Talk:The Last King of Scotland (film)

Implemented

^Jaster 13:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio

Just the plot, which is lifted directly from the Fox Searchlight Pictures page at http://www.foxsearchlight.com/upcoming/ -- Tenebrae 17:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Err.. since no-once has seen this (it's not finished yet) how else do we put a plot (or possible plot) on the page ? --^Jaster 16:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Err..be original. Squadoosh 07:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is the title "The Last King of Scotland?"

Idi Amin claimed to be "King of Scotland," among the many other absured titles he awarded himself. Check out the main Idi Amin article for more. Jsc1973 18:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

How about

• The story of how a Scottish doctor became the personal physician to Ugandan President Idi Amin

--^Jaster 13:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Or: How the british empire works on a little country called uganda by sending a white doctor without any human rights.

It#s a question of the narratives point of view.--Matida (talk) 11:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Temporary Page

Best thing to do, in my opinion, is to just take out the plot and resubmit. (Pally01 22:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC))

I vote to replace the page with the tempory page above .... ^Jaster 10:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

---

British Film?

The repeated mentioning of this film as specifically British is suspect and unsupported by readily available facts: It was released in the U.S. a full four months before the UK, and IMDb lists it as a US/UK production. Unless anyone can provide something verifiable about its origins, I am going to ditch any specific mention of national cinematic origin. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Depends what you mean by a British Film? Who needs to be British? Producer,Director,Actors,Location ? By Strict Definition almost all movies are international co-productions ? ^Jaster 15:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The only reason the issue needs to be addressed is that in several places, it is specifically singled out as a "British Film." Now, generally the official country of origin of a film is stated in the credits at the end. Sometimes its a financing gimmick, and sometimes it is serious business for cultural reasons. Indeed, in the UK, there are specific standards that need to be met to be called a British film. That this movie seems less and less "officially" British makes whatever edits calling it such very suspect. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the credits say that it was funded by the British Film Council and Screen Scotland, if that makes a difference. 87.127.73.65 05:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI it was mainly a Film4 film, a British company, it's in the end credits and here [1] Aaliyah Stevens 22:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The normal way of categorizing the nationality of a film is by the nationality of its production companies. This one was made by both British and American companies, including 20th Century Fox. See here. I've updated the intro to reflect this. Cop 633 02:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC) % Strange! To discuss, if this film fitts in a national british concept. A value after the prices. You earn honour from the windsors either, but they won't let you in their house. Different companies declare this production, so it has been possible[GATT]. In Britain you may swallow pills and not work!--Matida (talk) 10:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Mistakes in the film

At the end of the film before the credits roll, it states that Israeli special forces stormed the hostage area and freed all but one of the hostages. However on the Idi Amin wiki page and the Operation Entebbe page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Entebbe), it states that 4 of the hostages where killed "(One was killed by the Israeli forces, two by Ugandan soldiers, while another, 75-year-old Dora Bloch, who had been taken to a hospital before the rescue, was killed under Amin's direct orders by two army officers after the hostage rescue.)" I am not sure which is correct. Either the wiki articles I referred to should be corrected, or maybe this should be added as a "mistake" in the film (kinda like they have 'goofs' on imdb).

The film is entirely fictional. It weaves in true events, but almost never in the way they really happened. The entire account of Entebbe in the film should not be taken as anything like what really happened. The visuals of the film as far as presenting what Uganda looked like and in particular the decay during Amin's rule are all wrong. The film also presents basic events in wrong ways. Amin didn't "charm" the press and he certainly didn't adopt "charming" the press as a strategy after the ethnic cleansing of the Indian population. At best, he played the fool for the press who treated him seriously for political reasons because he bashed the west. The film also wants to act like there was an actual widespread political insurrection in the country in the early 70's that threatened Amin. Thats also very wrong. If you want to see something closer to the atmosphere of Uganda under Amin, watch the first part (and the first part only) of the film "dogs of war".

The real ending to the film would have been for the doctor to have been picked up and tortured away from the airport not during the time of Entebbe. Then put in prison for a while and then released at which point he would join Amin's security service. He would then end up in jail after Amin's fall for years. Thats what happened to the real person closest to that character in Uganda.

