Watching French filmmaker Barbet Schroeder's 1974 documentary General Idi Amin Dada: Autoportrait two things came to mind. First was an old Mad magazine spoof of Amin titled Idiot And Mean, in which, I believe the 1970s dictator of Uganda was visited by the crew of the original Star Trek television series, and also that fact that the word Dada, while literally part of Amin's name, also was an early 20th Century arts movement that embraced the meaningless of all art. The first point is obvious, because the name accorded Amin fits, and so does the second point fit, since the real Amin, as portrayed in this film, seems actually meaningless. He is now years dead, after being ousted and living out his life in exile in Saudi Arabia, and the anomic documentary oddly seems perfectly apropos of the man and the movement. One might say that General Idi Amin Dada: Autoportrait is, while not a great film, the first actually successful Dadaist work of art ever. Yet, I am more drawn to the first point, the Idiot And Mean riff, because, in watching this film, one must admit that, while the two words describe Amin to a proverbial T, the 92 minute long film shows that the word affable should also have been included.That's because Amin comes off as a very likable person, at least in his best moments, but like the girl with the curl in the middle of her forehead, when Amin was bad he was horrid, and the film gives glimpses of this, even though Amin does his best to destroy this. When the film premiered, it was actually taken as a comedy, and Amin was furious, and threatened to kill all French citizens living in Uganda unless Schroeder cut requested parts. Schroeder did, but restored the film once Amin went into exile. The whole project was apparently Amin's idea- a sort of vanity hagiography because he felt he was not respected in the West.In it, we see all sorts of nutty things, such as Amin's Anti-Semitism, his planned invasion of Israel, his delusions, his staging of events for the film, his love of The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion- the notorious Anti-Semitic fraud, and his alienation and manipulation of his countrymen, who clearly fear him, yet recognize him as a buffoon. Yet, we also see him kind to his 18 children, playing musical instruments, laughing with people as he dances at assorted towns, and exhorting his ministry cabinet to do things on their own accord. We also read bizarre telegrams he sent to many world leaders, and see him clearly lying about his exploits in World War two, when he never served in that conflict. He also claims mystic powers, such as a divination of the date and method of his death; but he never reveals it.But, that's about all the film offers. It is not artful, it is not deep, it is not well made, and Schroeder never prods Amin at any depth. Yet, somehow it's a good film, all on the back of Amin and his oddities. Néstor Almendros's cinematography is pedestrian, at best, and in one scene Amin actually commands him to shoot a shot of a helicopter coming in. In another he actually predicts a black U.S. President, almost three and a half decades before it happened, and in yet another scene he foresees the modern suicide bomber as a weapon of war, so, in a perverse way he was sort of prescient. General Idi Amin Dada: Autoportrait, in some ways, is a time capsule. For those of us growing up in the 1970s he was an almost weekly staple of the nightly news, for one outrageous stunt or another, as well as the fact that he engineered a genocide of nearly half a million people in a nation of only ten million, yet it somehow captures one, and sends one back in time, to relive it as if happening afresh. Schroeder deserves plaudits for the film for, despite Amin's thumb on it, and his own flaws, it does what all worthwhile documentaries does: it tells a story that could only be told once, for Amin was, despite claims to the contrary, one of a kind, and anything but your run of the mill despot. And, I say this only as a man never under his rule: in a strange way this film almost makes one miss the big thug.I wrote almost.

This documentary film is extraordinary in its own right. However, it is the interviews with director Babet Schroder (found on the DVD release of the film), specifically his retelling of the events around the time of the premiere of the movie in Paris, that propel this film to the level of incredible.Idi Amin's Autoportrait is most relevant today for its capacity to show an instance before more secretive, media-savvy dictators became the norm. Leaders today are of course still perfectly willing to say absurd things on film but, unlike that of Idi Amin's Autoportrait, today's spin is formidable. Key to this film's relevance is that one's imagination need not go far to consider what similarly candid documentaries of certain infamous dictators might look like if footage of them also escaped editing by political pressure. Following the premiere, this film was temporarily edited due to pressure from Idi Amin but thankfully was later restored to become an incisive portrait of the man. Such a portrait of any world leader would probably be quite difficult if not impossible today, making it a very relevant benchmark for those interested in how today's dictators interact (or don't) with media they don't fully control. Among other things, this film is especially of use for those interested in the extremes of state-society relations.

This film is a documentary/biography piece on Idi Amin Dada, and as such it's the story of an atrocious madman responsible for the murder of thousands.Be that as it may, if the film were fictional it would be brilliant. Scenes like the off-tune band playing in the background and labeled "revolutionary band" lest anyone confuse them with an establishment or reactionary band, or how Idi uses what looks like a second-hand news helicopter and a rag-tag company of infantry running about in a simulated attach of the Golan Heights are absolutely ridiculous. Lacking an aircraft to train his paratroopers, he simply makes them roll onto the ground from less than 1 m elevation. He goes on a 5 minute rant about how the fruit markets in Nigeria and Ghana are open at 5 AM while Uganda is falling behind. He has more medals on his uniform than there are gold coins left in the treasury when he's done "massaging" and "modernizing" the economy. Almost completely illiterate and certainly not lacking in spontaneity, I.A.D. was probably the biggest lunatic of the late 20th century.Only see this film if you've got the stomach for him -- few people do, and that's a good thing!

I recently watched Orson Welles‘ "Citizen Kane". And then it came to me: Barbet Schroeder's "autoportrait" - albeit a documentary about a real tyrant, and one of the bloodiest ever at that – is in important parts designed directly after the great masterwork of the 1940s. The impression of watching something staged that is apparently real, that's what is so fascinating about this movie.MINOR SPOILERS AHEADIt starts with a terrific close up of the portraited: Idi Amin Dada does not whisper "Rosebud". He just breathes heavily, shifting his eyes attentively from left to right and back – it's just as enigmatic. His Xanadu is a Wildlife Park with crocodiles, elephants and exotic birds, a rooftop swimming pool and rolling grassland, where he enacts the destruction of Israel - tanks, jet planes, helicopters and walky-talkies included. In short: The movie shows us Uganda as a boy's dream.There are no banquets with ice figurines, but there is a "non confidential" cabinet meeting, with rows of identical attaché cases neatly aligned on the long conference table. (You wonder: Were there really no props, no directions at all from the film crew?) There are no showgirls to fête Idi Amin, but the tyrant joins a traditional dance at a formal dinner party, stomping around and wielding a spear with apparent glee. There is no failed opera singer that has to be applauded into success, instead Idi Amin claps at a crocodile after having asked the film crew "shall I make it move"? The crocodile does not or cannot comply with Amin's orders - no one knows what happened to it afterwards.Like in Citizen Kane, dreams are forced to become true. In fact, they overtake reality – with all the horrible consequences this entails. Both movies are about characters with undeniable charisma who are powerful but for ever immature. One of them is fictional, the other is not. This does not really matter, it actually proves that certain behavior patterns are timeless and universal. They should be guarded closely in the presently globalized world.