Constant Viewer: Charlie Wilson’s War
D.A. Ridgely on Dec 23rd 2007
It’s hard to go wrong with a cast including Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts and Philip Seymour Hoffman, but if you decided whether to see Charlie Wilson’s War based on nothing but the trailer you might well give it a pass. Don’t.
In the first place, Constant Viewer can’t remember a major Hollywood movie that nailed Washington politics and policy making as well as this film does. Political science students should consider it required viewing. Secondly, while the trailer suggests that Hanks’ Charlie Wilson is little more than a buffoon, the character actually portrayed in the film is a clever, careful and conscientious man. Thirdly, Philip Seymour Hoffman is simply splendid, as usual. Finally, Julia Roberts manages to stretch her range and play a rich, glamorous woman. Okay, so maybe there are only three good reasons.
CV can’t tell whether the cautionary ending was the work of author George Crile, screenwriter Aaron Sorkin or director Mike Nichols but, like the trailer, it was a mistake. Yes, America botched the end of the Cold War and, yes, many of our current problems are at least partially the result of that nearsightedness. But hindsight is always easier than foresight, isn’t it? Besides, there is no guarantee that the world or the U.S. would be a safer place today had we acted differently. Even so, Charlie Wilson’s War is highly entertaining, far more sophisticated than its trailer suggests and even, in its own modest way, educational. Well worth a trip to the cineplex.
Filed in The Bijou
If our current problems and nearsightedness refers to who received the weapons getting into Afghanistan supplied by the United States or with the United States’ encouragement then there were people who saw a problem with that long before the Soviet Union withdrew and in plenty of time to at least try to reduce that risk. As far as I know, no meaningful attempt to limit the weapons recipients to those who were not untrustworthy religious fanatics was made. Of course, there is no guarantee what impact such a policy change would have made, but that by itself is not a good excuse since that is nothing less than a catch-all excuse for always disregarding future impacts. If that catch-all excuse is what you got out of the movie then I am not so sure how educational it really can be.
I can’t stand Tom Hanks or Julia Roberts, and I don’t like Aaron Sorkin’s work. Judging from the trailers that are running, I dismissed this movie right off the bat as bullshit Oscar Bait.
I have to admit, though, you’ve got me curious. I think I might have to check this one out now.
Also, I think this may be the first time I’ve commented on one of your CV reviews. Despite that fact, I absolutely love them. Please don’t stop. I’d really miss them if you did.
Explicit Atheist:
The educational aspect of the film is its accurate portrayal of Washington politics and policy making, not lessons one way or the other regarding the wisdom or efficacy of those policies.
Mr. Berez:
Thanks for the kind words. I do like Hanks very much — he’s the Jimmy Stewart of our generation — and I think Roberts at her best (e.g., Notting Hill) has done very good work. Charlie Wilson’s War is “Oscar Bait” (nice phrase, btw; CV intends to steal it!) but it is still much better than its trailer would lead one to believe.
[...] A movie review for the holidays. [...]
[...] I wasn’t going to avoid Charlie Wilson’s war, but his review makes me want to see it all the more. I also appreciate his dead on cautionary note on the ending. D. A. is quite comfortable with the ambiguous and uncertain nature of our world, including the past, a trait in foreign policy discussions which is quite rare and much needed in this time. Unfortunately, such admitted lack of certainty pays little dividends in gaining adherents. Thus the rise of the neo-cons, and their alter ego’s, who preach a certainty and confidence in their views which attracts to our great loss. It also means there is little market for such commentary, and probably one of the reasons he spends comparatively little time entering the fray. [...]