I was maybe ten minutes into Charlie Wilson's War when I had the thought: This has Aaron Sorkin
all over it. I was SO right.
I love Sorkin's work. I know a lot of people feel he's too smart for his own good, but I think his expertise about politics and ability to get inside the characters' heads really worked well. I would have to do some more reading to know exactly how much of the movie is conveyed truthfully to how it actually happened, but I know there is only so far you can go until it stops being good theater.
But the details begin to not matter so much, when you think about what the movie really means. For those of you who don't plan to see it (or just don't know about it), Charlie Wilson's War is based on real events and real people. Charlie Wilson is a former Congressman for the Texas 2nd. His district didn't have much to demand of him, so he was in a perfect position to earn favors and develop all the right connections to get something done when he needed to. He served in Congress during the latter part of the Cold War.
The movie takes place during the 1980's, when Afghanistan had been invaded by the Soviets. The danger of this invasion was brought to Wilson's (Tom Hanks) attention by rich activist Joanne Herring (Julia Roberts), a determined CIA agent Gust Avrakotos (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and a strategic visit to Afghanistan and Pakistan. He is largely credited for leading the Appropriations Committee to lay down $1 billion worth of covert operations in the region.
I can see why this movie's been nominated for so many awards. It's not only clever and well done, but conveys an important message. Yes, the characters are complex and the acting is wonderful, the cinematography and costumes and sets are great...but that's not what it's about. It is as much about the US political process as it is about how we beat back the Soviets in the Mideast two decades ago.
It is about how Congress spent so much money to supply the Afghans anti-tank and anti-aircraft weaponry, trained them, gave them hope, genuinely sought to aid these ailing people in a humanitarian sense...and then refused to spend another $1 million to rebuild their schools, to provide infrastructure. The part of this that the movie leaves unsaid, of course, is that this lack of infrastructure is what caused the Afghanis to turn to the Taliban for help. And I think anyone who's been around much in the last 7 years understand where that went.
The movie ends with a quote from Wilson, "These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world. Then we fucked up the endgame." The US did a good thing in going to help Afghanistan back then. The Soviets were doing terrible things to them. With a bit more investment, we might have made an Arab ally in the mideast (one, I might point out, we sorely need at the moment). But the public largely didn't know the extent of the covert operation, and Congress wasn't willing to authorize another penny after the Soviets were out of the picture. The Taliban promised to educate the children - and at the time, something like 2/3 of the country's population was under the age of 14.
I think the film, by the nature of its story, portrays an unflattering portrait of the American legal process. Not that I would go so far as to say it is offensive or un-American. I really hope that no one reads that far into it...and if they are, I'd say it's a fair bet that it's due to Sorkin's reputation as a scumbag druggie Hollywood liberal. But I think the point of the movie is much more neutral in its political message: It may be easier in our minds to hit hard, and fast, and then leave everyone to do what they will...but it's not in their best interest, or in ours. The enemy of our enemy is only our friend if we make friendly gestures.
A person who is in any way insightful can't help but wonder what is in store for current US operations in the region. Yes, our country's actions of late have been far from covert, but the same basic principles still apply. After we pulled out of Afghanistan in 2001, the country was doing very well for a while, until they realized they lacked real economic support, and the Taliban came creeping back in. The same could happen in Iraq, whose citizens are less fond of us than even the Afghanis.
I think it's also true what the movie says about involving religion in a conflict of this type. The problem with having God on your side is that, inevitably, God will end up on BOTH sides. That is a dangerous game to play, and in the current global mentality shows few signs of moving away from it. All of this is a bit troubling, and I can only hope that the people who have all the influence, intelligence and resources are as aware of the danger...and wish they would make a self-sacrificing gesture and admit it.
==================
We also saw a preview for Valkyrie, a movie about the plot by Nazi officers on Hitler's life. Tom Cruise is playing the ringleader,
Col. Claus Schenk von Stauffenberg, to whom he bares more than a slight physical resemblance (which the real von Stauffenberg's family isn't terribly fond of, apparently XD).
Maybe I am just making this connection out of thin air because I've been writing FMA again, but if you read over the biography, you'll see that von Stauffenberg lost missing his left eye. That's the same eye Roy lost, and Roy also attempted to assassinate the Fuhrer. Differences in the details persist, but still... since I know for a fact that FMA is full of blatant Nazi Germany references (as well as Vietnam, WWI, Gulf War, Iraq, Iran-Contra, etc.), I can't help but make that little leap of logic.
Must suppress fandom. Must find stick to
beat back fandom. Torches. Pichforks. EEK GONNA EAT ME~
No sleep tonight. Too many ideas. Must write.