A Trip to the Movies and a Movie Review

Last night, in celebration of my birthday and our covert wedding, Bruce and I had a rare night on the town. We got dressed up, went to a nice restaurant, and then we decided to see a movie.

For some people, seeing a movie is a reasonably common event. But we have not seen a movie at a theater in nearly six months. It was a last-minute decision and not part of the original plan. We had taken N. to town to meet up with his sister and her boyfriend so that we could go to dinner as a couple. They said they'd take N. for pizza and a movie and then we'd collect N. to take him home at a reasonable hour, as opposed to the late hours MLC keeps!

We arrived at the Artichoke Cafe, the place where we had dinner six years ago, on the night of our covert wedding, at about 5:30 PM. After a dinner featuring lentil curry soup, blackened cod on saffron basmati rice for me, salmon on spiced polenta for Bruce, and a glass of complimentary champagne, it was still early. So we realized that we'd need to hang out in town until N.'s movie was over. I called '411 and More' to check on what was playing and we decided on Charlie Wilson's War. It turned out that N., MLC, and her boyfriend were seeing The Golden Compass at the same multiplex at the same time. So it all worked out.

Charlie Wilson's War was not at all what I expected in terms of message, and it was excellent, well written with superb acting. So I decided to do a very rare movie review of it here.

Review of Charlie Wilson's War

Movie: Charlie Wilson's War, Universal Pictures/Playtone, 2007

Starring: Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, Phillip Seymour Hoffman

Directed by Mike Nichols, Produced by Tom Hanks, based on the book by George Crile

Rating: R

Charlie Wilson's War is based on the true story of a playboy congressman from Texas, who, with the help of a conservative Texas socialite and a maverick CIA operative, leads the effort to fund and supply the mahajadeem of Afganistan in their resistance to the the Soviet invasion of the 1980's. Charlie Wilson (Tom Hanks) is a congressman from a district that "doesn't want anything but their guns and low taxes" and thus holds many political IOUs. He sits on several important congressional committees related to covert operations and defense. Encouraged by his friend and occasional lover, Joanne Herring (Julia Roberts), he travels to Pakistan as a courtesy call to discuss the problem of Afgani refugees from the Soviet invasion in camps in Peshewar. Wilson's anti-communist leanings and his concern for the plight of the refugees, make him decide to find funding to get weapons in the hands of the muhajadeem. With the help of Gust Avrakotos (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) and the understaffed Afganistan desk at the CIA, Wilson works to change American policy on Afganistan, and brokers a deal with an Israeli arms dealer, Egypt and Pakistan to get appropriate arms into the hands of Afgani resistance and provide training to the Northern Alliance. Ultimately, Wilson's work is successful in driving the Soviets from Afganistan and partially responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union. (More complete information on the historical background can be found here).

Tom Hanks plays the character of Charlie Wilson very convincingly. He portrays Wilson as a man with deep character flaws, who is also smart and strongly political. The characterization of Wilson in this movie reminds me of Oscar Schindler in Schindler's List. Although he is a heavy drinking, sexually promiscuous playboy, he is able to accomplish something that other, more conventionally moral men do not attempt. He is not blinded by ideology, as is Doc Long Ned Beatty), the head of the congressional committee, and he is able to see possible consequences further into the future than other Washington politicians. Julia Roberts also does a superb job of portraying the strongly ideological Christian anti-communist Texas socialite, Joanne Herring. Roberts presents a Joanne Herring who has strong beliefs, but is also a complex character who does not privately act in accordance with her professed Christian morality.

This movie has been criticized by some Reagan era adminstration officials who claim that it presents a simplistic scenario in which the US covert intervention in Afganistan leads directly to the rise of the Taliban, the rise of Al Quaida, and therefore, to 9/11. I suspect these people have not seen the movie because it does not portray the US intervention as "bad" nor does it portray the Soviets or the Afgani muhajadeem as "good". Rather, the script explores the consequences of intervention that is not carried out to completion, but left wanting, as the interests of the US congress changes with a new administration.

In a critical scene, Wilson meets with covert ops committee members following the withdrawal of the Soviets from Afganistan. He is seen arguing for funding to the tune of $1 million, to build schools and other infrastructure in Afganistan. Doc Long's successor argues that the United States has done what it needed to do and that there is no will to spend more money there. He says that the Afganis ought to be grateful with the $1 billion spent to arm them. Wilson points out that since the operation was covert, most Afganis don't know that US funding was provided. He argues that young mahajadeem boys will be returning home to destoyed villages, dead families, and no prospects for the future. This argument is presented to imply a power vacuum that we could fill with western-style education. But Wilson gets nowhere, as the committee chair says, "No one here is thinking about Pakistan, anymore." Wilson responds, "Afganistan." And the scene lets you see that Wilson knows that he is not going to secure the funding. As he sits at the empty table, Wilson says: "We always leave. We always leave."

Rather than implying that US intervention in the Soviet invasion of Afganistan was a bad decision, this script implies that is was the failure to follow-through with humanitarian aid in rebuilding the country following the Soviet withdrawal that led to a power vacuum ultimate filled by the Taliban, a sponsor of Al Quaida. By framing Wilson's argument for this aid as funding for schools, the authors subtly direct the attention of the viewer to the madrassas organized by the Taliban that taught Islamic extremist views to a whole generation of Afgani men, making Afganistan fertile soil for Islamist terrorist organizing and training.

I left the theater thinking that the film is an argument, not for immediate withdrawal from our current war in Iraq and Afganistan, but rather as an argument to properly complete our commitments in order to leave these places with government and infrastructure capable of resisting Islamic extremism. This idea was strengthened for me with the quote from Charlie Wilson displayed on the screen just ahead of the credits:

"What we did was glorious, and it changed the world...but we (expletive deleted) up the end game."

Certainly, the film explored by implication the unintended consequences that follow from any intervention in any event. But the consequences, the film seemed to imply, came from the inability of the US to maintain focus in a critical region of the world once administrations changed and other issues, foreign and domestic, entered the consciousness of the voter. The portrayal of the venal and short-sightedness of our politicians and power brokers was also instructive. I would highly recommend this film on numerous levels to adults. It was well filmed, the writing was good, and the acting was superb. The portrayal of the characters as complex, and deeply flawed, do not make it a good film for children or younger teens. Older teens, armed with some background knowledge, accompanied by parents who can discuss it with them, would also enjoy this movie.