Jaq's Review: Charlie Wilson's War - A Small Battle
by Jaq Greenspon
December 24, 2007
Why? Why is it that because we get Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts, the proverbial Hollywood Prom King and Queen, in a true story written for the screen by Tinseltown's chess club president Aaron Sorkin, do we think it must be socially important and award worthy? Add in perennial literati favorites director Mike Nichols and Philip Seymour Hoffman and the pedigree for Charlie Wilson's War is impeccable. You might as well send the Oscars now.
Charlie Wilson's War is an amazing story that makes a fine movie, but it could be so much more. Sorkin and Nichols never really get far into the head of Charlie Wilson (Hanks), who, in 1980 decided to try and help the Afghanis repel the Soviet invasion. The film opens with Wilson, a well known drunk and womanizing congressman from Texas, sitting in a hot tub with naked strippers and cocaine-using Hollywood producers. Within seconds of the film starting, however, we see Wilson diverting his attention to the TV and noticing the Afghan situation. Immediately he seems to be much more than he appears at first glance.
He heads back to Washington and doubles the CIA's budget for covert operations in Afghanistan. He is well aware of the situation, even before Joanne Herring (Roberts), the sixth richest woman in Texas, comes aboard and asks Charlie to see what he can do about helping those poor people out.
By this time, Charlie gets hooked in with Gust Avrakatos (Hoffman, who is making a wonderful career out of playing this type of character) and we are off and running. Between the three of them, they are able to negotiate unprecedented deals between the Israelis, Pakistanis and Egyptians, arm the rebels with what they need in order to shoot down the gunships and get congress to pony up a billion dollars to pay for it. What we never get, though, is why.
Charlie Wilson is a very shrewd politician. He explains he happens to come from a district where no one needs anything so he is able to vote yes and gather I.O.U.'s, but Sorkin never sufficiently explains why a hard partying guy is going to go to the mat for a group of refugees and freedom fighters beyond his one trip to see the refugee camps and the devastation perpetrated on the victims. If it were true that this is all it would take, that politicians just need to be shown the right thing to do - then there would be no situation in Darfur right now. There had to be more going on and it felt as if we, as an audience, were cheated out of some of that depth in favor of jingoistic flag waving. Only Avrakatos seems to be genuine when he responds to the question of why he got involved with the flippant response "I had nothing else to do." From the little we see, we can spot his sarcasm a mile away and we know he is lying. However, were he answering for Wilson, that would seem almost logical.
Like Schindler's List before it, Charlie Wilson's War places an ordinary man at the crossroads of history and we get the benefit of watching him make the right, humane choices. But unlike Spielberg's film, Nichols never bothers to explore the motivations, trusting that his audience will be so relieved to see someone in office doing something for the right reasons that they will forget dramatic thrust.
Don't get me wrong. What Charlie Wilson and his team did was amazing and verifiably changed the way the political climate was heading over the past twenty-five years, but to me, the story of why is just as important as the story of how. And Hanks could have pulled it off. He's getting better as he gets older. You could see him trying to find the underpinnings of subtext but there was very little for him to grab on to. Hoffman, as stated, owns the frumpy, not gonna play by your rules middle manager. The only weak link in the acting chain is Roberts, who still looks great, but feels out of her depth here.
Charlie Wilson's War is an important skirmish, but the battle for substance is still being fought.
I guess what Charlie did was pretty amazing, considering its unintended consequences. For his covert actions to help the Afgahnis led directly to 9/11 which gave the neo-conservatives all they needed to invade Iraq. The result is nearly 3000 American soldiers are dead, over 25,000 are wounded (with some so severely impaired that they will never function again in society), an unestimated number (some put it over 100,000) of innocent Iraqis are dead and Lord knows how many are wounded since we don't count them, and several million Iraqis are displaced. And lest we forget, the Afghanis were and, it appears will once again, be under the Taliban who replaced the Soviets. So, yes, Charlie launched a remarkable series of events. Perhaps the world would be a better place--and hundreds of thousands of people would still be alive or fully functioning physically--if he had just stayed in that hot tub. The good news is that it appears this tin-earred film is going to die a well deserved quick box office death, just like John Wayne's "Green Berets" that came and went quickly during the Viet Nam war.
Barry Simon on Dec 24, 2007
> What we never get, though, is why. I got the why. Wilson even spells it out when he is talking to Doc Long: "They are fighting our enemies for us", he says. And he seemed to be really moved by the suffering of the women and children he saw in the refugee camp in Peshawar. Wilson and Herring both felt that the Russians had an unfair advantage with their superiour fire power. They were in a position to correct this imbalance, so they did.
Elke Sisco on Dec 26, 2007
Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts are a classic combination... Charlie Wilson's War made me feel a little better about U.S. foreign intervention, it seemed to work out that time
patrick on Apr 23, 2008
I saw the movie first, on a whim, as the subject of who starts bush wars in the Third World is a long-standing interest of mine (I'm a Viet Nam vet). Very thought-provoking! However, I sensed that a lot of the story must have been left on the cutting-room floor or was omitted to target a more "general" audience (read "short attention span"). Turns out there was also a good deal of combining several real people into one or two on-screen characters. So I read the book. What a story! Reality really IS more compelling than the silver screen. It's a fair-sized book, but it reads quickly if the subject interests you. I would recommend seeing the flick first then read the book... slowly. You may want to re-read it soon after completing it, having missed some details the first time through. This is one of those films that truly complements the written word and makes the characters real for the reader. Charley is a much more complex character than portrayed in the two-hour movie. As a side issue, the book surfaces the whole business of what motivates politicians.
Maui Mike on Aug 4, 2009
New comments are no longer allowed on this post.