August 24, 2005
The Last King of Scotland Producers Being Sued
One of the films currently in production that I'm really looking forward to is The Last King of Scotland. The film is about former Dictator of Uganda Idi Amin and stars a massively underrated Forest Whitaker as the powerful political leader and former X-Files star Gillian Anderson.
However, one of the widely held views on Amin is that he was a Cannibal. The film is portraying this and the family of the late Amin are suing the producers for it:
The movie--which stars actor Forest Whitaker as the powerful political leader--centers around the height of Amin's despotic rule, during which over 400,000 Ugandans were killed and the country's entire Asian population expelled. Amin's eldest son Taban Amin confirms the family is planning to sue for defamation for the dictator's depiction eating human flesh, arguing they never granted permission for their father's name or image to be used.I have to admit my ignorance here. I've never really understood the legalities of portraying a person in a film without permission... be they hero or villain. Do you need permission from the family of a person to film a movie about them?
I also find the claims in the lawsuit rather comedic. They're suing for defamation of character over cannibalism... but never mind about the 400,000 people that he murdered. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
Posted by John Campea at August 24, 2005 11:20 AM
Comments
Posted by: Meli at August 24, 2005 01:03 PM
Shouldn't they "try" to sue the author of the book, Giles Foden, instead of the producers who are making a movie based on the book. Still, if filmmakers couldn't do films about public people who did some nasty things in their lives, where would be our freedom of speech and wouldn't we have a very distorted view of society if we could only see movies about "good" guys.
Posted by: Darko at August 25, 2005 02:55 AM
If, for arguments sake, someone were to make a movie about Bush Jr and portray him as an addled druggie for a large part of his life(which there is a large part of speculation about), I can see that his family wouldn't want it portrayed like this, even though there are other parts of his presidency that could be viewed harshly.
If there is documented proof, then run with it, but if it is speculation, then put it as such in the movie, if a movie wants to portray itself as factual, then it needs to stand by facts, not speculation.
Posted by: Warren at August 26, 2005 07:04 AM
The film makers are in a way to blame, you can not go on to defame someone to the extent of potraying him as a cannibal simply because there is no one serious to sue you guys.It remains a fact that most African presidents play dirty games but how come Idi Amin is the one to pay all the damages despite the fact that its widely known in Uganda that nothing concrete exists about the late president's eating habbits.
I refuse to accept this, it is wrong for a clique of individuals to defame someone slain as a way of furthering their financial gains. This is ethically wrong....God will decide!!!!
Posted by: arafat at September 13, 2005 05:07 PM
The book doesn't indicate that Amin was a cannibal. Also, cannibalism is not practiced in Uganda, if Amin was a cannibal he'd be considered a freak even in his own country. The likelihood of the cannibalism accusation being true is extremely unlikely. I've been living in Uganda for the last two years, and I've read a lot about that era, and i know a fair amount about the culture, and I have never read anything anywhere that seriously ascertained that Amin was a cannibal - its always been treated as an outlandish vengefull accusation.
(Also, i was an extra in the movie! Lookout for the 'israeli hostage' in the horrible pink dress when the movie is released!)
Posted by: deanna at October 19, 2005 03:27 AM
The thing is that he has never been convicted, let alone tried for the so-called 400,000 he murdered. As far as the family is concerned Amin did not murder anybody.
Posted by: Mike at December 10, 2005 05:04 AM
I'm just as ignorant regarding the legalities on this issue, but perhaps they are in denial that he was a cannibal? I'm not familiar with the story of Amin; is it documented that he was a cannibal? Or is it a speculation about him?
The family probably doesn't like the fact he was responbile for the murder of 400,000, but on top of that he was a cannibal. They probably figure it'd be better to just leave out his eating habits.
Personally, I think it's wrong. There many great tragedies in history and trying to change history or censor it is wrong. Then again we do it everyday.