Charlie Wilson's War, based on a true story, tells the tale of a Texas congressman and a CIA agent working to secure funding for covert support of the Mujaheddin in 1980s Afghanistan following the USSR invasion of the country. This conflict played a major role in the final years of the Cold War between the US and the USSR.
In terms of film making, Charlie Wilson's War is a definite winner. It well-written, well-acted, and well-shot. While most of the attention has gone to Tom Hanks for yet another fine performance, I was even more impressed with Philip Seymour Hoffman's turn as CIA operative Gust Avrakotos. Scenes of Soviet attacks on under-armed villages and of the refugee camp effectively tug at the heart. The film also gives a good behind-the-scenes look at the wheeling and dealing that Congressman Wilson must go through to secure the desired funding.
There are, however, two complaints I have about the film. The first is that there is a subplot involving an scandal investigation that is not well-developed and as such only serves as a minor distraction to the story line. The second complaint is that the film lacks some of the context of the war. The film makes the Mujaheddin look like innocent victims, and while they did suffer large civilian casualties, the Mujaheddin were in fact rebels trying to topple the government of Afghanistan. This government, ignored entirely in the film, not surprisingly fought to suppress the rebellion, later calling on the Soviet Union for support in their effort. The film also ignores that the US was aiding the Mujaheddin prior to the Soviet deployment in Afghanistan. The film did hint at the unintended consequences of our covert actions -- consequences we are still feeling today -- but it seems as if screenwriter Aaron Sorkin and director Mike Nichols were willing to sacrifice some historical context to provide a cohesive narrative. (Not having read the book, I do not know if George Crile made the same compromise.) Those complaints notwithstanding, I did enjoy watching Charlie Wilson's War and do recommend it. I would have preferred a film that more accurately depicted the complexities of the situation, as Stephen Gaghan did in Syriana, but the audiences connected better with cohesive narrative of Charlie Wilson's War than with the ambiguities present in Syriana.
In terms of film making, Charlie Wilson's War is a definite winner. It well-written, well-acted, and well-shot. While most of the attention has gone to Tom Hanks for yet another fine performance, I was even more impressed with Philip Seymour Hoffman's turn as CIA operative Gust Avrakotos. Scenes of Soviet attacks on under-armed villages and of the refugee camp effectively tug at the heart. The film also gives a good behind-the-scenes look at the wheeling and dealing that Congressman Wilson must go through to secure the desired funding.
There are, however, two complaints I have about the film. The first is that there is a subplot involving an scandal investigation that is not well-developed and as such only serves as a minor distraction to the story line. The second complaint is that the film lacks some of the context of the war. The film makes the Mujaheddin look like innocent victims, and while they did suffer large civilian casualties, the Mujaheddin were in fact rebels trying to topple the government of Afghanistan. This government, ignored entirely in the film, not surprisingly fought to suppress the rebellion, later calling on the Soviet Union for support in their effort. The film also ignores that the US was aiding the Mujaheddin prior to the Soviet deployment in Afghanistan. The film did hint at the unintended consequences of our covert actions -- consequences we are still feeling today -- but it seems as if screenwriter Aaron Sorkin and director Mike Nichols were willing to sacrifice some historical context to provide a cohesive narrative. (Not having read the book, I do not know if George Crile made the same compromise.) Those complaints notwithstanding, I did enjoy watching Charlie Wilson's War and do recommend it. I would have preferred a film that more accurately depicted the complexities of the situation, as Stephen Gaghan did in Syriana, but the audiences connected better with cohesive narrative of Charlie Wilson's War than with the ambiguities present in Syriana.