By Nathan Young
Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts are two of the biggest movie stars in the world. Their movies have grossed billions of dollars over the course of their careers.
Surprisingly, 'Charlie Wilson's War' marks the first time they have collaborated onscreen. The results are fun and intriguing. The film is on my top five list of 2007 and deserves an enthusiastic 'thumbs up'.
Hanks plays the title character, a womanizing Texas congressman in the 1970's who seems to be more interested in partying than legislating change. That all changes when he is approached by socialite Joanne Herring (Roberts), an honorary ambassador to Pakistan. In between the lavish parties she throws in her Houston mansion, Joanne is deeply concerned with the plight of the people of Aghanistan. The Russians have invaded and are killing the Afghan people.
Charlie doesn't see how he is supposed to impact the situation. Joanne says that the Afghans need money to buy more weapons, and that he is in a unique position to make that happen since he is on the Defense Appropriations Committee. He looks into it and with the help of chain smoking CIA agent Gust Avrakotos (Philip Seymour Hoffman) gets the ball rolling for the Afghans.
This film is at the same time bitingly funny and informative (as crazy as it sounds, it is based on a true story). Aaron Sorkin's adapted screenplay is brilliant, and is deserving of the Golden Globe nomination it garnered.
Director Mike Nichols gets the most out of the script and his actors. The latter is not hard when you are working with such an amazing cast. Hanks is an inspired choice for Charlie. Hanks has to balance out Charlie's love of the nightlife with his desire to exact change. It is a fine line, and Hanks is up to the task of walking it. Roberts is good in limited screen time. She steals almost each scene she appears in.
The film's best performance comes from Hoffman. His portrayal of Gust is perfect (not to mention hilarious). Hoffman is one of the top supporting actors working today and he proves that with a Golden Globe nod for his work here (Hanks and Roberts also are nominated).
Despite the overall upbeat tone, the film has a jarring postsript. The ending of the film implies that all the work Wilson did to arm and train Afghanistan led to the rise of the Taliban. It is a sobering thought and a reminder of the current war the U.S. is involved in.
Politics aside, the film is entertaining. I highly recommend it. If you are going to see a movie in the theater, this should be the one you choose.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Politics aside? I guess this isn't a hard film to view in isolation from it's political underpinnings, because it is entertaining and compelling all on its own. But, as you can probably tell, I'm the sort of guy that likes to analyze the political bent of Disney films, so I can't help myself.
I really liked the political/philosophical message of this film (for the most part). Gust sums up very nicely that message toward the end of the movie in the form of a joke/parable he tells Charlie:
"A boy is given a horse on his 14th birthday. Everyone in the village says, 'Oh how wonderful.' But a Zen master who lives in the village says, 'We shall see.' The boy falls off the horse and breaks his foot. Everyone in the village says, 'Oh how awful.' The Zen master says, 'We shall see.' The village is thrown into war and all the young men have to go to war. But, because of the broken foot, the boy stays behind. Everyone says, 'Oh, how wonderful.' The Zen master says, 'We shall see.'"
In the context of the film, Gust uses this story to warn Charlie to not get too excited about their triumph over the Soviets because there is trouble brewing among the Afghan religious fanatics. In a larger sense, Gust is warning all of us against the perils of what I like to call "instant history." Gust recognizes that it is often impossible to see the true effects of our actions until much later. Modern American media and politicians prefer of course to focus only on the immediate effects becuse those are the ones that will determine next week's ratings and next fall's elections. Politicians don't care about the long term effects of their decisions because they will be out of office by the time they roll around.
In a subtle and non-preachy way, this film implores us to look beyond the immediate impact of our decisions. It encourages us to withhold judgment on situations that have not fully played out. That the film is enjoyable and entertaining at the same time is a wonderful testament to the skill of the filmmakers.
Will anyone listen?
Post a Comment