Charlie Wilson's War

This film presents the more or less true story of the US congressman who, almost single-handedly, increased the covert ops budget for supporting the Afghans fight against the Soviets from $5 million to $500 million, in so doing winning the war and helping to lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union. The talent on display is impressive - its directed by Mike Nichols (The Graduate, Catch 22, Working Girl, etc...), scripted by Aaron Sorkin (the early seasons of The West Wing) and stars Tom Hanks as Wilson, Julia Roberts as the wealthy Texas lady who inspires him and Philip Seymour Hoffman as the less than diplomatic CIA agent.

And the results? Well, they're almost as good as you might hope - the casting is pitch perfect. Hanks is a delight to watch playing against type as the boozy, womanising congressman and Hoffman is hilarious. Roberts is slightly less used, but makes her scenes really sparkle. The supporting cast (a rather dodgy Israeli accent from Ken Stott aside) is equally strong, including good turns from Enchanted's Amy Adams and veteran Ned Beatty, although Emily Blunt (The Devil wears Prada) is rather wasted in a brief cameo as one of Wilson's women.

As you might expect from Sorkin, the script fairly zings - especially when one or more of three leads are on screen. With The West Wing he showed that he could skillfully write scripts which shifted from humour to genuine emotion and back again. Nichols CV also displays an ability to shift between comedy and drama with ease and the same skill is on display here - moving from witty exchanges to genuine pathos as Wilson visits the refugee camp. The shot where the camera pans back from a distraught Wilson on the edge of the camp to show the vastness of the refugee problem hits hard.

Which makes it all the more incredible that on occasion these changes in tone jar rather hard. The celebratory tone of the montage showing helicopters and planes destroyed is, in particular, rather hard to stomach. I rather suspect this in intentional - because, whilst on one level, this story works as a good ol' American boy refusing to bow to bureaucracy and solving the world's ills by throwing guns at them, both the film and Wilson himself are smarter than that. They know that that's only half the story, and is in itself, symptomatic of an attitude in American foreign policy which creates these situations. So intentional, but not entirely successful.

Which brings us onto the ending - which critics seem to have seen as either one of the film's greatest strength or biggest weakness. I would place myself firmly in the former and would ask those who see it as too overtly liberal how else the movie could have ended. Knowing what we know now - a film about the Afghan war cannot end triumphantly with the defeat of the Soviets - that just won't wash and Wilson himself knows this. (I would also further suggest that the reviewer who described the ending as schmaltzy has completely mis-read the tone of the whole film - I mean, what was she watching?). Instead we are left with the haunted image of Hanks' face - displaying too clearly that he knows the job has been left half done in not helping to re-construct the country. Its one of the film's enduring images and its ultimate point as the final quote in the closing credits from Wilson shows:

"These things happened, they were great and changed the world ... and then we ------ up the end-game".

Overall - 4/5.
A slightly flawed but well done, intelligent and highly entertaining look at some of the origins of some of the problems we face today.




Afghanistan - a movie guide.
Watch this together with The Kite Runner and then rent the excellent 9th Company on DVD for a Russian perspective. Also, you might want to check out some of the growing number of critically acclaimed films from Afghanistan itself, but I can't think of any titles off the top of my head.