Best Actor? - The Last King of Scotland (2007) Discussion

[–] katydid278 15 years ago

I agree. McAvoy's in like 99% of the scenes and I think he undergoes a broader evolution of character and he does it so convincingly. They BOTH should have won awards. Even in all the review sites they talk about Forest, not very much about McAvoy. This bugs me. He deserved something too.

reply

[–] RebekkaD 15 years ago

Yes, Garrigan is the main character, and in my view, McAvoy´s performance is simply stunning, even better than that of Whitaker. McAvoy draws the viewer into the film with a difficult, conflicted character, and his performance is incredibly multi-faceted and subtle. In my opinion, he would have deserved the awards for a main role, and Whitaker more that for a supporting one.

reply

[–] seafoamgreen 15 years ago

I agree that there's no way James McAvoy should ever have been considered anything other than a lead actor for this movie. He IS in almost every scene, and looking at the Awards section on this site, I find it utterly ridiculous that he was nominated in the Supporting Actor category for the BAFTAS. Huh?

That said, I also don't think you can relegate the Amin character to supporting status. He's both too important a character and in the movie way too much. There really are two leads in my opinion, which makes me wonder about various awards' rules as far as nominating two actors from the same film in the lead category. That's what I believe should have happened in all fairness. But even if that's not against the rules, I think the tendency for voters would be to shy away from doing that, leaving the "flashier" performance (Whitaker's) to edge out the other. I'm afraid that might be what happened to McAvoy in this case, which is a pity.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pertinaciousbreath 15 years ago

I watched this movie specifically because it was an Academy Award Winner. When I finished, I immediately went to the cover to double check. I just couldn't believe the winner was Forest Whitaker and not McAvoy.... Like you say, not to take away from Whitaker. But McAvoy's performance was truly one for the ages, and clearly not a supporting role for pete's sake! I can't even think who to compare him with. He seems to have that Orson Wells ability to inhabit his characters, injecting them with some kind of weird energy the rest of us don't have access to. I would say this kid deserved a "co-oscar", if there was such a thing. At LEAST a nomination...to hell with the rules.

reply

[–] lexiever-1 15 years ago

Forest Whitaker was AMAZING in this and deserved the Oscar James Did excellent too he should have at least got a nomination since he was kinda the main character oh well he has years ahead of him.

Lonely chicago pie

reply

[–] patticake65 15 years ago

Both James McAvoy & Forest Whitaker did an amazing job in this film and I do agree that James was more of the lead than Forest, but if there was one person who's performance was overlooked, it was Kerry Washington. Even though her part was small, she did an great job and was thoroughly convincingly as an African woman trapped in marriage to a mad man. I think it's time she get's some recognition for this role too.

Due to recent cutbacks, the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off until further notice!

reply

[–] dragoons160160 15 years ago

McAvoy was so kickass in this film as was Whitaker and both were amazing. This is one of the best acted movies ever in my opinion and everyone should see it.

reply

[–] keykeyx100000 13 years ago

I think people are mistaking the perspective for lead character. James' character represents we, the viewers. He travels to the unknown, gets in with the president and even his wife! He eventually sees the president for what he is, exactly as we do.

He is us. He is a supporting role and the one that represents our point of view. That doesn't make him the lead character. That simply means he has the main perspective.

But I suppose that too is relative and a matter of MY perspective. I'm really playing devil's advocate.

reply

[–] Miss_Sui_Generis 13 years ago

Your point of view is well-reasoned. Whittaker's role was measured by Amin's importance to the plot and action, not actual screen time.

The quality of the performances is something else. McAvoy and Whittaker were equally brilliant. I felt afraid for McAvoy and extremely afraid of Whittaker.

Send lawyers,guns and money/The *beep* has hit the fan

reply

[–] keykeyx100000 13 years ago

Thank you. You are so polite! That's rare online.

I agree, he's one of the scariest human characters I've ever seen. When he showed his vulnerable side that just made it worse because I almost wanted things to go his way.

reply

[–] jmiddlehurst 13 years ago

I can't really comment on Idi Amin, but my mum who grew up in Kenya and Uganda remembers Idi Amin, said that Forrest Whitaker performance was perfect. plus she speaks swahili fairly well and was blown away by the pronunciation.

Personally I feel Forrest Whitaker performance is one of the best of all time.

wasim akram Number 1 fan - Lancashire Legand

reply

[–] alanpartridge123 13 years ago

neither of them were better than DiCaprio in The Departed or Blood Diamond freom the same year

reply

[–] vspirit-11-315275 10 years ago

Well the Hollywood version as a whole may be good enough for America, but it has absolutely de nada on the Hong Kong original, which means DiCaprio does not transcend Leung but I don't thnk Leung's better than these two because IA and LKoS are two completely different movies. Your point? Invalid. Whitaker deserved his win.

reply

[–] Jutlander 13 years ago

Jamie Foxx was nominated for Best Supporting Actor in "Collateral". He is amazing in the movie, but if you have seen it, you will know why that is ridiculous to call him "Supporting".

Stuff like this happens.

reply

[–] aworgill 13 years ago

I agree that McAvoy is a lead, and if you had to pick one as THE lead, you'd have to go with him. But in this instance, I think you can make a strong case that Whitaker was also a lead. It's not the most glaring example of Oscar silliness. In Silence of the Lambs, Anthony Hopkins' part was in no way a lead role. Pulp Fiction, if there even is a main character, it's Jules (Samuel L. Motherf---ing Jackson), not Vincent (John Travolta). And the one that probably drives me most nuts is Rain Man. Tom Cruise is clearly the lead.

reply

[–] prettyD2368 13 years ago

McAvoy was great but I thought Whitaker just plain took this movie. He was frightetning and just as cuthroat as the real Idi Amin.

reply

[–] siberia82-1 12 years ago

I had rented this movie 4.5 years ago because of Whitaker's Oscar win, and while he was terrific in the role, I was surprised to discover that I was actually a bit more impressed with McAvoy. I had never heard of this young Scottish actor before, but I was captivated by his screen presence almost immediately, and I thought he was brilliant in every scene that he was in (which is about 99% of the movie). His character was meant to be somewhat unsympathetic because of his vanity and foolishness, but I still feared for Dr. Garrigan's safety as Amin's dark side became more and more prominent. I couldn't believe that McAvoy's performance here wasn't recognized by either the Golden Globes or the Academy.

reply

[–] blackvenom-1 12 years ago

McAvoy was good, but Whitaker stood out. They're both co-leads, even though McAvoy is the more central character/more screentime. It's the story of these two characters' relationship and Amin's politics and personality. So I can perfectly understand why Whitaker was campaigned in Lead. McAvoy was a co-lead, though, and his campaign in Supporting was utterly ridiculous.

reply

[–] baseballgirl 11 years ago

Every time I watch this movie, that's what I think about. McAvoy was the lead actor, and as absolutely awesome as Whitaker's performance was, McAvoy was even better. The fact that he didn't even get a nomination for this and Atonement is nonsense. Utter nonsense!

One should always be on the lookout for fiendish thingies when enjoying winter sports.

reply

[–] caesar_luis 11 years ago

The leading actor is the protagonist of a movie. Even if he only get 1m of the film. The film didn't exist without the protagonist.

Once, i even read a book, that the main character did not enter in any scene of the book. But he was always present, and the story didn't made any sense without him.

reply