"Charlie Wilson's War" is a film that has different layers. A viewer with a keen sense for satire will see this instantly in some of the scenes that have caused slight and not so slight outrage. The main of these scenes that I refer to begins with Soviet troops parading through Moscow as a lively anthem plays, it is proud display of Soviet military might that soon cuts to helicopter gunships raking Afghan towns with merciless firepower. The superficial message here is that the Soviet Army is evil. Seeing that this is an American produced film, that explanation seems to fit for many viewers. In fact, the YouTube clips containing this scene contain many comments about this being US propaganda.
Is it?
The film is written by Aaron Sorkin who has made a career out of acclaimed politically themed writing and is directed by Mike Nichols who makes few but always thought out movies, this explanation feels too lazy. Sorkin and Nichols don't seem to be people who would just show senseless killing for purposes of vilification. In taking look at the way this sequence is put together, we can reveal another layer to the film: the satire. The scene is inter-cut with what looks like stock and archive footage of the helicopters and some obviously computer generated helicopters... it seems rather sloppy for such a high budget film with many A-List actors. The first time the Soviet chopper appears firing, its gun looks like a laser blaster from a video game... the missile effects are inconsistent with the stock footage. One quick shot of archive footage shows a chopper firing to the right, then cuts to a a CGI missile coming in from the right as well as a CGI chopper. Another quick shot of documentary footage shows a volley of missiles being fired from a wing pylon, then, in a perspective shot of the movie's footage ONE missile impacts the top of a wall and engulfs the screen in flame... did the pilot just fly into his own missile's fireball? And why was this one so much bigger than the previous or ensuing ones?
The reason being is: the jokes is on us, we the audience. It is all intentionally, and somewhat subtly, ridiculous. There is no doubt that the Red Army committed its share of war-time atrocities in Afghanistan, like any army does in almost an war, but the point is that vilification is senseless. There is more to every story behind every war. The film shows that the typical (and propagandistic in this case) movie archetype of the evil army is shown to be fully ridiculous. In escapist movies it is fine, but in historical films, it is far from it.
The rest of the film is much in the same vein. It gets behind what we are normally shown; a different, but key, layer of war: the funding of it. Strings are pulled and words are carefully chosen behind the curtain, but in front of it a full blown war is waged that today had led to disastrous consequences is waged. This is far from typical for a big-budget film and it was probably why the story structure had the main message and satire hidden behind an easily pleasing layer of light comedy. --- 9/10
BsCDb Classification: 13+ --- profanity, drug use
Is it?
The film is written by Aaron Sorkin who has made a career out of acclaimed politically themed writing and is directed by Mike Nichols who makes few but always thought out movies, this explanation feels too lazy. Sorkin and Nichols don't seem to be people who would just show senseless killing for purposes of vilification. In taking look at the way this sequence is put together, we can reveal another layer to the film: the satire. The scene is inter-cut with what looks like stock and archive footage of the helicopters and some obviously computer generated helicopters... it seems rather sloppy for such a high budget film with many A-List actors. The first time the Soviet chopper appears firing, its gun looks like a laser blaster from a video game... the missile effects are inconsistent with the stock footage. One quick shot of archive footage shows a chopper firing to the right, then cuts to a a CGI missile coming in from the right as well as a CGI chopper. Another quick shot of documentary footage shows a volley of missiles being fired from a wing pylon, then, in a perspective shot of the movie's footage ONE missile impacts the top of a wall and engulfs the screen in flame... did the pilot just fly into his own missile's fireball? And why was this one so much bigger than the previous or ensuing ones?
The reason being is: the jokes is on us, we the audience. It is all intentionally, and somewhat subtly, ridiculous. There is no doubt that the Red Army committed its share of war-time atrocities in Afghanistan, like any army does in almost an war, but the point is that vilification is senseless. There is more to every story behind every war. The film shows that the typical (and propagandistic in this case) movie archetype of the evil army is shown to be fully ridiculous. In escapist movies it is fine, but in historical films, it is far from it.
The rest of the film is much in the same vein. It gets behind what we are normally shown; a different, but key, layer of war: the funding of it. Strings are pulled and words are carefully chosen behind the curtain, but in front of it a full blown war is waged that today had led to disastrous consequences is waged. This is far from typical for a big-budget film and it was probably why the story structure had the main message and satire hidden behind an easily pleasing layer of light comedy. --- 9/10
BsCDb Classification: 13+ --- profanity, drug use