MovieChat Forums > The Last King of Scotland (2007) Discussion > The True Story...

The True Story...

posted 15 years ago by Fox-Mask
9 replies | jump to latest

Originally taken from a Cracked.com article titled, "6 Movies Based On a True Story (That Were Also Full of *beep* )"

The Hollywood Version:

The Last King of Scotland is not about Scotland at all, but instead chronicles the quirky relationship between brutal Ugandan dictator Idi Amin and a young Scottish doctor.

It follows Nicholas Garrigan, an adventurous Scottish medical school graduate who decides that, being adventurous and all, going to work in Uganda in a missionary clinic might be a good time. He is mistaken.

Garrigan soon meets Amin, played by Forrest Whitaker and his terrifying eyes, and soon after Amin takes power in Uganda he takes a shining to the young doctor.

After becoming one of Amin's most trusted advisors, Garrigan commits the tiny little faux pas of impregnating one of his wives. One thing leads to another, Garrigan's lover is murdered by Amin's forces, and soon Garrigan is trying to stop the madman Amin by plotting his assassination. It doesn't happen, but Garrigan escapes torture and imprisonment and is able to flee the country and alert the world to Amin's insanity.

In Reality...

For starters, there was never anyone named Nicholas Garrigan. So there's that.

Instead, the character was based on a man named "Major" Bob Astles. He wasn't a doctor. He wasn't from Scotland. And while we've never actually met Astles, we do know he earned the nickname of "The White Rat" from the people of Uganda, and was considered the second most hated man in the country. So there's that, too.

He had worked as an advisor under the regime overthrown by Amin, and soon after Amin took power he was imprisoned and tortured for 17 weeks. And then Amin decided to give him a job, which makes the imprisonment pretty much the most brutal application process this side of The Apprentice.

Unlike the movie's representation of the Garrigan character seeing the light and trying to take Amin down from the inside, Astles remained by Amin's side until the regime was finally overthrown in 1979, when the Brit fled the country before being brought back to Uganda to face criminal charges and become someone's bitch in prison.

Oh, and he never became romantically involved with one of Amin's wives, either. That part of the movie is based in a little bit of fact, it's just that the doctor in question was an African man named Mbalu Mukasa. And Amin's wife died during a botched abortion by Mukasa, who then killed himself.

How can you cut this stuff, Hollywood? This is gold here!

-----------
"Why am I dying to live, if I'm just living to die?"
www.myspace.com/foxmask

[–] cooldiva_2 15 years ago

You took the words right out of my mouth Fox-Mask, how can they call this film a biopic?

[–] Martina_Helene 15 years ago

cooldiva--I don't think anyone has called this a bio-pic.

GO-BAMA

[–] zodiac12 15 years ago

I felt duped when I found out it was fictional. I couldn't believe it.

[–] WarpedRecord 15 years ago

I was puzzled when I started watching this, and it had a weird disclaimer liked "This film was inspired by actual events," which was a tipoff. Then I was puzzled about why they were spending so much time with this Scottish Doogie Howser.

Forest Whitaker was fantastic in this film, and to be honest James McAvoy did a good job as well. But I hate when Hollywood feels the need to romantacize history to attract a broader/younger demographic. I want the whole truth when I see a biopic, and I think this is a good film but rather dishonest.

[–] neilstop 15 years ago

"inspired" that is what is said; not "based on".

For me, the doctor was a figment of idi's imagination. He never existed.

I think it is harsh to blame Hollywood for making the movie entertaining. They don’t write history, but they can raise interest. Surely, we are not gullible enough to believe their versions of history and if we are, forgive us.

[–] WarpedRecord 15 years ago

For the most part, I agree with you. I've seen recent biopics on Johnny Cash and Ray Charles that took a lot of liberties, but those were pop culture figures. For one of the most brutal dictators of our lifetime, I expected a little more realism.

Of course, the real Ida Amin story would be too dark for most viewers, and a romanticized version is better than no version at all, I guess.

[–] nirmalshravanthk 15 years ago

This movie is in fact based on the award winning book "The Last king of Scotland" written by Giles Foden.So It wasnt Hollywood which came up with the idea of a fictional Scottish doctor. In my opinion, the way they mixed fiction with Facts was the reason for both the book and the movie to win awards.

[–] dcdaveu 15 years ago

I could not agree more. The movie is "true" in the sense that great works of art capture great truths. From what I have read of Idi Amin, he was very much like the man I saw amazingly portrayed by Forest Whitaker. Moreover, power hungry political leaders tend to be like that. As far as the adventurous young Scottish doctor is concerned, it is thoroughly believable that he could have had those experiences and could have acted as he did. At about the same stage in my life, as a young U.S. Ph.D. economist, I found myself in a very similar position as the right-hand man of the second most powerful man in a Latin American government. The movie practically gave me flashbacks. Once, at one of our interminable staff meetings, I doodled, in boredom and in contempt of the man, the word "megalomania" over and over on my note pad, but I did it in the phonetic letters of the hangul alphabet of Korea so that no one would know what I was writing. But the guy loved me and flaunted me as his "hotshot economist." Heaven help me, though, if my doodle pad had fallen into the hands of someone who wished me ill and could read hungul (which I had learned while stationed in Korea as a lieutenant in the U.S. Army).

Forest Whitaker certainly deserves every accolade that he received for his performance. I would very much like to know how he studied for the role. The movie has also made me want to read the book and to learn more about the author and what his life experience has been.

[–] antony-1 15 years ago

Why can't people tell the difference between fact and fiction?

This was a movie. It was a story. It was NOT a documentary. It said, up front, at the very beginning that it was INSPIRED by real events

Guess what, Jack and Rose weren't on Titanic either.

If you want documentaries watch a science channel.