Mike Nichols: Charlie Wilson's War (2007)

[Chris Knipp]

Mike Nichols: Charlie Wilson's War (2007)

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/691/cjiv.jpg
TOM HANKS, PHILIP SEYMOUR HOFFMAN IN CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR

Win the war, lose the country

Charlie Wilson's War is a slice of American foreign policy--American interventionism, actually--seen (because this time it really was) as the work of a single Congressman. It's been called "a history lesson" and "a cautionary tale." The warnings are only tucked in hastily at the end, and no "history lesson" so greatly limits its context. Nonetheless, enjoyable as the show is, it's above all instructive. It's the way Stephen Gaghan's Syriana would have been if it had a tidier structure and made more sense. Despite the emphasis on glossy personalities, there's a lot of fast, smart political analysis of how things get done when you want to win a little war on the sly against a big enemy for a little country.

Nichol's film is based on a book by the late CBS correspondent George Crile--and that's Crile's title, not a jazzed-up movie version. The screen adapter is Aaron Sorkin of TV's "The West Wing,� a master at swiftly blocking in the machinations of top-level politicos.

This is a story of people making a big splash momentarily on the world scene, and for it Nichols has enlisted three big American film stars: Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, and Philip Seymour Hoffman. Some commentators wish they played even bigger; that Julia had had a bit more fun and that Tom was as histrionic as an old -time southern politician. But they do okay: Julia can't be Erin Brokovitch every time; Wilson wasn't the old-time kind. What Hanks conveys is a look of mellowness and overindulgence.

Hoffman plays a wildly independent and outspoken CIA man who becomes Wilson's ally. He's convincing too, and yes, he does tend to steal most of the scenes he's in, while we're constantly saying to ourselves how he almost doesn't look like Philip Seymour Hoffman: he's hiding behind tinted lenses and black dyed hair as Gust Avrakotos, a man of Greek descent, who hasn't been doing much and thinks most of his bureau chiefs are idiots.

Hanks' character is a Texas Congressman who's on two important committees, but so deeply in love with women and booze that it raises a potential scandal, and he justifiably addresses his cleavage-heavy office staff members collectively as "jailbait." In 1979, the Soviets are invading Afghanistan, and Congress is offering the Afghans only a pittance to defend themselves. If the Cold War means anything, Wilson reasons, we ought to stop the Russians in their tracks.

This movie earns constant points for depicting how things get done in Congress, the deals, the extra doubled allocations hidden in a bill. This war of Charlie's is a secret war, the biggest ever. He increases the funding from $5 million to $1 billion, and works through Israel, Pakistan, the Saudis, the Egyptians, strange bedfellows who all stood to gain from keeping the Russians back. Through CIA operatives arranged by Avrakotos, Russian weapons are delivered to the Afghan resistance fighters, the mujahidin (which Charlie learns means "holy warriors"--but this was twenty years before 9/11), to bring down Soviet planes and helicopters without revealing an American presence. Wilson is spurred on by a Houston socialite who, despite being a Christian fundamentalist, is working to strengthen the Pakistanis. They of course, are more eager to turn back the Russians than anybody and have the closest stake in Afghanistan. Charlie persuades some of his Congressional colleagues to join his side by taking them to the Afghan refugee camp where he realized the atrocities being committed to the Afghans by the Russian invaders.

Wilson wins his war: the Soviets are turned back. Maybe this contributes to the fall of the Soviet Union. Charlie gets a special award from the clandestine services for his initiative. But as a closing caption quotes the Congressman as saying, though things had turned out fabulously well, in the aftermath "we f----d up." Indeed: the mujahidin turned out to include Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Mike Nichols has dealt with politics and war interestingly before--Catch-22, Postcards from the Edge, Primary Colors, but he's more at home in the drawing room than on the battlefield. Here, politics seems above all to be the raw material for the acting gambits, the fun sparring between Tom Hanks and Philip Seymour Hoffman in a room. Wilson calls Afghanistan "just a pile of rocks" at one point. The sex between Hanks and Roberts, which is part of our, and Wilson's, introduction to the Afghan-Pakistan dilemma, isn't any more real than the politics. The scenes of aerial battling and desert skirmishing can't be taken very seriously and could have been done overnight at Cinecitta.

