by Brian Taylor

Created on: December 24, 2011

In 2006, actor Forrest Whitaker excellently portrayed Ugandan President Idi Amin in the film "The Last King of Scotland." The film follows the exploits of the Scottish Doctor Nicholas Garrigan who, somewhat accidentally, become Amin's personal Physician in the 1970's. Due to the film unfolding from Dr. Garrigan's point of view, we come to learn of Idi Amin along with the hapless Doctor, first through the opinions of Ugandans and ultimately by meeting Mr. Amin. Such is it that we learn that Amin is both a hero and quite mad.

Whitaker's performance is such that, as Dr. Garrigan first meets Amin, (as does the audience,) everyone is leery, worried. Whitaker comes across as an excitable soccer fan, eager to get to work in his new role as President, eager to talk about sport. Affable, pleasant, agitated, testy. The audience get sucked into believing Amin might be okay, or at least, not as scary as first thought. So is Dr. Garrigan, who becomes his personal Physician. Slowly over time, Amin's penchant for coldly executing acts of violence, either himself, or by his order, reinforces everyone's original fears were founded, and the man is, at the least, a sociopath. 

The term hero is bandied about quite readily, particularly in western culture, arguably to the point of having lost any meaning. However, as it has been suggested that somehow sadism and heroism are at opposite ends of a previously unimagined spectrum, as well as having no real distinction afforded to the idea that "hero" is subjective, at best, an argument based upon "general impressions" seems fair. With the term "general impressions" meaning: A Hero is someone who is loved by his people. A sadist is someone who enjoys hurting people. Thus, it is clear that, whether we discuss the portrayal of the actor, or the actions of the real man, it is certainly possible to be "a sadist hero," or be portrayed as such.

It is historically true that Idi Amin committed horrific atrocities to his own people and others, Forrest Whitaker's portrayal of him leads us to understand this truth, but we cannot speak to his intentions, nor causation of them, without understanding his madness. Forrest Whitaker had at his advantage, in the year 2006, something that Idi Amin, in his time and place did not: An appreciation for the mental state of Idi Amin. We too share this with Mr. Whitaker, now. We can further look back to the results of his actions, separated from the heat of the moment. Actors playing soldiers are not soldiers. Soldiers are relied upon to do horrific things. Idi Amin, (and Forrest playing him,) are not exempt from the atrocities of war. One cannot argue that Amin "went too far" in this or that capacity, when he was simply in charge, at the top of the pyramid. The slaughter of 100 people is not very far from 1000 people, which isn't very far from 10,000 people, etc. How many people died when President Truman ordered two atomic bombs to be dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? War makes monsters of men, this is universal.

Hero is subjective.

There is no sadism in war.

Learn more about this author, Brian Taylor.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.