For this media analysis, you will analyze how one part affects the whole media production. Note that you should select only a single piece of media; you should not be discussing more than one film, for example. You should choose one of the following parts to explore: Genre: Explain how the production you chose fits into its genre. Camera: Analyze how the camera’s use (camera angles, for instance) affects the overall production. Lighting: Describe how lighting is used to enhance or detract from the production. Actors/Characters: Analyze how the actors OR the characters themselves enhance or detract from the production. Symbols: Explain what the symbols are and how their usage affects the overall production. Music: Describe how the music enhances or detracts from the media production. Sound Effects: Analyze how the sound effects enhance or detract from the production. Special Effects: Explain what special effects are used and how they affect the viewing experience. Comparison to a Literary Work: (Note: This option may only be chosen if the film you chose is also in print form.) How are the book and film similar? How are they different? Which is better, and why? Your purpose in this assignment is to explain how or why something works; therefore, you should not include a full summary of the media production. Instead, you can provide context where needed so the reader understands what is happening. The body of the essay must focus on your analysis. You can use the ideas contained in the Media Analysis lesson presentation and the Writer’s Handbook link to help you.
January 15, 2019
Comparison of Literary Work: The Last King of Scotland
“The Last King of Scotland” is an award winning and critically acclaimed novel by writer Giles Foden in 1998. Concentrating on the ascent of then Ugandan dictator Idi Amin Dada and his eight year rule as tyrant from 1971 to 1979, the book is composed as the journal of an anecdotal Scottish physician in the dictator’s employ. Come 2006, a movie of the same name, starring Forest Whitaker as Amin was produced, adapted from the book. Now, even though both works are masterpieces in their own rights, proven by the number of numerous awards which they garnered, they are similar as they are different, and the fact that the motion picture endeavors to entwine and historical fact, all the while making up for the over-ambiguous information in the book with an energetic and masterful central character among others, ensures the movie is a better overall experience than the book.
Focusing on the similarities, in the book, the writer presents the defense that Amin was sufficiently reasonable to comprehend his nation’s tangled association with British colonialism (Pells) and to infuse that sociopolitical comprehension into a verbal context. This reality is crucially similar to the motion picture, which conveys shocks deserving of the blood and guts it progresses toward.
In the same breath, as much an enticer as a tyrant, the book’s Amin changes his states of mind on a dime relying upon his insides or on the dangers he faces, genuine and envisioned. It’s a job wealthy in gore and blood, and Whitaker gets as much as possible from it, regardless of the fact that the execution and the movie’s fundamental conception of the dictator do not go very deep.
On the other hand, grossly but essentially dissimilar to Foden’s book, the motion picture starts a short while after Amin has risen to power, and his frenzy still hadn’t evidently ad unmistakably blossomed. The director, Kevin Macdonald, is not keen on outfitting historical exercises, and the subtleties of the African experiences of the British remain generally implicit. An ace of control, the film’s Amin knows a choice piece when one is around his snare. In spite of his ambiguously physical proportions, “Whitaker doesn’t entirely resemble the man he plays,” (Dargissept) a fact that turns out to be less critical as the execution of the plot flourishes.
Additionally crucial to the above mentioned point is Macdonald’s vision of the dictator as both Victor Frankenstein and its monster. An epic fiction with a polished authentic completion, the final product is an extremely contemporary, distinctly thunderous film about post colonialism. All things considered, and in spite of some foundation filler, the movie implies this voyage is as deeply coordinated as outwardly evident.
Conclusively, the squeamishly interesting movie “The Last King of Scotland,” directed by Kevin Macdonald and exclusively adapted from the novel by Giles Foden, creates a more than excellent picture of this well-known Ugandan tyrant from within his presidential confines. (British Board of Film Classification) Fast paced, with astounding performances by its protagonists, the movie has quality, if not profundity and enough knowledge to convince you that it really possesses something of note to state, though the bigger message here, one that the film effectively sends, is that the wretchedness of others ensures agitating entertainment, regardless of how lovely the pictures are and how valuable the entertainer.
Dargissept, Manohla. “An Innocent Abroad, Seduced by a Madman.” The New York Times. 27 September, 2006.
Pells, Rachael “An Interview with Giles Foden”. Random House. Retrieved 15 January 2019
“The Last King of Scotland”. British Board of Film Classification. 12 September 2006. Retrieved 15 January 2019.