But the insider stuff is very suggestive. Mike Vickers, played by Steppenwolf Theater actor Christopher Denham, was a young but talented man who Avrakatos put in charge of the covert operation, and he's still a special ops chief for the CIA. When he's first enlisted in "Wilson's war," Vickers is playing simultaneous chess games. It's a good metaphor: the Afghan war is a war game, and only one of many. Though the refugees and the kids with missing limbs and disfigurements are real to Wilson, the lesson of this movie is how Americans habitually fail to see the larger picture when they engage in manipulations of world politics. You can have a dramatic effect sometimes by injecting large quantities of money and arms into a situation, but it's the follow-up that counts. And you can't control a whole region by tweaking a few events.

Charlie Wilson's War is a movie that's grown-up, relevant, and smart. It's not a great movie but it makes you think, and that's all too rare.

[cinemabon]

Kudos, Chris. I saw this over the break with relatives in the quiet of a rural theater with an over 60 strictly adult crowd. When Hoffman rattles off that brilliant speech in his boss's office, I applauded its brilliance... both in execution and in content. Since this cold Michigan audience showed no emotion, I calmed down and watched the remainder of the film with rapt interest. You nailed this film with your very precise review. I cannot fault it in anyway, except to add I also enjoyed this film very much and wish more American's saw this slice of everyday politics as usual. They would not be surprised to know that some congressmen/women have sex with pages, booze it up, party nightly, and sleep with many bedfellows (both figurative and literal) to pass legislation. Funny Nichols picked everyman Hanks to play the devil may care Wilson, as he is fun to watch but the part is more remeniscent of Nicholson (who is now too old to play the part).

[Chris Knipp]

Thanks. I agree with your comments. The film is getting some praise and award mention but not being seen as much as would be worthwhile for the practical information it contains.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by cinemabon
Funny Nichols picked everyman Hanks to play the devil may care Wilson, as he is fun to watch but the part is more remeniscent of Nicholson (who is now too old to play the part).

I got the impression while watching the trailer that Hanks and Roberts were cast to make their characters more likable, easier to embrace by mainstream audiences. I wrote this brief comment two months ago after being disgusted by the trailer:

"Since we discussed Mike Nichols in this thread, it's perhaps appropriate to express what follows here. He's got a new adaptation coming out on Xmas. Lamentably it's George Crile's lighthearted and comedic take on our country's largest covert foreign policy operation. Crile's book was criticized as (perhaps inadvertent) hero worship. It views corrupt politicians in a very sympathetic light. The film makes it worse by casting everyman, Mr. Nice Guy Tom Hanks and America's Sweetheart Julia Roberts in the lead roles. I didn't know anything about this until after I disgustedly watched the trailer for the film and experienced the audience's warm reaction to it. The film (and book) is called Charlie Wilson's War."

Others have commented that whatever satiric edge the book had was dulled by the filmmakers. Both of you seem to disagree with that and find the film worth seeing at worst. I hated the trailer with such passion I'm almost afraid to watch the actual film.

[Chris Knipp]

I would never judge a movie by the trailer or judge a book by a review. I haven't read the book, but it sounds like it's pretty informative. I wouldn't assume the book is a "lighthearted and comedic take on our country's largest covert foreign policy operation." George Crile was a serious reporter who did a lot to expose inside manipulations in foreign policy and the CIA. The fact that Charlie Wilson was a colorful character and that his role in the Afghan war made a good story and got Crile a bestseller doesn't make source book "lighthearted and comedic." According to a short biography of Crile readily available on the Web his CBS broadcast topics included:

The revolution in Haiti;
The Battle over the Panama Canal;
US Cuban Policy;
The Afghan War;
The Contra War;
The Sandinistas;
General Singlaub and the World Anti Communist League;
Prince Bandar and the special U.S. Saudi connection;
The African National Congress;
America’s Losing War on Drugs;
. . .
The Search for Archbishop Romero’s murderers;
Jonas Savimbi and the US backing of UNITA;
The Gulf War;
The USS Harlan County Incident;
The CIA’s Man in Port au Prince;
The Killers of Rwanda;
The Unsung Heroes of the US Military campaign in El Salvador;
The KGB and the world of Soviet Intelligence;
Russia and America’s nuclear arsenals; and
America’s Secret Warriors, the Copes Commandos of Colombia.

