Dargis, Denby on Whitaker
To listen to N.Y. Times critic Manohla Dargis, Forrest Whitaker‘s Last King of Scotland stock has just dropped a couple of points. And yet New Yorker critic David Denby is deeply enamored, so maybe it all balances out.
Dargis has described Whitaker’s General Idi Amin as a character who “changes moods on a dime depending on the gas percolating in his bowels or the threats on his person, real and imagined. It’s a role rich in gristle and blood, and Mr. Whitaker makes the most of it, even if the performance and the film’s essential conception of Amin never push deep or hard enough. This actor can play devious, [but] what you need in a film about a man who fed the corpses of his victims to the crocodiles is something more, something hateful and vile.”
Denby, on other hand, says that “Whitaker, [giving] the performance of a lifetime, makes General Amin a charismatic madman. Whitaker has done some surpassingly gentle and rueful work in the past, but for this role he has transformed himself — he’s either sprawled in a stupor or alarmingly mobile, throwing his big body around the room as if it weighed nothing. His laugh is enormous, and his arms are like grappling hooks.
“This dictator has a terrifying affability: like many sociopaths, he can be surprisingly empathic. He figures out what people want, but, once they have received his generosity, he believes that they belong to him. Any check on his desires sends him into a rage, and, as Whitaker takes off into astonishing tirades, one eye opens wide, and the other droops viciously — even his vision is schizoid.”
She must have seen some other movie entirely. She apparently misses the fatherly sense of insanity Whitaker brought to the role (also found on the page) which is assuredly “something more” and ultimately what the character is about, much more so than simply being evil.
There was chemistry within Whitaker and between him and McAvoy and the movie was energetic, the real Amin would have been a 70′s buzz kill.
I say give the Oscar to Whitaker no matter how good or otherwise he is in this. He deserved to win for Ghost Dog, if ya want my opinion (and of course you don’t, but fuck it).
There was chemistry within Whitaker and between him and McAvoy and the movie was energetic, the real Amin would have been a 70′s buzz kill.
Dargis is the WORST CRITIC writing for a major newspaper. She is NOT TO BE TRUSTED. EVER.
Sardine,
You took the words right out of my mouth.
Horrible at the LA Weekly and the LA Times.
The worst!
The person James Wolcott calls Magnolia Darkness is never to be trusted. Like too many big-time print critics, she is more interested in showing off her writing skills than clearly conveying any judgments. As for analysis, forget it. It is an abomination that the Library of America’s American Movie Critics collection includes her drivel.
Dixon Steele, Yes Horrible! So good to know there are other who recognize Dargis is terrible.
On the other hand, I think Stephanie Zacharek of Salon is excellent…and Scott Foundas of the Weekly is awfully good too…
Why exactly did this thread of comments de-evolve into a string of offensive personal attacks rather than speaking to the point of Jeff’s brief article? I understand not everyone here has seen “The Last King of Scotland,” and therefore cannot comment to Manohla’s opinion of Whitaker’s performance, but that doesn’t mean the place needs to resemble a zoo. Have some class.
I’d also like to ask what “can’t be trusted” means when evaluating a critic. Can’t be trusted…by whom exactly? There are plenty of readers who trust Manohla on a daily basis. There are plenty who don’t. Same goes for me. Same goes for Jeff.
Sweeping generalizations are a sure sign of a lack of intelligence. If you can’t speak to a specific matter, you certainly can’t speak to a broad one.
KP, I don’t need to be specific. I’ve read hundreds of her reviews over the last decade or so and she’s a moron. The only reason she got her curent gig is because chief Times critic A.O. Scott has a thing for her. Case Closed.
Well said KP. I have a severe mistrust of people who don’t understand that criticism is an artform, not a service, and Manohla, as usual, has written an excellent review that puts the past, the present, the story, the acting, the filmmaker and the craft in perspective, so you can enjoy the review outright and have insight going into the film.
Case open… It stars Humphrey Bogart as Dixon Steele, a fading screenwriter suffering from creative burnout; hired to adapt a best-selling novel, instead of reading the book itself he asks the hat-check girl at his favorite nightclub to simply tell him the plot. The morning after, the girl is found brutally murdered, and Steele is the police’s prime suspect; however, the would-be starlet across the way, Laurel Gray, provides him with a solid alibi, and they soon begin a romance in spite of Gray’s lingering concerns that the troubled, violent Steele might just be a killer after all.
T.H., glad to see you’re no longer in a lonely place.
Still, in my book, Manohla rhymes with Ebola, and is about as appealing.
Vote for Dix, Manohla’s a moron and Scott has a thing for her. And he won’t or can’t read her reviews, because he doesn’t need to.
Well said KP. I have a severe mistrust of people who don’t understand that criticism is an artform, not a service, and Manohla, as usual, has written an excellent review that puts the past, the present, the story, the acting, the filmmaker and the craft in perspective, so you can enjoy the review outright and have insight going into the film.
Case open… It stars Humphrey Bogart as Dixon Steele, a fading screenwriter suffering from creative burnout; hired to adapt a best-selling novel, instead of reading the book itself he asks the hat-check girl at his favorite nightclub to simply tell him the plot. The morning after, the girl is found brutally murdered, and Steele is the police’s prime suspect; however, the would-be starlet across the way, Laurel Gray, provides him with a solid alibi, and they soon begin a romance in spite of Gray’s lingering concerns that the troubled, violent Steele might just be a killer after all.
Vote for Dix, Manohla’s a moron and Scott has a thing for her. And he won’t or can’t read her reviews, because he doesn’t need to.
Kris Tapley, just read your Page To Screen post on “The Last King of Scotland” on your website, loved it. Thanks, because it’s a really cool thing you do, and for getting me thinking about Philip Noyce√¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s upcoming √¢‚Ǩ≈ìCatch a Fire√¢‚Ǩ¬ù in relation, decisions which, as you remind, “…are always left to the viewer, are they not?”
Kris Tapley, just read your Page To Screen post on “The Last King of Scotland” on your website, loved it. Thanks, because it’s a really cool thing you do, and for getting me thinking about Philip Noyce’s upcoming “Catch a Fire†in relation, decisions which, as you remind, “…are always left to the viewer, are they not?”