And rather than a doctor, the main character in the film seems closer to the reality of many journalists in africa during the 1970s. They were personally utterly corrupt, often socialized with the leadership, believed that men like Amin (or Mobotu or any of the others) were leading Africa into a bright future and wrote stories that were little better than lies about what was going on in Africa. All someone like Amin had to do was say "colonialism" and "south africa" and the journalists of the world would fall crying at his feet in joy while he launched his ethnic cleansing of Asians from the country. 12.96.162.45 21:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the line about the movie saying one hostage was not rescued, while three were actually killed in the raid. While these people were in fact killed, the line in the movie is still essentially correct in that only Dora Bloch remained in Uganda after the raid. Fred8615 (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC) / Sorry, telling something about mistakes means in a fictional story a real error. If you act on historical facts,in a documantary, this argumentation is o.k. But in a thriller like film it#s not nescessary to compare documentary material with that form. Because it#s a decision to make fiction in double story-lining possibilities, which is tensefull and may be not politcal correct. Reveal something!--Matida (talk) 10:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the "Russia" from "Jews from France and Russia" given that not only did Russia not exist as a country at the time (Soviet Union), but there weren't any Soviets on the plane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Entebbe) Umar99 (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Stub to start

This article only needs one more section of information to be upgraded to start class. Perhaps add a section on the box office gross, upcoming DVD release, a section about the book's differences/similarities, etc. Once it has another section, upgrade the class to start. --Nehrams2020 20:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

not the 2007 BAFTA winner!

The 2007 BAFTA winner for best film was The Queen, look at the BAFTA site!

correction this article does not say it won the BAFTA for Best Film but rather the 'Best British Film' which it did.

Film-book difference

"The film's depiction of the Entebbe Hijacking is different from the real event: in the film non-Israeli passengers are released while in reality only non-Jews were released." This is directly contradicted by the Operation Entebbe entry: "A total of 83 Israeli and/or Jewish hostages remained". Given that I imagine that is the more authoritative entry, this should be removed from the film's entry. --Padraic 02:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Phelestinian

in move show 6 phelestinian were highjackers. but it was 3 phelestinams and 2 germans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.235.58.125 (talk) 06:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Plot section?

Anyone care to atempt a plot section like all the other films on wiki? 86.20.132.248 18:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Released in Uganda?

Was the film released there And if so, is there any information on how it was received there? Timrollpickering 22:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Problems with this sentence:

"By the time he realizes the fascist torture under Amin that is actually going on, one of the British officials is already so disgusted with Garrigan's complicity that he confiscates the boy's passport."

1. About the confiscation: I just saw the film and did not notice any confiscation. I did see a not-helping-to-escape. Also I am not sure the British officials were disgusted. To ask it Wikipedia-style: is this sourced?

2. 'fascist' torture? As opposed to 'bourgouis', 'communist', 'African' torture? Unless very well sourced I would like to take the 'fascist' out.

What about this sentence?

The film is based on events of Amin's rule, and the title comes from a reporter in a press conference who wishes to verify whether declared himself the King of Scotland.

Who is whether? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.194.127.36 (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Pukkie 22:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Last King of Scotland.jpg

Image:The Last King of Scotland.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 11:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Torture scene

I feel like something should be mentioned about the torture methods - suspension - in the plot section. It feels significant because it's a very salient point of cultural difference between Europe and Africa. Though actually, I've never heard of suspension in Africa... only the Americas and some of Asia. Maybe someone better equipped to write something should give it a go - it's accuracy or relevance or whatever. Electriceel [ə.lɛk.tʃɹɪk il] 16:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Both scenes are significant and not affirmativ. The factor violence appears as somthing real inhuman, disgusting and terrifying, therefore the scientific question of the category, so voodoo-like seems to me cynic.They are bound at the subjective of the diktators doctor and in this way his disgust is transported to the public. To cut of arms for legs in kays case, leads to the meaning of a symbiotic couple. Idis arms and her legs should be connected for ever. And to hang the doctor up at his breasts, remind me of a well-known slaughter-house, mixing man and deers.--Matida (talk) 10:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

"For example, Astles does not escape on a plane with the hostages, but actually he was a well-known Gigilo who would do anything sexually for money, and he was paid $350 to sexually satisfy the male rebels by ejaculating on the innocent male hostage's face & body." That was in the historical inaccuracies section. I'm assuming that it's false and removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.194.107 (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

British Support never been proven?

