Charlie Wilson's War
At one time Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts were the reigning monarchs of the box office in Hollywood and any film they starred in would carry blockbuster status. Times have changed, and now a film like Charlie Wilson’s War receives a release without much fanfare. This is not due entirely to the waning status of Hanks and Roberts, but also because of the nature of the material. This is a sober political film that attempts to critically examine the role the US plays in conducting covert military operations in foreign lands. As the title suggests, it is a movie about the waging of war. In this instance it is the decade-long conflict in Afghanistan fought by local rebels against an invading Soviet force. However, the title is double-edged, and the use of the main character’s name is significant. This film is not just about how Charlie Wilson helped to fund the rebels and effectively blunt the Soviet attack, but it is also about the war waged by the man himself against bureaucracy and apathy to make this dream a reality. As a story about Wilson and his achievements, Charlie Wilson’s War is thoroughly entertaining. As an examination of the politics of interventionism, this film leaves a bitter after-taste by failing to deal with the issue head-on.
When we first meet Charlie Wilson (Tom Hanks) he is presented in all his flawed glory, nakedly lazing in a hot-tub with strippers, partaking in booze and drugs. He is an unconventional hero and an even more unlikely member of the US Congress. Joanne Herring (Julia Roberts), who shares a casual sexual relationship with the womanising Wilson, is less than perfect herself. A southern socialite, she has sway with a number of influential people (not least the President of Pakistan!) and has made it her personal mission to stymie the spread of communism. Yet Joanne has a predilection for righteousness and her invocation of Christian dogma in the name of good places her only one step removed from the worst kind of zealot. Then there's Gust Avrakotos (Philip Seymour Hoffman), the aggressive and argumentative spy who manages to rub everyone he meets the wrong way. Hoffman’s prominent paunch, bushy moustache, and sour demeanor importantly distinguishes Avrakotos from the James Bond type of secret agent. This is after all a true story and these character flaws are showcased to alert the audience to the fact that these are real people. That these real people accomplished remarkable achievements is the key to the appeal of Charlie Wilson’s War.
Charlie, Joanne and Gust form something of an unholy alliance: Charlie has the power and the influence, Joanne knows people in the right places, and Gust has the know-how and intelligence connections to match up money with weaponry. Somewhat humourously their first achievement is to establish another unholy alliance, this time between Israel, Pakistan, and Egypt. Part of the film’s appeal is its witty knowingness and exploitation of the lunacy of these real events. That Charlie could persuade Israel to funnel Soviet made weapons through Pakistan (who refuses to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist) is both a remarkable and highly comical achievement. This is the heart of the film's satire; a lighthearted exposé of the true manner by which political achievement is realised. The rich language and absurd situations highlight director Mike Nichol’s and writer Aaron Sorkin’s valiant aspiration to construct an intelligent and thought-provoking political satire. An early scene presents the mundane realities of political life with Wilson intervening in a municipal dispute relating to the placement of a nativity scene in front of local fire station. At this level the satire works. Wilson is hardly the typical politician; his flaws differentiate him initially, and his method is unconventional in the end. He is a smooth talker, but he is a better listener. It is his ability to patiently pay attention and weigh up a situation and then exploit his own privileged position in Congress that is the secret to his success.
If the local satire of politicians and their ways is the film’s major achievement, then the manner by which it fails to address the larger global implication of Wilson’s activities is the movie’s great flaw. It is an unevenness of tone which ultimately scuttles Charlie Wilson’s War. This patchiness is best reflected in the performance of Philip Seymour Hoffman, which is rich and entertaining, but also skates too close to caricature. This is a satire that wants to have its cake and then eat it too. The characters' flaws are too superficial; they are not really bad people as such, they just do the occasional bad thing. The motivation of Charlie and Gust is never really explored and as a result they are represented as inherently virtuous. The covert operation in Afghanistan is not sufficiently questioned from a moral position; in fact it is tacitly endorsed through the comic book representation of Russian gunship pilots as brutal murderers of Afghani women and children. These shallow scenes of over-blown malice could be dismissed as farce, but they are coupled with more affecting documentary-like scenes of Afghani refugees who have suffered the ravages of these attacks. Here again the unevenness of tone sends conflicting messages.
