Charlie Wilson's War

Charlie Wilson's War has a little bit of something for everyone: It's a history lesson, a cautionary tale, a study in realpolitik, a war movie, a buddy movie; it's funny, smart, relevant, well-performed, well-cast; it has big stars, crisp writing, and plenty of T&A. And best of all, Julia Roberts is not in it that much. (oooh, disss!). Needless to say, my Top Ten list didn't last very long -- I'll be moving Charlie to number 3.

The story is simple: In 1980, a free-wheeling, womanizing, but extremely beneficent Congressman named Charlie Wilson (Tom Hanks) gets a call from a the 6th richest lady in Texas, Joanne Herring (Julia Roberts), who informs him of the growing refugee problem in Pakistan as a result of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. She sets up a meeting for him with the president of Pakistan, who reprimands him about the inaction of the U.S. and tells him to visit the border to see the misery for himself. What he sees stirs him to action -- he immediately starts plotting with disgruntled CIA agent, Gust Avrakatos (Philip Seymour Hoffman), and Wilson's team of super-hot and extremely competent staffers (led by Amy Adams) to try to get money appropriated (without anyone noticing) to fund the delivery of weapons to Afghani fighters through a joint effort with Israel, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.

This movie is about serious topics, but make no mistake, it's a comedy. Hoffman and Hanks are pros at delivering smart jokes, and both are very sharp. The writing is brisk and intelligent, as is the norm when Aaron Sorkin's penning the script (the crack must be working, Aaron!). I only have two criticisms: (1) Perhaps Charlie Wilson is not a round enough character. He has vices, but they're superficial (drinking, drugs and women). He's respectful to all, never abusive, good-willed, smart, reasonable, principled and well-liked. Some actual flaws in the form of doubt or creepier philandering may have pushed the movie up to #1, but as is, the movie is paying tribute to the man (it's based on a true story, after all). The one upside to the adoration is that it helped the film to avoid being a hackneyed Traffic/Crash/Babel exploration of the differing viewpoints of the Afghanistan War. It is definitely a one-man show. (2) However, as a result, it has kind of a documentary feel to it, and therefore lacks a climax. There is no villain (save the Russians, in the abstract) or major obstructors to Charlie's plans. The movie is conversational, not plot-driven, so when the news reports tell us the war is over, we wonder how the movie will end in a satisfying way. It ends simply with a caution by Hoffman's character about what is to come, and admonition that despite the celebration, the job's not done. [I did not intend the rhyme there]. But that's life -- sometimes the story just doesn't end. This story is still going on today.

Charlie hits a host of political issues, including when it's appropriate to intervene in world events, the role of religion in politics, and what questionable things may be necessary to get the job done. It does serve as an allegory for the war in Iraq, but what's most surprising is that unlike a lot of Hollywood war films, it's not partisan. The film will make you feel very good about America at times, and not so good at others. Its message (as I understood it) is that you've got to finish the job once you start it (for a similar sentiment, see Three Kings). It's not against foreign intervention, per se, but it drives home the point that you can do something that might mean a lot in the short-term, but it's the long-term follow-through that will determine ultimate success. It's a good message in a world where a lot of absolutes are thrown about as solutions to very complex issues, and I recommend the film for anyone who may be considering voting in the next election.