Charlie Wilson's War
I had the opportunity to see an early screening of the film, "Charlie Wilson's War," and I have to say that it was really a great movie. I was a little apprehensive about the film because I wasn't sure if it would be an unqualified love fest for covert military operations undertaken in the 1980s (why I didn't just look at the cast and director and eschew this thought, I'm not sure), but ultimately found it to be a fairly balanced (whether entirely true or not is certainly debatable) portrayal of the efforts by Charlie Wilson and others to assist the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan.
But putting the politics aside for a moment, Philip Seymour Hoffman was the best part of the film in my opinion. It was an extremely funny portrayal of a clandestine CIA official, who was neither good nor bad, more amoral than anything else. And that was probably the biggest surprise, I was expecting more of a political film, and it turned out to pretty much be a comedy throughout, with a few shots of seriousness thrown in.
What I'm wondering is if the Conservatives are going to adopt this film and bemoan the lack of Democrats like Charlie Wilson to have the same passion for fighting Islamic extremists that he had for fighting the Soviets. Traditionally, they typically used Scoop Jackson or Harry Truman as the role model for a "good Democrat" when it comes to foreign affairs, and now they use Joe Lieberman for his unqualified support of Bush's foreign policy, but perhaps they can try an adopt Rep. Wilson, as he is far more likable (at least Tom Hanks' portrayal is) from a Democratic perspective than is Joe Lieberman.
1 comments:
Ahh, yes. Charlie Wilson, the Godfather of 9/11. Oh, yeah. Great guy, using U.S. taxpayer money to fund violence that had no effect on us (until 9/11, that is). The current praise of Wilson's desire to play hero in the desert to impress a rich, "born again Christian" (who sleeps with powerful men for political gains, or are we to assume Wilson was the first time she'd done it?... Sure) Texas socialite at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer is, contrary to popular opinion, a sad testimony to public ignorance about the consequences of foreign interventionism. Of course, he will likely be lauded as a hero and given credit for getting the Soviets out of Afghanistan rather than crediting the collapse of their economy and government in 1989 as the real reason. Had he truly cared he would have used his own money to finance the Islamic radicals or even took up arms himself to help their cause, but that wouldn't be wielding power and influence over others to avoid getting his own hands dirty (an all too common trait among U.S. politicians in the 20th century). Pathetic. Wake up America.
Post a Comment