 |
Charlie
Wilson’s War represents a rare find in the current Cinema
Market: a motion picture about politics that doesn’t try to push
an agenda of its own. From Rendition to Lions for
Lambs to Redacted, Liberal Hollywood released
countless anti-Bush commentaries this year, none of which were
successful at the Box Office. The American Public proved, nearly
time after time, that it didn’t want to be lectured on political
matters by an unknowing elite. Still, the political process
became as divisive as ever in the United States, with early
Presidential Campaigns that tried to be as separate from one
other as possible popping up left and right. American Society
still clearly shows an appetite to be educated in historical and
political issues, which is why Charlie Wilson’s War is
destined to find success. The movie doesn’t tell the viewer how
to feel about its real-life characters or issues, it just
provides an evenhanded depiction of them that simultaneously
entertains and informs. Adults in search of “serious” fare at
the Movies need look no further than this film.
That Charlie
Wilson’s War is so objective and so unlike its fellow
politically-themed Hollywood-productions is rather surprising
given the opinionated minds behind it. First and foremost,
screenwriter Aaron Sorkin is one of Hollywood’s most prominent,
card-carrying liberals. This, of course, has been evidenced in
his scripts for the Rob Reiner pictures A Few Good Men
and The American President. (Rumor has it that the nature
of Sorkin’s work was toned-down for the final cut of Charlie
Wilson’s War, but I can’t imagine that it contained the
vehement bias of his previous political projects even in its
original form.) Also, director Mike Nichols has always leaned
happily to the Left and represented this through his
career-choices, either overtly (particularly in his Bill
Clinton-based Primary Colors) or merely by pushing the
envelope (as he did with his controversial Who’s Afraid of
Virginia Woolf? and The Graduate).
That Sorkin and
Nichols were able to collaborate and create a work more mature
than the slanted one that many might have expected from the pair
is a refreshing reminder of what Hollywood filmmakers are
capable of when they are clear-headed. That being said,
Charlie Wilson’s War is no masterpiece. While it may stand
as an interesting, thought-provoking work featuring some great
performances, the movie isn’t tremendously emotionally-affecting
or complex. The material that it tackles is a bit too low-key to
lead to a work of great significance. Tom Hanks plays
title-figure Charlie Wilson, a Texas congressman who, through a
variety of channels, became one of the few American
Representatives who understood the dire effects of the Soviet
Union’s invasion of Afghanistan late in the Cold War. Wilson
made it his duty to see that legislation providing the Afghans
with adequate weaponry to fight the Soviets was passed. In
Charlie’s decisions, the viewer instantly draws parallels to
those currently being made by leaders in regards to the Middle
East, which is obviously as much an issue now as it was then.
As grand (or
ill-fated, depending on how one looks at them) as Charlie
Wilson’s accomplishments in Congress may have been, Nichols’
film is as much about Wilson himself as it is about
international politics. This narrative-choice is simultaneously
the movie’s biggest downfall and most interesting achievement.
Nichols and Sorkin delve greatly into Charlie’s personal life,
making sure to depict him as something of a political playboy.
Charlie had his office run almost entirely by attractive woman
(his second-in-command is here played by the gorgeous Amy
Adams), he drank whiskey excessively, and he partied (and was
accused of doing cocaine) with strippers and nudie-magazine
models. Often, this focus dilutes the considerable historical
punch that Charlie Wilson’s War packs. At the same time,
it does allow Charlie to become a well-developed character
rather than a trivial one, and gives Hanks quite a bit of
creative freedom to explore the man’s boisterous personality.
The fact that such a crude and carefree figure could devote so
much of his attention to a foreign political-issue is rather
fascinating.
Speaking of
Hanks: he’s excellent here. The actor’s laid-back presence as a
leading-man does justice to Wilson’s charismatic (if often
politically-questioned) exterior. And his tremendous work only
headlines the also-fantastic efforts of the rest of the cast!
Julia Roberts turns in her best acting work in some time as
Texas businesswoman Joanne Herring, who originally pushes Wilson
to become the vocal advocate of the militarization of
Afghanistan that he does. As a CIA operative who helps Wilson in
the acquisition of weapons-contracts with foreign powers, Philip
Seymour Hoffman is extraordinary. He perfectly balances
comic-relief and character-conviction to craft a show-stealing
performance. Additionally, the aforementioned Amy Adams is quite
charming in her bit-part.
For a piece of
filmmaking that is both thoughtful and entertaining, moviegoers
can’t do much better this Christmas Holiday than Charlie
Wilson’s War. Even if it isn’t significant or
ground-breaking enough to qualify as a truly great piece of
filmmaking, the movie is well worth seeing. Let’s hope that it
finds an audience and that this allows the rest of Hollywood to
take a hint that politically-themed projects don’t always have
to be radical to prove a point.
-Danny Baldwin,
Bucket Reviews
Review Published
on: 12.24.2007
Screened on:
12.24.2007 at the Edwards San Marcos 18 in San Marcos, CA.
Charlie Wilson's War is rated R and
runs 97 minutes.
Back to Home
