dir: Mike Nichols
Who?
Charlie Wilson, you know, the guy who single-handedly defeated the
Russians in Afghanistan. That Charlie Wilson?
Okay, so he's not a household name. But if you're not of the opinion
that St Ronald Reagan, dressed as Rambo, beat the Soviet Empire to
death with his bare fists, then you might be curious about this flick
which purports to tell the 'true' story behind the Afghanistan War.
'Good Time Charlie' (Tom Hanks) is a drunken, womanising coke-fiend
Democratic Congressman from Texas. In 1980, while drinking with
strippers and hookers in a hot tub, he watches Dan Rather on 60
Minutes tell a sorry tale about the invasion of Afghanistan by Soviet
forces. Now, Charlie's only real achievement to date has been getting
re-elected five times, and all he really cares about is drinking and
hot women. So he's already a hero in my book.
The transition for his character is going from a hedonistic deal-
making backslapper of a politician with no ambition to a hedonistic
deal-making backslapper who wants to defeat Soviet forces in
Afghanistan. Why? Well, I'm not too sure.
Hanks plays the role with the charm, aplomb and accent you may expect,
and it's a lively enough if hollow characterisation. Maybe this
congressman was bored, or maybe he was genuinely moved by the plight
of the Afghans, as shown living in squalor in refugee camps in
Pakistan. But whatever the reasons, which include pleasing a strange
Texan socialite (Julia Roberts) both ideologically and physically,
Charlie makes his way around the world in order to cook up a working
strategy to combat Soviet aggression.
No-one is ready to take Wilson seriously at first, since his
reputation not only precedes him but is also reinforced by occasions
such as a Federal prosecutor called Rudy Giuliani going after him
because of allegations of cocaine usage. Also, it's hard to take him
seriously when he's asking for booze in the presidential palace of
Pakistan's staunchly abstemious leadership, who he would have to have
known were teetotallers in the extreme.
Still, once Gust, a deranged CIA deputy chief latches onto him for the
opportunity to kill Russians (Phillip Seymour Hoffman), people start
to take Charlie seriously, especially since he controls the CIA's ops
budget.
We are subjected to war footage of Soviet forces shooting Afghan
villagers from the safety and comfort of their helicopters, and images
of children whose arms were blown off by toy bombs designed to attract
children and to cripple a nation which will have to look after not
legions of maimed soldiers but legions of maimed and mutilated
children. The ugliness of what the Soviets perpetrated on this poor
country is not over-emphasised, but it is made manifest.
The urgency with which Wilson now approaches this Afghan problem leads
to strange alliances and questionable deals with countries who
otherwise wouldn't piss on each other if they were on fire. The unique
circumstances of the Cold War preclude obvious American involvement,
so the weapons Wilson, his CIA lackey and a brilliant CIA strategist,
Michael Vickers want to supply the Afghans, have to be weapons not of
America's making. What it comes down to is figuring out a way to get
Russian weapons to the mujahadeen (holy warriors) without the Russians
finding out.
It's fascinating because it's true. Not the script, or the levels of
involvement of the players as represented, but the knowledge that all
these occurrences did come to pass, whether perennial drunk Wilson
really had as much to do with them as is claimed here. Operation
Cyclone did funnel ultimately billions of dollars through the CIA to
Pakistan and the persons they favoured to beat the Russians.
But the alternate, initial policy of the CIA and the State Department
under Carter and Reagan is also represented, where the intention to
'beat' the Russians was less important that getting them potentially
into their own Vietnam. The intention, with absolutely no
consideration to the lives of Afghanis, was to have the Soviet Empire
pour money, men and materiel into an unwinnable war, thereby perhaps
speeding the downfall of America's rival superpower.
Of course, there's little if any more than a fleeting reference made
to the fact that, under Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski played a crucial
role in putting into effects US policy that would 'encourage' the
Soviet invasion in the first place. Because, you know, unlike what the
film represents, the States was happily funnelling money to the
mujahadeen BEFORE the Soviets invaded.
And it worked. Of course, as interesting as this history lesson is,
the film would have only been a historical footnote if it weren't
weighed down with contemporary resonance. You see, the film makes the
obvious points that expecting everything to be 'fine' after the
Russians left was probably the most na=EFve expectations these people
could possibly ever have had. After all, how do you arm and train
shitheel tribal warlords like Ahmad Shah Massod and Gulbuddin
Hekmatyar, who had no qualms killing Afghans instead of Russians, and
expect everything to be fine?
The chilling moment, which is meant to be more deeply ironic than
anything else, is when a clueless but soft-hearted senator (Ned
Beatty) is moved to make a speech to Afghan refugees about how America
is going to give them the arms they need to drive out the Soviet
invaders. Unsurprisingly, the chant going up from the excitable crowd,
being "Allah Akbhar" is sweet music to American ears at that
particular time.
How times change. This being an Aaron Sorkin script, he of acclaimed
political fantasy series The West Wing fame, the real sting in the
tale is laying the blame for the subsequent civil war and the rise of
the Taliban squarely at the feet of those who washed their hands of
the Afghanistan Adventure as soon as the Russians left. When at its
peak Wilson was commanding budgets of $500 million, he can't even get
$1 million out of Congress afterwards in order to rebuild some
schools.
Thankfully, the flick ends without anything as gratuitous as an image
of the smoking crater of Ground Zero. But it does end with the
superlative quote from a consummate but not self-deluding politician:
"These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the
world... and then we fucked up the endgame."
I found it enjoyable and fascinating, from beginning to end. The way
the flick was marketed as a comedy defies any definition of the word
'comedy' that I care to comprehend. Sure, it's light-hearted and
amusing, but I don't think I got more than a smile out of the funnier
moments. Hoffman overacts in this like he overacts in everything he
does, but it's enjoyable enough and suits the part. Hanks can play a
smarmy, slick, Clintonesque congressman in his sleep, so such a part
isn't much of a stretch for him, but it's decent enough even if
there's little depth to the character.
Why Julia Roberts is in this is a mystery. About the only reason I can
think of is that she wanted a chance to show the world how well she's
slimmed back down after squeezing out the twins a couple of years ago.
And sure, she's slimmed down. She doesn't do too badly, but it
certainly not Pretty Woman quality.
It's a fascinating story with an insight into just how complicated
such international events are. I don't look at it at all as some kind
of definite history, because the last time I checked I wasn't
retarded. And if I am retarded, possibly through years of binge-
drinking and fighting, I'm not quite retarded enough to confuse the
manner in which someone can craft a historical narrative so that it is
entertaining and easily digestible, with actual history. Actual
history is always far uglier, messier, and far more complicated. Too
complicated for a pleasing 100 minute which breezily recounts the
adventures of American politicians and covert ops agents.
Mike Nichols, most famous for flicks like The Graduate, Carnal
Knowledge, Closer and I Still Know What You Did Next Summer (perhaps
the last one is a lie), does a decent job coaxing effortlessly light-
hearted performances out of the assembled task, in what could have
been a dull lecture or lesson in US fallibility on the international
stage. He's a veteran director who knows how to strike the right tone
to suit material. Usually. Often. Sometimes. Well, at least in this
instance.
I enjoyed it, but I can imagine many people could be bored out of
their fucking skulls by it. I'm a bit of a history and espionage nerd,
so I'm the natural audience for this kind of story. Others will have
to judge for themselves whether they can tolerate the subject matter,
the bad hairstyles, or Tom Hanks in concentrated form.
7 stinger missiles downing Hind helicopters out of 10
--
"These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the
world... and then we fucked up the endgame." - Charlie Wilson's War
|
