tomgillespie2002 Watching Forest Whitaker's performance as Ugandan military dictator Idi Amin in 2006's slightly disappointing The Last King Of Scotland, and then watching this, Barbet Schroeder's fantastic 1974 documentary about the same man, you have to applaud Whitaker's Oscar winning depiction. He not only grasped the man's sense of humour and desire for approval, but his terrifying ferocity which led to Amin being one of the most loathed and feared rulers in recent history. Yet if ever an Oscar was truly deserved, the Academy should have handed Idi Amin himself the award for Best Actor in 1974. The term 'autoportrait' (self-portrait) is cleverly used in the title, as that is exactly what it is. This might seem like a fly-on-the-wall depiction of a man narrating through his everyday duties, yet the film is very much controlled as much as Kevin Macdonald's fictional film was. Only it's not the director that is calling the shots in this film.The film is one-half cinema verite and one half an Amin vanity project, and plaudits to Schroeder to let it happen, as it reveals much more about Amin as it would if he had no participation at all, other than in front of the camera. In one scene, Amin arrives by helicopter at a small town and is greeted by a horde of screaming townsfolk, waving flags and clapping in anticipation. However, we are told, the scene has been completely set up for the documentary by Amin. Without repeatedly informing us of the influence he had on the making of the film, and on Schroeder himself, we are allowed to sit back and watch this monster bend and manipulate the truth for his own benefit. He is seen in a meeting with his ministers laying out his ideals and his expectations for his country. In this scene, Amin plays the role of both serious and committed leader, and approachable joker. He warns one of his ministers that he will take action and replace him should he fail to inform him about an aspect of his work again, to which the minister stares down and nods in understanding. We are informed by the narrator that his body is found dead in the River Nile a couple of weeks later.The film depicts both the political and social sides of Amin. As well as his claims to being the 'last king of Scotland' and his invitation to Queen Elizabeth to visit Africa and meet 'a real man', it also shows the increasingly uneasy relationship that Amin and Uganda had at the time with neighbouring country Tanzania and their President Julius Nyerere. Amin would have you believe otherwise, laughing off these claims and joking that the two have a friendly and informal relationship (the two countries would eventually go to war between 1978 and 1979, leading to the overthrowing of Amin's regime). We also see him with his children from many wives (he was a polygamist, marrying six women) and taking Schroeder and his crew on a boat trip down the River Nile, pointing out the wildlife and talking about Uganda being the most beautiful place on the planet.It is a terrifying insight in how politicians and military rules can use the media as a propaganda tool, and what a lack of respect they have for their people. You get the feeling throughout the film that Schroeder would like to pose more trying questions to Amin, yet because of the likelihood that the film would be shut down should he be challenged, Schroeder is forced to indulge Amin's desires. In a satisfying climax, which sees Amin allowing himself to be questioned by a board of doctors in a bid to show his accessibility, the camera zooms in close as he sits speechless after being confronted with a difficult question, and the volume on his microphone is turned up to maximum to capture every quiver in his breathing, and the thumping of his ever increasing heartbeat. The documentary was forced to be edited and released in two versions - one hour-long version in Uganda, and the full length version everywhere else. Amin sent spies to France to make extensive notes on the full film, which lead to the kidnapping of over a hundred French citizens residing in Uganda. According the Schroeder, he was forced to re-edit the film in order for the captives to be released. The film lay in this state until Amin's fall from power, to which the film was restored and re-released in it's entirety. It could almost be viewed as a companion piece to Leni Reifenstahl's landmark propaganda documentary Triumph Of The Will, both of which show the length that military rulers are willing to go in order to manipulate their people. It is confusing as to why Schroeder would go on to make standard Hollywood pap such as Kiss Of Death and Murder By Number, as this is a fascinating insight into the mind of a fascinating man. www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

jasonolds442 I have no idea what the "irrelevant now" comment means. That comment in itself is "irrelevant" and quite "idiotic." Meglomaniac dictators will be around forever. This was the rarest of rare portraits of one. It wasn't a single interview on 60 Minutes, it was a long month-long look into the dictator.While it doesn't go into the holocaust he perpetrated on the Ugandans (a very valid point above,) the final meeting with the doctors shows exactly the fear and paranoia he felt. It is in the final scene; with Amin breathing heavily into the microphone, gulping down spit, eyes darting around the room in fear, that we can see what led him to kill 300-500,000 of his own people.Also, when Idi does his Crocodile Hunter impression ("there are more crocodiles here than anywhere in ze vhurld") it is more jarring because it's where and whom he fed the bodies of those he murdered.Keep in mind as well, that the murders were only beginning when the film was made. The film is effective in showing what led to the holocaust of the Ugandan people.

