kings and schmucks

Having seen James McAvoy for the first time in Atonement, I had to watch The Last King of Scotland (No, I have no interest in seeing him as a man-goat in The Chronicles of Narnia). He's the most phenomenal young (under thirty to early thirties) male actor I've seen to date. The great thing about his characters is that I can't make them out. In Atonement, he played the earnest young man with hidden inclinations who quickly becomes disillusioned by fate (i.e. prison and war). Unlike James Bond, which is an extreme example, James McAvoy doesn't give the impression that he's a hero, good, bad, neurotic, dark, nor all of the other types that we see so often. His characters' genius rises from their complexity and refusal to be typecast. They're not real in that I could just see Robbie walking down the street (if I were living in Britain 70 years ago), but real in an emotional sense.

The one thing that is consistent in both movies is his laugh. He contemplates something for a few seconds, then bursts forth with this laugh as if he's been holding it in all the while. Other than that, there are few similarities between his devastated Robbie and loose, amoral Nicholas in The Last King of Scotland. This movie absolutely had no heroes at all. Nicholas, as the weak and selfish doctor who enjoys women, cars, and privilege, is very far from all of that. When I was watching the movie, I just wanted to hit him over the head...sleeping with married women doesn't come with a get out of jail free card, especially in war-torn Uganda under brutal dictatorial rule. However, I still found it hard to dislike the good doctor, despite the fact that he had very few redeeming qualities.

James McAvoy's characters are intensely emotional, and he plays the man-child very convincingly (perhaps because he's very young). He's intriguing because you don't really see what's going on behind those big eyes and charming smile until he goes manic depressive (Atonement), or goes through some hysterical emotional torture (The Last King of Scotland). I just want to figure his characters or his method out, and I'm getting nowhere. It's frustrating, but amazing to watch.

The real story of The Last King of Scotland is Forest Whitaker's virtuoso performance, which earned him an extremely well-deserved academy award. His performance was so realistic that he could have been the real Idi Amin. Kerry Washington also did a good job as the disgraced third wife, as did Simon McBurney as the distasteful foreign officer.

The film was clearly made with quite a lot of care, with a solid story (Based on a work of fiction and history) and actual filming in Uganda to give a sense of the people and conflicts there. It was clear that most of the extras were natives, and the entire movie blended the documentary and the movie very well. We really see the contrast between the natives living in the villages and the clean streets and tall white buildings of Kampala. On the one hand, we see Kampala and think of it as an achievement, and oasis in the desert of rural backwardness. On the other hand, it's something else that we shoved onto the African people, along with European politics and gimmicks. Wouldn't the people be better living simply as they have been for thousands of years in their small villages? Are coups, corruption, and military dictatorship separable from clean water, modern hospitals, and adequate living conditions (for a small percentage of the population)? I think not.