Charlie Wilsons War

Why is Charlie Wilson's war such a good movie? Why should I go watch a movie which showcases a political situation created by the cold war that has in no way affected anybody whom I have never known? Those were the questions that at some unknown level to myself and some other random facts that kept me from seeing this sort of biopic.

I have always wondered why the Americans had to arm the mujahedeen in Afghanistan when their government was more than a thousand miles away... let alone share a border. Having never really bothered to even look at facts or having real interest in political history, I just assumed what every middle class Indian whom I have ever come across and conversed at an intellectual level has told me- it’s just their mother in law attitude. Somehow biased I never really questioned the soviet presence just because they shared borders or could even imagine any war crimes being committed in the region.

Coming back to why is Charlie Wilsons war such a good movie? It’s not only a good movie but a brilliant movie. Though told through an American perspective- it is a non biased perspective (unlike a movie called air force one- if you look at it as a neutral. Yes at some points of the film when they show the Russian atrocities that were being committed in the region-- it was just in saying that communism is evil. But then that much artistic leeway must be given to the filmmaker purely because he does not show the Americans as god sent heroes fighting that evil.

Tom Hanks certainly provides us with a powerhouse performance as usual. As Charlie Wilson you would think that Tom Hanks was brought up in Texas. I know it is difficult for folks back home to understand that but it is the same as watching a performance of say Aamir Khan as some iyer boy brought up in rural tamil nadu and pulling that off with the audience coming out of the theatre saying he must have been brought up there for sure. But overshadowing even Hanks performance was another brilliant actor who was stellar- Phillip Seymour Hoffman. I have seen three of his movies in the last three weeks- Before the devil knows you are dead, the savages and then this- all three performances magnificent. Mike Nichols direction and camera angles is as is his legendary sense. From an artistic stand point a scene that I loved was when Charlie talks to an important contributor from Texas regarding an issue. And the director shoots the scene from below the table. As hanks talks he lifts his legs onto the table and we see him wearing boots as does the contributor. And one character actor that I cannot miss mentioning is Om Puri as General Zia ul Haq- simply brilliant in what little role he has to play.

The movie based on real facts is taken as a movie and is not a documentary or one man’s struggle or anything like that. What keeps the audience on the edge of their seats is the quirky screenplay. You need to listen hard to get some of the sarcasm. For example- in one scene when Charlie is meeting Zia for the first time- Zia asks him what he would like. He says with his American\Texan swagger a glass of whisky and ice. Everybody around him is offended and Zia looks at him and says no alcoholic beverages are served in the presidential palace with a smile. Charlie says- of course, I am sorry I am sure a lot of people make that mistake. Om puri smiles at him and simply says- NO. It had me smiling alright. Cause in that it showed an American swagger or mentality when dealing with a different culture- not in an arrogant way but in a beseeching way. Om puri looks at him as the conversation continues and says – Mr.Wilson you are known to be a man with many character flaws ---- as the scene finishes and Charlie walks out he tells his assistant on being asked how the meeting went .. He says, “I was told I was a man with many character flaws from a man who killed his predecessor in a military coup...”

The ending was just as powerful to me. A realistic view/ an eye-opener in some ways. All in all a really good movie. Rating—4.5/5