movedout In anticipation of a career best performance by Forest Whitaker in "The Last King of Scotland", I hunted down the Criterion of this remarkably pieced together composite of General Idi Amin Dada, the forgotten Ugandan tyrant who seized power in the early 70s and ruled it with a murderous fist until his eventual ouster. The records speak for itself. The genocide, the corruption and the paranoid executions of his confidants find its way into the documentary but Barbet Schroeder's unique and darkly humorous focus always stays on the hauntingly paradoxical look at the avuncular disposition of the despicable despot.Essentially, and with the need to be succinct, the General comes across as a child trapped in the man's body. His small-minded view of the world, his brio for military games and his risible ballroom antics show an incomprehensible rationale for his iron grip. His scheming seductions to the media and to the outside world come through in full force as he looks for the camera before speaking. Idi Amin does not deny his Machiavellian approach to establishing his order but chooses not to dwell on them as he thinks his answers through carefully and elaborates on his imagined successes. Often, he trails off into a deranged rail on foreign countries and other African establishments but conducts himself with a manner of undeniable presence that's as compelling as it is repelling.The Iranian born director of German extraction is ironically simpatico with Idi Amin's preference of people as Schroeder prods him ever so gently with nervous laughter, like one might daringly try to interest a grumpy Doberman in a game of catch. Schroeder's discernment of the situation he was in with the vain General and his eventual manipulation of him allowed his documentary crew access to a conclave of the state's ministers and military higher-ups. It is where Idi Amin, although aware of the camera's burning gaze, warns death on spies and warns "removal" of inept ministers, leading to Schroeder's unnerving revelation as his camera lingers on the cold, brutality of a killer.Much of the documentary's humour is inherent. Schroeder does not make any allusions to satire, or even impose a caricature of the man. No, Idi Amin does that all by himself. Armed with a razor sharp wit, he jokes with rooms of people, even resorting to self-deprecating humour that really only he could make. A natural charmer, he comes across early on as the jovial sort, with a disarming innocence that's staggeringly shattered when he takes up arms and spews anti-Israeli sentiments. While extolling the virtues of his mind-boggling economic and military policies, he does it without understanding how and why they do not work. And no one dares to advise him on that either. Very telling is the scene on the boat when he asks the camera crew if he should "ask" the crocodile to leave.With an ambition the size of Napoleon, Idi Amin considered himself a major leader in the world stage but there's something so terribly amateurish about his regime, much like many other African regimes back then. We don't get to know his precise political thought, he does mention not entirely following the rigidness of communism and capitalism but all it does is underline his resolve to control his country by his terms. Although he lived mainly through the atavistic displays of force, he did show some progressive ideas such as implementing more women in the managerial workforce, albeit only in the hospitality industry. Mixing his awe of modernisation (risking his country's reserves) and grandiosity with his reverence for his region's tradition, Idi Amin saw himself as a revolutionary.The back-story of this documentary is almost as gripping as the film itself. Schroeder befriended Idi Amin, although a tenuous relationship, he gets him to open up about the things that he wouldn't tell his own cabinet of ministers. He partakes with the General in admittedly staged scenes of overt celebrations and letting him direct himself in exchange for getting him in every shot aside from the scenery (masterfully photographed by Néstor Almendros).After the filming, Schroeder found himself in a predicament when word got back to Idi Amin after its initial release in France and London that its audience found it to be "funny like a comedy". When his demands for cuts were not met, Idi Amin rounded up the French living in Uganda and threatened their lives if Schroeder did not relent. And of course, he did. Thankfully it was restored after Idi Amin's exile from the country. Even under the restrictive guise of a self-portrait, Schroeder masterfully instills a subtext that even before the cuts, Idi Amin could not properly discern because of his ego. The awkward gazes and listless looks of his employees and citizens are an inside joke for us but a reality for the megalomaniac. Schroeder lets Idi Amin present to us his own insanity within the smiles and guffaws.Even as the film fails to fully structure the whys and hows of Idi Amin's maniacal views on the world, it does hint at the harsh bleakness of colonialism leaving a bloodstain with each of Idi Amin's actions. But what makes this documentary much more compelling than any straight observation of a tyrannical authoritarian is its own fascination with the subject. Captivated by Idi Amin's charisma, and the creeping sense of dread when the truth is finally mined, the crew found a goldmine of ideas relating to violent dictators throughout history as this documentary shaped up to be a portrait of not just Idi Amin but of all rulers. Controversial and foreboding scenes of him inviting Palestinian terrorists bore fruit years after the release of the film and a chilling symmetry with George W. Bush's war on terror is gleaned when Idi Amin exclaimed that dreams vaticinated his wars.

Baldy-13 I saw this movie in Israel in 1975. At the time Amin was in his heyday and because of his relationship with Israel the film was very interesting, featuring interviews with Amin and him showing off his armed forces.Today, with Amin a nobody in Saudi Arabia, this film is but an asterisk of history.