So, I finally saw it on DVD. Who else did? Whadya think?
Charlie Wilson's War
- Thread starter Temis the Vorta
- Start date
Bigoted horse shit. Just for one thing, if the US could waste money and lives in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq without toppling, the USSR could waste less money and fewer lives in just one losing war without toppling.
The Julia Roberts line to the Wilson character about how he wasn't a liberal where it counts while patting his ass exposes the vacant stupidity of it all. It's dumbass because Wilson's ass had nothing to do with his lack of "liberalism." More important, no liberal is "liberal" where it counts. No liberal has been soft on communism since the purge of Henry Wallace.
The Julia Roberts line to the Wilson character about how he wasn't a liberal where it counts while patting his ass exposes the vacant stupidity of it all. It's dumbass because Wilson's ass had nothing to do with his lack of "liberalism." More important, no liberal is "liberal" where it counts. No liberal has been soft on communism since the purge of Henry Wallace.
You guys don't head into TNZ much I gather? 
For me, the film felt a bit too light... but, I guess Sorkin couldn't get too esoteric on film. Maybe Studio 60 scared him off.
One shot that stood out for me was Nichols' weird shot of the assistant walking down the hall. It starts on her legs and then pans up to her ass and then lets her walk off for a bit before following her. I have no idea why that shot was there and it was pretty uncomfortable to watch, given the whole "male gaze" thing. I mean, it may have made sense earlier when Wilson was basically checking out every girl around him... but to get a message that some choppers were shot down? Seems out of place.
The "we fucked up the end game" tag was nice, I suppose. At least it reminds people why the world is the way it is and, at the very least, will shut up people who just want to leave Afghanistan.
For me, the film felt a bit too light... but, I guess Sorkin couldn't get too esoteric on film. Maybe Studio 60 scared him off.
One shot that stood out for me was Nichols' weird shot of the assistant walking down the hall. It starts on her legs and then pans up to her ass and then lets her walk off for a bit before following her. I have no idea why that shot was there and it was pretty uncomfortable to watch, given the whole "male gaze" thing. I mean, it may have made sense earlier when Wilson was basically checking out every girl around him... but to get a message that some choppers were shot down? Seems out of place.
The "we fucked up the end game" tag was nice, I suppose. At least it reminds people why the world is the way it is and, at the very least, will shut up people who just want to leave Afghanistan.
Well this thread is off to a rollicking start. 
I loved this movie, overall. Great performances by Hanks, Roberts and especially everyone's favorite scene stealer, Phillip Seymour Hoffman (I'd have given him the Oscar that Javier Bardem got). I don't know what the proportion of truth to invention is here, but the story has all the complexity and irony of real life, which gives it the ring of truth.
Favorite scene: Hanks in his office with his harem of assistants, trying to keep Rudy Guiliani's morality police at bay while he meets with Hoffman, who hands him a bottle of whiskey and then procedes to tell him its bugged. Not standard CIA procedure, I'd assume. That scene honestly reminded me of some of the great old screwball comedies - a rare example of that style being attempted successfully today.
This movie conforms to one of my suspicions about the way things work, that it's not just some grand conspiracy by oil companies or what have you, but a lot of the reason things happen is based on the individual personalities, prejudices, hobby horses and arbitrariness of actual human beings, who - if they have enough power - can shape the direction of history in unpredictable ways that pundits later come along and try to make sense of, regardless of whether their neat little boxes have any relationship to reality.
This movie doesn't fall into that trap. It depicts historical events as what they so often are: a combination of self-interest and good intentions that never have the results anyone involved expects. Very mature storytelling. This theme is underscored (actually far too directly for my tastes) by Hoffman's little fable about the Zen master. By then I had sort of got the message, but I guess director Mike Nichols didn't want to leave anything to chance.
I wasn't quite convinced that Wilson turned out to be the lone voice in the wilderness worrying about the impact of not funding Afghan schools and keeping the nutjobs out of Kabul...I can remember current events circa the late 1980s and while there was little worry about the nutjobs of Afghanistan, there was a lot of very justifiable worry about what the Russians might do with their nukes in their crumbling empire. Back then, there were a lot of nutjobs to worry about, all over the world (still are). Shouldn't the ones with the big-ass nuclear arsenal get the most attention?
What I'm saying is hindsight is 20/20. If Wilson just wanted money for schools because he cared about the Afghan children (and humanitarianism did seem to be a big motivating factor), then okay. But Nichols seemed to be implying that Wilson was more prescient than that, without providing evidence that Wilson realized the Taliban posed a serious threat to America, morseo than all the other nutjobs he could have pointed a finger at, while everyone else's attention was occupied by other serious threats, which may or may not have materialized, but would have diverted a lot of effort and attention nonetheless.
I guess I should go read the book on which this movie was based. I'm curious now that Wilson was such a genius he saw what everyone else missed. I'm not convinced there was enough evidence at the time to make it anything more of a lucky guess. Why couldn't the next big threat to America have come from, say, Angola? Paraguay? Honduras? I'm just typing names at random, but what evidence did anyone have to make a better bet?