The final moments of Charlie Wilson’s War attend to some of the questions that the film raises. There is a clear irony when Charlie petitions unsuccessfully to raise one million dollars to rebuild Afghani schools, having successfully already raised an annual budget of one billion dollars to help the rebels fight the war that flattened those same schools. At this point the viewer might wish that this irony had been present throughout the entire length of the film. It is a shame too because Charlie Wilson’s War is an intelligent and sophisticated film that doesn’t talk down to its audience. The language is rich and the issues are complex. However, the film is wishy-washy when it comes to making a salient point about the role the US plays in foreign affairs, particularly with regard to covert operations. One wonders how the material would have played in the hands of a more radical filmmaker like Oliver Stone whose Salvador explored the topic with a good deal more critical fervour.
When we first meet Charlie Wilson (Tom Hanks) he is presented in all his flawed glory, nakedly lazing in a hot-tub with strippers, partaking in booze and drugs. He is an unconventional hero and an even more unlikely member of the US Congress. Joanne Herring (Julia Roberts), who shares a casual sexual relationship with the womanising Wilson, is less than perfect herself. A southern socialite, she has sway with a number of influential people (not least the President of Pakistan!) and has made it her personal mission to stymie the spread of communism. Yet Joanne has a predilection for righteousness and her invocation of Christian dogma in the name of good places her only one step removed from the worst kind of zealot. Then there's Gust Avrakotos (Philip Seymour Hoffman), the aggressive and argumentative spy who manages to rub everyone he meets the wrong way. Hoffman’s prominent paunch, bushy moustache, and sour demeanor importantly distinguishes Avrakotos from the James Bond type of secret agent. This is after all a true story and these character flaws are showcased to alert the audience to the fact that these are real people. That these real people accomplished remarkable achievements is the key to the appeal of Charlie Wilson’s War.
Babes - Charlie's Angels
Charlie, Joanne and Gust form something of an unholy alliance: Charlie has the power and the influence, Joanne knows people in the right places, and Gust has the know-how and intelligence connections to match up money with weaponry. Somewhat humourously their first achievement is to establish another unholy alliance, this time between Israel, Pakistan, and Egypt. Part of the film’s appeal is its witty knowingness and exploitation of the lunacy of these real events. That Charlie could persuade Israel to funnel Soviet made weapons through Pakistan (who refuses to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist) is both a remarkable and highly comical achievement. This is the heart of the film's satire; a lighthearted exposé of the true manner by which political achievement is realised. The rich language and absurd situations highlight director Mike Nichol’s and writer Aaron Sorkin’s valiant aspiration to construct an intelligent and thought-provoking political satire. An early scene presents the mundane realities of political life with Wilson intervening in a municipal dispute relating to the placement of a nativity scene in front of local fire station. At this level the satire works. Wilson is hardly the typical politician; his flaws differentiate him initially, and his method is unconventional in the end. He is a smooth talker, but he is a better listener. It is his ability to patiently pay attention and weigh up a situation and then exploit his own privileged position in Congress that is the secret to his success.
Hanks
If the local satire of politicians and their ways is the film’s major achievement, then the manner by which it fails to address the larger global implication of Wilson’s activities is the movie’s great flaw. It is an unevenness of tone which ultimately scuttles Charlie Wilson’s War. This patchiness is best reflected in the performance of Philip Seymour Hoffman, which is rich and entertaining, but also skates too close to caricature. This is a satire that wants to have its cake and then eat it too. The characters' flaws are too superficial; they are not really bad people as such, they just do the occasional bad thing. The motivation of Charlie and Gust is never really explored and as a result they are represented as inherently virtuous. The covert operation in Afghanistan is not sufficiently questioned from a moral position; in fact it is tacitly endorsed through the comic book representation of Russian gunship pilots as brutal murderers of Afghani women and children. These shallow scenes of over-blown malice could be dismissed as farce, but they are coupled with more affecting documentary-like scenes of Afghani refugees who have suffered the ravages of these attacks. Here again the unevenness of tone sends conflicting messages.
The final moments of Charlie Wilson’s War attend to some of the questions that the film raises. There is a clear irony when Charlie petitions unsuccessfully to raise one million dollars to rebuild Afghani schools, having successfully already raised an annual budget of one billion dollars to help the rebels fight the war that flattened those same schools. At this point the viewer might wish that this irony had been present throughout the entire length of the film. It is a shame too because Charlie Wilson’s War is an intelligent and sophisticated film that doesn’t talk down to its audience. The language is rich and the issues are complex. However, the film is wishy-washy when it comes to making a salient point about the role the US plays in foreign affairs, particularly with regard to covert operations. One wonders how the material would have played in the hands of a more radical filmmaker like Oliver Stone whose Salvador explored the topic with a good deal more critical fervour.
