sources

Leave a Reply