That doesn't sound to me like somebody whose reportage was "lighthearted and comedic." Crile was a widely published writer and an effective investigative journalist. If you have neither read the book nor seen the movie, you have no business writing about either, and your post only illustrates your ability to form prejudgments about things without actually knowing what they're about or what they're like. Trailers are rarely well done or worthy of good movies. Anyway, we can discuss this after you have seen the movie; otherwise it is pointless to participate in a discussion of it.

One of the most obvious reasons why Tom Hanks plays Wilson in the movie is that in 2003 Hanks' company Playtone bought the rights to the book. Hands liked the story, and held the rights to filming it.

As to the film's "satiric edge," it certainly has one; but there again, you are simply quoting (unnamed) reviewers, not reporting actual observation of the film.

What could be argued, is that Nichols' filmmaking doesn't show the war itself in much depth.

[oscar jubis]

Damn, I'm not writing a review of the film. Just saying I hated the trailer, I hated what it seems to say about the kind of film it is, and hoping someone will convince me to watch it or forget about it.

[Chris Knipp]

You draw conclusions about the book and the movie that are unjustified. You don't have to watch the movie. That's up to you. I would not have wanted to miss it, since I'm interested in US politics and foreign policy in the Middle East. And I would think Mike Nichols would be a good enough director to make you want to see it. But if the clips repel you, then why bother? It is not one of the year's best, in my opinion. Voice poll listing: 107. But as I said, it something people ought to watch because it's smart about politics and US foreign policy. As a film, it's not a must-see. On the other hand, it's fairly entertaining. And Hoffman is an actor I want to see in action.

Before the Devil Knows You're Dead is going to be on my Most Overrated list.

[cinemabon]

I would recommend this film, Oscar. Though I know you enjoy independents and 'foreign' films more than Hollywood versions. I found the Phillip Seymour Hoffman character (the rogue CIA agent) refreshingly different from his past work. My only disappointment is picturing Tom Hanks doing all those 'bad' things as he seems more like Jimmy Stewart to America than someone with a reputation like Jack Nicholson. Still, Hanks is a brilliant actor and does his best for the meaty role. Alternatively, Hoffman definitely steals the show with his opening speech (a screen classic meltdown) and should be nominated for Best Supporting Actor!

[Chris Knipp]

I said of Hanks here: "What Hanks conveys is a look of mellowness and overindulgence. " Charlie Wilson does "bad" things only in the sense of being self-indulgent and naughty. He is not a "bad" man but a Good Old Boy who does what's right for his country and the Afghans as he sees it.. I may be wrong but I have a feeling Hanks has played a greater variety of roles over the years than Jimmy Stewart. He also I think holds his own with Hoffman perfectly well, and if he didn't their scenes together wouldn't be as good as they are. The movie is good at its colorful version of political behind-the-scenes manipulation and maverick CIA knowhow, not very serious or realistic on those and not at all convincing as a depiction of war. If that bothers you, I still think it's a movie one might want to avoid. But for quick thinking and sharp conversation about 'realpolitic' this is an unusually smart and clear movie.

[cinemabon]

Unless I'm mistaken, Hanks has never played a villain (the "Ladykillers" role is hardly an 'evil' person). Although, I've no doubt he could. It goes against type. He has that sweet kindly face. Even in "Philadelphia" when he looked terrible at the end, dying of AIDS related illness, he still seemed so upbeat. Whereas, watch Anthony Mann's "Winchester '73" with Stewart. He is far from his nice guy "Harvey" image. Bent on revenge, Stewart stalks and ruthlessly kills the men that murdered his father. Hanks is very funny and does hold his own in the office scene with Hoffman. His timing is excellent. However, other scenes do not come off as well, such as the tour of the refugee camp. Perhaps a better director can bring that kind of performance out of Tom. That I would I like to see.

