Charlie Wilson’s War
Up until The Da Vinci Code, Tom Hanks has pretty much been 100% money in the bank as far as the kind of performance he’ll turn in. Anything that has his name attached to it will instantly catch my attention. Add on top of that the fact that I’m a sucker for political thrillers and a fan of real life stories… and you’ve got me foaming at the mouth for Charlie Wilson’s War.
Directed by Mike Nichols, the film will focus the CIA’s arming of the Mujahedeen rebels in Afghanistan in their struggle against the Soviet Union, as organised by Texan congressman Wilson (Hanks) who joined forces with a rogue CIA agent.
Wow… this thing has “powder keg” written all over it. I can’t help but wonder if the film will actually look at how many of the men armed by the CIA went on to become the Taliban’s enforcers and Osama bin Laden’s protectors. Or will the film go the other route and try to avoid political commentary and just stick to the main character and time period? Either way I’m looking forward to this one.
1. Matt replies at 28th July 2006, 10:39 am :
I’ts been interesting to see the movie studios jumping on the political bandwagon in recent months/years. I’m not quite sure why. Movies such as Syriana and United 93 were not as successful as hoped for at the box office. Syriana was a twisted tale that was difficult to keep track of. United 93 was surrounded by controversy due to the “closeness” to 9/11. I can’t see “Charlie Wilson’s War” being successful. Main stream public isn’t into politics like the movie studios want them to be. Doesn’t the public want more senseless entertainment with wire effects and gun battles by fictional spies and agents? How do you dramatize the facts without making them fictional in one way or another?
2. John Campea replies at 28th July 2006, 10:50 am :
Hey Matt,
I have to disagree with you about United 93. There really wasn’t any controversy at all with that film. Some people asked if it was too soon… but no real controversy, nor was it political at all.
Also, I strongly believe that the reason the fiml didn’t do great business at the box office was mainly because everyone already knows the story. They already knew what happened from start to finish, and it was recent… so it’s still all very fresh in our memories. Why go and sit for 2 hours and watch it?
World Trade Center could do much better, becuase although it still revolves around 9/11, it’s actually telling a story most people haven’t heard or know off.
It’ll be interesting to see how it plays out.
3. Matt replies at 28th July 2006, 11:22 am :
John,
Agreed. United 93 was early and “mainstream public” knew the story. I didn’t know the story very well as I was living in France at the time and had limited access to media/news sources. The advertising for United 93 was focused in giving you the previously “unknown” phone calls made by passengers and “untold” story from air traffic controllers involved. The advertising of the “you didn’t know the whole story until now” still didn’t work
I’m interested to see WTC and how it’s story will play out. The trailer seems to invoke a renewed sense of pride in what public servants sacrifice in order to help others.
4. Sam replies at 28th July 2006, 1:25 pm :
Sure they could do the “big picture” route, but they could also just constrain the story to the time and place as it existed then. Projecting the story 20 years in time would be overtly political. If Nichols is a pure filmmaker uninterested in pushing a political agenda, then he’ll do this.
5. The 1mperfex Collector replies at 28th July 2006, 2:04 pm :
Cool! Mike Nichols is directing. I like his films. Add the book and Tom Hanks, this could be a winner!
6. christopher replies at 28th July 2006, 4:52 pm :
you forgot to mention that the script is by aaron sorkin!
7. Charlie Wilsons lovechild replies at 4th January 2007, 7:06 pm :
I will be very suprised if they can do better than the book.
More than likely they will muck it up. My faith in the movie industry to do anything right, or at the very least entertaining, has diminished greatly over the last few years.
My advice: Read the book first. It is not a thin book, but superbly written and, at the risk of sounding cliche, hard to put down. It was also approved by Congressman Wilson (not sure if the movie is or will be).