In the "historical accuracy" section it says that British support for Idi Amin was never proven. Huh? The British released plenty of documents in 2001 confirming what was already known: the Obote government was nationalizing British business interests and criticising the west over the arming of South Africa. The British, with help from the US and Israel, handpicked Amin to reestablish the British colonial regime. Take a gander at the truth:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5391/is_200310/ai_n21337458

http://www.mathaba.net/data/sis/mi6-amin.htm

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/36/502.html

If I find more, I'll certainly post. With that said, I firmly believe that not only should the inaccurate statement be removed from the "accuracy" section, but also in its place should be a mention of British support for Amin with the sources above to back it up.72.78.154.17 (talk) 06:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

British support? I actually find it odd how the Israelis would support Amin, with building up what he felt was relevant for a national defence. The Israelis felt the Ugandan system was working inadequatly becaue the British....here we go again. Israeli officers were ordered to help out Amin with anything in relation to military stuff. Amin would study Kamikaze bombing, make soldiers march like a revolving swatstika, and still the officers were obliged to keep this up. Did they however keep up this after Amins letter to Kurt Waldheim? Anyhoo, The Israelis managed to solve the Entebbe business within 90 minutes, but maybe they deserved Entebbe. WHO ELSE, for that matter supported Amin?--85.164.223.159 (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Mutilation Accuracy

In the historical accuracy section it says that Kay's body was actually mutilated as depicted in the film on Amin's orders. According to the special features section of the DVD at least, this was not the case. Her body was found dismembered and Amin had her limbs sewn back on (but not in "reverse," as depicted) so her family could view the body. They even have first hand testimony of Amin's actual health minister saying so. deej5871 (talk) 08:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Overt Revisions

It appears that someone has taken a literary criticism degree to the plot synopsis in the past few days, making it a fairly comprehensive detail of the film and leading to an immpenetrable wall of text and personal opinion soapbox; The article from around 10 Dec was a lot more accessible and relevant. Could someone in authority please remove the efforts and restore it, as I cannot be bothered signing up. 81.99.10.142 (talk) 03:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You can edit the article without signing up. Anyway, this shows the changes. Gimmetrow 03:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Paternity of Kay Amin's alleged unborn child, and facts regarding her death and dismemberment and the death of Dr. Mbalu Mukasa.

Thanks very much for the wikipage on this Film. Regarding the statement that "in real life" Dr. Mbalu Mukasa was Kay's lover and impregnated her, and Kay actually died in a botched abortion performed by him, and that he subsequently committed suicide. What substantiation is there for any of these claims, and what is the source? Obviously only Kay Amin could tell us who (if anyone) had impregnated her, and personally unless I see overwhelming evidence, I would find it rather unlikely that she would have died in an abortion by a qualified doctor, not to mention that the doctor (supposed lover) would then dismember her. Without substantial evidence I would also have doubts regarding the doctor having died of suicide. It is stated as Mr. Astles' opinion that Kay's body was dismembered by the doctor in an effort to hide the body (if in fact that is Mr. Astles' opinion). Mr. Astles is obviously entitled to his opinion and his opinion is of interest in the article, but is there also any evidence to support this? (Not to mention, how would removal of the arms and legs hide her identity, one has to wonder?) I didn't see any source given for the preceding statements regarding the supposed paternity of the alleged unborn child and the supposed botched abortion and the supposed suicide of the doctor. The source for these claims should be quoted and it needs to be noted what if any substantiation/verification there is for the claims. Thanks again for the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urthcreature (talk • contribs) 02:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Country of origin

Here's what I can find:

• European Audiovisual Observatory: DE/UK
• British Film Institute: DE/UK/US
• AllMovie: DE/UK
• Variety: DE/UK

It looks like the weight of sources say it's German-British. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Kay's death

Hey, it mentions here that the real Kay Amin died from a botched abortion by an African man, but I found a blog that's apparently by her child claiming otherwise: [2]. Should we change this? Wacape (talk) 03:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Don't believe everything you read on the internet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)