News: it should be interesting if three-time Oscar nominee director Frank Darabont convinces Hanks to do the remake of "Fahrenheit 451" performing the principle role of Montag. This is a meaty part. Hanks has the acting ability to pull it off. However, it will take some courage on his part to tackle the demanding role. Recall they've previously worked together in "The Green Mile."

[Chris Knipp]

However, other scenes do not come off as well, such as the tour of the refugee camp. True. I think that might be more Nichols' fault than Hanks'. I shouldn't even try to compare Hanks and James Stewart.

To go back to Oscar's position I can't insist anyone see a film they aren't disposed to like especially when I don't consider it one of the year's best. I can only say this one has political interest and intelligent content. I think trailers can be very misleading, but I can understand being put off by one. They can make you thnk a movie's great when it isn't too--that's what they want to do.

I know Hanks is extremely appealing, a sort of American Everyman, but I liked him best in early stuff with a fantasy element-Splash, Big. Sleepless in Seattle shows his gift for mainstream romantic comedy. Then he got into being a rah rah patriotic hero, Apollo 13 (and later Saving Private Ryan): that kind of stuff is a turnoff to me, however well made they were. I didn't like his or Demme's attempt at sensitivity--Philadelphia, a very conventional and insipid film. I can't stand Forest Gump. Horrible. Yet I liked him in Cast Away. Road to Perdition was a Failure, The Ladykillers is again horrible. I love Catch Me If You Can, but that doesn't belong to Hanks. The Da Vinci Code--please, no! All in all I can't feel too excited about a new Fahrenheit 451. I'd leave it to Truffaut, even if it wasn't Truffaut's best effort.

[oscar jubis]

I watched Charlie Wilson's War and I was fairly entertained_as it has been said here, some scenes work better than others, etc. Actually, Mr. Hoffman's performance is reason enough to watch the picture. It's been a decade since he played a most memorable creep in Solondz's Happiness and what's followed is invariably excellent. Don't miss him in The Savages and Before the Devil... if you share my opinion of him. I am very excited about his being cast as the lead in Charlie Kaufman's directing debut.

I find it impossible to discuss my opinion of certain films without getting personal. There's some discussion in the Rosenbaum thread about the use of the first-person in criticism. I find it to be absolutely essential. What one brings into the theater is awfully significant; a statement that seems to me almost too obvious to make. Consequently, I'm aware that what follows is possibly a minority view and no reason to say Charlie Wilson's War is a "bad" film. It isn't. Just an explanation as to why I find it troubling.

What disturbs me most about Charlie Wilson's War is how it presents the Afghan-Russian war as a simple clash between good and evil and how it puts a stamp of approval, so to speak, on covert operations. The film is relentless in its presentation of the Soviets as villanous invaders or conquerors. It goes way beyond establishing what motivates Wilson and Avrakotos to intervene. I venture to say, for instance, that most filmgoers would be surprised to learn that it was the Afghan government who requested Soviet military assistance against the Mujahadeen based on an existing pact between the two nations. The type of reductive oversimplifications inherent in the script go beyond the required narrative expediency and the limitations of popular entertainment. Even more troubling is the film's conclusion that, had the US not "fucked the exit strategy", the actions of the principals would be beyond ethical,moral, even political reproach (the rebels didn't want to impose democracy but an Islamic fundamentalist State modeled after that of Iran).

**Tom Hanks has yet to show the range of James Stewart. Besides his role in Winchester '73, his performances as a nasty, greedy bounty hunter in The Naked Spur and the pathologically twisted protagonist of Vertigo contradict the popular notion that Stewart always played nice guys.