I loved this movie, overall. Great performances by Hanks, Roberts and especially everyone's favorite scene stealer, Phillip Seymour Hoffman (I'd have given him the Oscar that Javier Bardem got). I don't know what the proportion of truth to invention is here, but the story has all the complexity and irony of real life, which gives it the ring of truth.
Favorite scene: Hanks in his office with his harem of assistants, trying to keep Rudy Guiliani's morality police at bay while he meets with Hoffman, who hands him a bottle of whiskey and then procedes to tell him its bugged. Not standard CIA procedure, I'd assume. That scene honestly reminded me of some of the great old screwball comedies - a rare example of that style being attempted successfully today.
This movie conforms to one of my suspicions about the way things work, that it's not just some grand conspiracy by oil companies or what have you, but a lot of the reason things happen is based on the individual personalities, prejudices, hobby horses and arbitrariness of actual human beings, who - if they have enough power - can shape the direction of history in unpredictable ways that pundits later come along and try to make sense of, regardless of whether their neat little boxes have any relationship to reality.
This movie doesn't fall into that trap. It depicts historical events as what they so often are: a combination of self-interest and good intentions that never have the results anyone involved expects. Very mature storytelling. This theme is underscored (actually far too directly for my tastes) by Hoffman's little fable about the Zen master. By then I had sort of got the message, but I guess director Mike Nichols didn't want to leave anything to chance.
I wasn't quite convinced that Wilson turned out to be the lone voice in the wilderness worrying about the impact of not funding Afghan schools and keeping the nutjobs out of Kabul...I can remember current events circa the late 1980s and while there was little worry about the nutjobs of Afghanistan, there was a lot of very justifiable worry about what the Russians might do with their nukes in their crumbling empire. Back then, there were a lot of nutjobs to worry about, all over the world (still are). Shouldn't the ones with the big-ass nuclear arsenal get the most attention?
What I'm saying is hindsight is 20/20. If Wilson just wanted money for schools because he cared about the Afghan children (and humanitarianism did seem to be a big motivating factor), then okay. But Nichols seemed to be implying that Wilson was more prescient than that, without providing evidence that Wilson realized the Taliban posed a serious threat to America, morseo than all the other nutjobs he could have pointed a finger at, while everyone else's attention was occupied by other serious threats, which may or may not have materialized, but would have diverted a lot of effort and attention nonetheless.
...scary...scary...scary...
See, that's the part I didn't buy. Was Wilson, who was just some guy from Texas, really so prescient that he realized Afghanistan was an important part of the geopolitical stage? Was he thinking of this as a "game" that even had an "end"? Or did he just see a pathetic third-world country that needed some help, that he had taken a particular interest in because some right-wing chick with crazy hair he was boffing was interested in it, for God only know what reason, and he was pissed off he couldn't get it, because after all, he didn't ask for much?
I guess I should go read the book on which this movie was based. I'm curious now that Wilson was such a genius he saw what everyone else missed. I'm not convinced there was enough evidence at the time to make it anything more of a lucky guess. Why couldn't the next big threat to America have come from, say, Angola? Paraguay? Honduras? I'm just typing names at random, but what evidence did anyone have to make a better bet?
Last edited:
Well, the movie suggests that it was the CIA guy who knew what would happen and he convinced Wilson that they needed to stay. A congressman might not have a grasp of geopolitics, but I would think a company analyst would have a good idea... especially since the CIA invented the term "blowback".
You guys don't head into TNZ much I gather?
Maybe you just miss me there. That reply still doesn't make any sense to me, even on a TNZ level.
I thought the film had some good performances but was heavy-handed and simplistic. It felt rushed and undeveloped in some parts, and yet dragged on in others. Hoffman was great but Roberts was unbelievable and her character poorly written.
I wish we had more of the end of the story---what did the end results have on Charlie Wilson himself? How had he changed? What else did he and the CIA guy do with their lives? The entire film felt like a set up to a much better picture that we never got to see.
On the whole, I think it was just average. I've seen other pictures tell similar stories, but they did it more effectively and were far more moving.
I wish we had more of the end of the story---what did the end results have on Charlie Wilson himself? How had he changed? What else did he and the CIA guy do with their lives? The entire film felt like a set up to a much better picture that we never got to see.
On the whole, I think it was just average. I've seen other pictures tell similar stories, but they did it more effectively and were far more moving.
Well, there are two main things that interest Sorkin. Procedure and "brotherhood"/friendship through work. You can see it from the beginning with A Few Good Men to The American President, Sports Night, The West Wing, Studio 60, The Farnsworth Invention and this. So, I think he was just interested in telling the politics of getting the US to help support the Taliban against the Russians more than in the consequences. In fact, he would probably say the end title card tells you everything you need to know about what happens afterwards.
For a better idea of how the movie was, read the book.
Excellant book that really delves into the wackiness of the whole episode. The movie just skims along the top. But if you enjoyed the movie then you really should try the book.
Excellant book that really delves into the wackiness of the whole episode. The movie just skims along the top. But if you enjoyed the movie then you really should try the book.
That's just what I suspected...
