Though the importance of Representative Charles Wilson, Democrat from Texas who served from 1973 to 1997 in Congress, in the fall of the Russian puppet regime in Afghanistan maybe in exaggerated in George Crile's book and in this film, Charlie Wilson's War provides an insight into Washington politics that you won't get from the talking heads of the various news networks.
I liked Charlie Wilson, or at least the way Tom Hanks plays him. A politician who doesn't take himself to terribly serious who likes his fun and frolic, but also has some deep concerns about the United States of America and its position in the world. It fell to him because of some key committee assignments to be able to give the Central Intelligence Agency the appropriations necessary to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan which eventually toppled the Soviet Union itself. A feat that conservative Republicans like to assign exclusively to their hero, Ronald Reagan.
Wilson and Clarence Long, played by Ned Beatty, belong to that vanishing breed of conservative to moderate Democrats who as they leave, their places are taken by Republicans. The only group growing extinct faster than them are the liberal Republicans. We're a bitterly partisan nation now and no one party or one individual is responsible for it. Note how Wilson is being investigated by a certain U.S. Attorney named Rudolph Giuliani back in the day. Don't think the object there wasn't partly to open that seat up for the GOP.
In our story Wilson becomes interested and it's more than the interest of a politician currying for votes of the plight of the Afghans. They just need the weaponry and the know how. Sparking his interest is Texas society leader, political power broker, and former beauty queen Julia Roberts. It's the best part Julia's had since Erin Brockovich.
But when he's on the screen Philip Seymour Hoffman blows everyone else out of the water. Hoffman is a career Central Intelligence Agency official who seems to have encountered the glass ceiling in his career there. It's a feeling I know well from my former job, I'd love to have done what Hoffman did to his superior when we first meet him in the film.
Hoffman and Hanks become an unbeatable team, Hanks handling the Congress and Hoffman the inside politics of the CIA. They make it happen for the Afghans.
Those who criticize the film miss the whole point. We left the Afghans free, but in a devastated country. That was the whole point of that scene where Wilson is vainly trying to get decent appropriations for rebuilding Afghanistan's infrastructure. Because policy makers put Afghanistan on the back-burner the vacuum created was filled by the Taliban with terrible results.
Also listen to Hoffman's character's zen like analysis as to what the future could hold as a result of their work. History is full of surprises, mostly unpleasant.
I think a couple of Oscars could be in the future for Charlie Wilson's War. It's a thought provoking film that should not be missed.
I liked Charlie Wilson, or at least the way Tom Hanks plays him. A politician who doesn't take himself to terribly serious who likes his fun and frolic, but also has some deep concerns about the United States of America and its position in the world. It fell to him because of some key committee assignments to be able to give the Central Intelligence Agency the appropriations necessary to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan which eventually toppled the Soviet Union itself. A feat that conservative Republicans like to assign exclusively to their hero, Ronald Reagan.
Wilson and Clarence Long, played by Ned Beatty, belong to that vanishing breed of conservative to moderate Democrats who as they leave, their places are taken by Republicans. The only group growing extinct faster than them are the liberal Republicans. We're a bitterly partisan nation now and no one party or one individual is responsible for it. Note how Wilson is being investigated by a certain U.S. Attorney named Rudolph Giuliani back in the day. Don't think the object there wasn't partly to open that seat up for the GOP.
In our story Wilson becomes interested and it's more than the interest of a politician currying for votes of the plight of the Afghans. They just need the weaponry and the know how. Sparking his interest is Texas society leader, political power broker, and former beauty queen Julia Roberts. It's the best part Julia's had since Erin Brockovich.
But when he's on the screen Philip Seymour Hoffman blows everyone else out of the water. Hoffman is a career Central Intelligence Agency official who seems to have encountered the glass ceiling in his career there. It's a feeling I know well from my former job, I'd love to have done what Hoffman did to his superior when we first meet him in the film.
Hoffman and Hanks become an unbeatable team, Hanks handling the Congress and Hoffman the inside politics of the CIA. They make it happen for the Afghans.
Those who criticize the film miss the whole point. We left the Afghans free, but in a devastated country. That was the whole point of that scene where Wilson is vainly trying to get decent appropriations for rebuilding Afghanistan's infrastructure. Because policy makers put Afghanistan on the back-burner the vacuum created was filled by the Taliban with terrible results.
Also listen to Hoffman's character's zen like analysis as to what the future could hold as a result of their work. History is full of surprises, mostly unpleasant.
I think a couple of Oscars could be in the future for Charlie Wilson's War. It's a thought provoking film that should not be missed.