by Max Koh
28 Feb 2008
Title:
Charlie Wilson's War
Cast:
Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams, Ned Beatty, Emily Blunt, Om Puri and Ken Stott
Genre:
Drama, Comedy
Review:
What do a womanising congressman, God-fearing Southern socialite and renegade CIA agent have in common?
How about staging the most successful covert operation in history. An unlikely scenario?
Well, ‘Charlie Wilson's War’ is based on a true story that brought these three very different personalities together to help bring down the Soviet Union and end the Cold War in the 1980s.
Tom Hanks brings the titular character to life. Charlie Wilson is a Texan playboy congressman who is infamous for his promiscuous ways and famously called "Good Time Charlie". Beneath that façade, however, is an as astute politician with a deep sense of patriotism and a compassion for lost causes in the world.
The film begins in Las Vegas as Charlie is sharing a bathtub with pretty women. A television news report on the Mujahideen freedom fighters in Afghanistan comes on (by the legendary news anchor Dan Rather, no less) and soon captivates Charlie's attention.
The Red Armies are invading Afghanistan. Like animals, they are slaughtered without mercy and chased to neighboring countries like Pakistan.
The feeble weapons of the Mujahideen are no match for the high-tech Soviet planes and choppers. What they need are hi-tech weapons to combat the Red Armies.
What he witnessed there is enough to spur Charlie to accomplish the impossible: secure funds and weapons for the Mujahideen to combat the invading Communist forces.
Helping him out is CIA agent Gust Avrakotos (Hoffman); a no-nonsense operative who is often dismissed by his bosses in the agency.
Together, the trio form an unlikely alliance with Pakistanis, Israelis, Egyptians, lawmakers and a belly dancer to organise the largest (and most improbable) covert operation in history against a
common enemy: the Red Commies.
Their success was remarkable. Over the nine-year course of the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, United States funding for the covert operation went from US$5 million to US$1 billion annually. Subsequently, the Red Army retreated from Afghanistan.
Based on the best-selling novel of the same name by George Crile, the film manages a fine balance between politics and humor. Hanks and Hoffman (both Academy luminaries) make a formidable team onscreen. Their comedic timing is spot-on and their chemistry is magic. You will have your eyes riveted on their performance especially in the first scene they were together. That alone is worth the price of the ticket.
Hanks is amazing as the flawed but likeable Congressman. But Hoffman deserves accolades for transmitting the ghost of the character through his performance. No surprise that he won an Academy for his performance in ‘Capote’ a few years back. Here, he is a far cry from the shy, shaky character that is Truman Capote. He was nominated for an Academy this year again but lost the prize to Javier Bardem who plays a serial killer in ‘No Country For Old Men’.
’Charlie Wilson's War’ also marks the first collaboration between Hanks and Roberts (believe it or not). Roberts appears much older in this film than we are used to but otherwise does a satisfying job as the God-fearing, Communist-hating, rich Houston socialite.
For a political film, ‘Charlie Wilson's War’ is surprisingly funny. The film is cleverly written (kudos to the screenplay writers) and has some of the wittiest lines you'll ever find in a political film. Expect to be engaged from start to finish and get an interesting insight on how politics in the mid-eighties contributed to the political realities in America and the Middle East today.
Charlie Wilson best sums it up at the end: "These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world ... and then we f**ked up the endgame." Sound familiar?
One scene was rather poignant. After winning the covert operation, Charlie tries to get the Congress to approve a US$5 million fund to build a school in Afghan but to no avail.
The government was willing to inject US$1 billion to fight their war but not a few million to build a school. Afghanistan is left to pick up the pieces while the US washes its hands clean of any responsibility. Today, US forces appears to have no exit strategy for Iraq, as yet again another country is left in shambles ... but I digress.
The film has also received criticism for insinuating that the CIA-led operation funded Osama bin Laden and ultimately produced the 9/11 attack.
The film has also received criticism for insinuating that the CIA-led operation funded Osama bin Laden and ultimately produced the 9/11 attack.
George Crile clarifies: "By the end of 1993, in Afghanistan itself there were no roads, no schools, just a destroyed country -- and the United States was washing its hands of any responsibility. It was in this vacuum that the Taliban and Osama bin Laden would emerge as the dominant players. It is ironic that a man who had had almost nothing to do with the victory over the Red Army, Osama bin Laden, would come to personify the power of the jihad. In 1998, when bin Laden survived US$100 million worth of cruise missiles targeted at him, it reinforced the belief that Allah had chosen to protect him."
Hmm… food for thought indeed. But who am I kidding? Isn't it just a film after all? Let us fix our attention on another more pressing issue like, which movie really deserved the Oscar for Best Picture: ‘There Will Be Blood’ or ‘Country For Old Men’? Hmm…
