After watching Theatre of Violence during a school-mandated viewing, I got into an argument with a classmate over whether or not it's subject truly received justice. A man who almost certainly commited the most hanious crimes possible- and yet there is a strong debate on how to administer punishment.
As I stated in the title, the documentary often felt like a court drama, and its beautiful (probably) anamorphic cinematography lends well to its credit in that regard. Of course visuals are nothing without a coherent narrative, and one is provided efficiently but with a touch of dark thematic depth beyond the descriptions of the crimes themselves.
While watching, you get the sense that many of the interviewees, both europian and ugandian, have skewed perceptions of the situation.
To me this is the most interesting element of the documentary and the reason it had a reason to be made at all, I only wish they had leaned into it harder. The political subtext of a ugandian mass murderer being tried and convicted in Europe is frustrately ironic. Yet at the same time paradoxically the only way something close to justice can be served given the sociopolitical circumstances of Uganda. The European vs African views of the situation is what in my opinion gives the documentary philosophical texture and conflict. It is also what started the argument I referred to in the beginning of this review.
To be clear, there is no sympathy to be drawn from the subject. He is a serial violator of human rights and many have suffered or died because of him. However, I don't view the essential question of the documentary as *What* to do with him, but *Who* does it to him, and the presidents that could set.
As I stated in the title, the documentary often felt like a court drama, and its beautiful (probably) anamorphic cinematography lends well to its credit in that regard. Of course visuals are nothing without a coherent narrative, and one is provided efficiently but with a touch of dark thematic depth beyond the descriptions of the crimes themselves.
While watching, you get the sense that many of the interviewees, both europian and ugandian, have skewed perceptions of the situation.
To me this is the most interesting element of the documentary and the reason it had a reason to be made at all, I only wish they had leaned into it harder. The political subtext of a ugandian mass murderer being tried and convicted in Europe is frustrately ironic. Yet at the same time paradoxically the only way something close to justice can be served given the sociopolitical circumstances of Uganda. The European vs African views of the situation is what in my opinion gives the documentary philosophical texture and conflict. It is also what started the argument I referred to in the beginning of this review.
To be clear, there is no sympathy to be drawn from the subject. He is a serial violator of human rights and many have suffered or died because of him. However, I don't view the essential question of the documentary as *What* to do with him, but *Who* does it to him, and the presidents that could set.