[Chris Knipp]

Good comments, Oscar. Only I don't think you have to apologize or justify being personal, even if at one point in the past I think you said you hated using "I" in review-writing.
What disturbs me most about Charlie Wilson's War is how it presents the Afghan-Russian war as a simple clash between good and evil and how it puts a stamp of approval, so to speak, on covert operations. The film is relentless in its presentation of the Soviets as villanous invaders or conquerors. It goes way beyond establishing what motivates Wilson and Avrakotos to intervene. I venture to say, for instance, that most filmgoers would be surprised to learn that it was the Afghan government who requested Soviet military assistance against the Mujahadeen based on an existing pact between the two nations. I share your hatred of American interventionism but I see the movie as an accurate representation of the world of American interventionists. Whether that constitutes advocacy on Crile's or Nichols' part (or Hanks!) is another question. In the world of realpolitic idealism and moral subtlety often go out the window. You or I would not have made this movie. Syriana is more like a movie you or I might have made, but it its attempt to be nuanced in a very complicated context it gets hopelessly muddled. And that's a problem with dealing in practical terms with thisi kind of material.
The film is relentless in its presentation of the Soviets as villanous [villainous] invaders or conquerors. Are you saying they weren't, or just that we were too? Surely the Soviets' "aid" of the Afghan government came from the desire to gain control of the territory and the people.

Doubtful Hanks will never be the man or the actor James Stewart was. Stewart seems to me infinitely more subtle and more appealing. Hanks is a creature of our debased modern age.

[oscar jubis]

No, what I criticized elsewhere was the use of the plural "you" which assumes that the viewer would have the same reaction as the critic using the pronoun. Bix has correctly singled out Ms. Kael as someone who wrote from that vantage point.

Yes, I'd much rather make (or watch) Syriana (or Wag the Dog or Primary Colors or.....) than Charlie Wilson's War.

Yes, Stewart was truly a great actor and I forgive him for his right wing politics.

[Chris Knipp]

Well, I am a big fan of Ms. Kael. I don't think anyone's day to day movie writing at the moment is as lively and provocative and intelligent as hers. Using "you" was a good means of provocation. Most movie writing today is pretty blah.

Syriana is more subtle and more close to our point of view, but I don't know that I'd ultimately want to watch it more than Charlie Wilson's War. I"d have to try that and see. Wag the Dog and Primary Colors are more keen and critical politically, but again, not terribly interesting., as things to watch over and over. Can we just watch something else altogether?

Did not know Stewart was a right-winger. How right wing was he?

[cinemabon]

As a writer, I was told the use of "you" indicated lack of imagination and improper use of pronoun; such as, "You would have a great time if you saw this movie;" versus "I'll see you at the movies!" I believe someone has that catch phrase.

Soviet expansionism? American colonialism? British imperialism? I can use many adjectives to describe how an industrial power with sophisticated weapons at their disposal, invade a relatively poor country, and kill thousands of innocent victims. The Romans, the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the British, the Germans, the Russian, and the United States of America have systematically wiped out millions down through history, justifying their efforts with miles of rhetoric, spoken by proud men in noble halls, beating their chests with patriotic fervor in the name of defense, religion, or whatever excuse they use.

Charlie Wilson's War does not vilify the Russians any more than Coppola vilified the American's in Vietnam, as pilots generally behave in that manner... they kill for sport, kill for fun, do it for patriotism, because its their job... I was only following orders.

The only time I saw a pilot speak with remorse regarding his action happened during the film "Hearts and Minds" the AA Best Doc by Peter Davis when a pilot regretted dropping Napalm on native Vietnamese. He wept.

[Chris Knipp]

What you were taught to do "as a writer" -- is that Gospel? The point I made already (lost maybe on the previous page) is that Pauline Kael (as I recall) used "you" as a means of provocation. She was breaking the rules, not following Gospel. Of course YOU are not supposed to use "you" that way. But by using it, she dared YOU to identify--or reject identification. She sought to draw YOU in, knowing YOU might balk. Surely at least her writing was above the level of such cliches as "You'll enjoy this picture" or "I'll see you at the movies." She was perhaps also subconsciously echoing Hemingway, who used "YOU" a lot in his prose when talking about himself, as a form of macho detachment.

I guess what you're getting at here about Coppola vs. Nichols, Americans vs. Russians, is that, well, the culpabilities are obvious, and the film under consideration here is presented as comedy, so it's not able to make all the earnest politically correct points? Help me understand what all this has to do with Charlie Wilson's War.