Charlie Wilson's War
May. 30th, 2012 09:39 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
osprey_archerCharlie Wilson's War has two problems. The first is that the people who made it evidently forgot how to plot. The movie feels like one long prelude to a story that never lifts off. An impeccably directed prelude, to be sure! Exceedingly interesting and full of snappy dialogue!
But the action stays at an even tempo for the entire movie. The obstacles facing Wilson’s quest to fund the mujahideen to fight the Soviets are all too easily surmounted, so there’s no tension or drama. When the climax arrives - Congress voting to pour a billion or so dollars to arm the mujahideen - at least, I think it's the climax. I'm pretty sure it's the climax.
It's a very anticlimactic climax.
The other problem with Charlie Wilson's War is it's treatment of women in general, and Julia Robert's character, Joanne Herring, in particular. She’s a far-far-far-right rich Texan, the woman who first brings Wilson’s attention to the blight of Soviet-invaded Afghanistan; she’s the only female character in the movie who is a player in her own right rather than set-dressing.
The other players - all men - tend to be cool technocrats, the smartest guys in the room. Herring, in contrast, is driven by religious fervor and is strangely low on political savvy. She once opens a fundraising dinner by declaring that the guest of honor, Pakistan’s prime minister, didn’t murder the former prime minister he supplanted.
Kind of a political faux pas there.
Moreover, she’s imperious, touchy, and hypocritical. She clearly sleeps with whomever she pleases, but when Wilson’s staffers irritate her she snaps “Sluts” at them as she breezes out of the room. They’ve been...too pretty in her presence, or something.
The movie’s treatment of Wilson’s staffers in general bothers me. When asked why Wilson’s staff is so young, pretty, and blonde, one of the staffers explains, “He says you can teach them to type, but you can’t teach them to grow tits.” Taking this, and juxtaposing it with the scene where Wilson kisses his chief of staff, Amy Adams, to celebrate getting the money he wants to send to Afghanistan...
It makes me worry how Wilson treats his staffers.
This might have been an interesting contrast in his character - Charlie Wilson, the hero who brings much-needed aid to the people of Afghanistan, but has feet (and knees. And definitely a groin) of clay. But the movie treats his relationship with his staffers so damn jocularly: boys will be boys, and Charlie Wilson’s just a good ol’ boy who loves his whiskey and his women, and isn't it cute?
Um. Or not.
And despite all this movie got great reviews. I wouldn't expect the average reviewer to much care about the sexism, but the fact that the movie is anticlimactic, lacking in conflict or plot, and peopled mainly by characters (with the exception of Wilson and Herring) who are two-dimensional and, worse, forgettable - none of this bothers them?
But the action stays at an even tempo for the entire movie. The obstacles facing Wilson’s quest to fund the mujahideen to fight the Soviets are all too easily surmounted, so there’s no tension or drama. When the climax arrives - Congress voting to pour a billion or so dollars to arm the mujahideen - at least, I think it's the climax. I'm pretty sure it's the climax.
It's a very anticlimactic climax.
The other problem with Charlie Wilson's War is it's treatment of women in general, and Julia Robert's character, Joanne Herring, in particular. She’s a far-far-far-right rich Texan, the woman who first brings Wilson’s attention to the blight of Soviet-invaded Afghanistan; she’s the only female character in the movie who is a player in her own right rather than set-dressing.
The other players - all men - tend to be cool technocrats, the smartest guys in the room. Herring, in contrast, is driven by religious fervor and is strangely low on political savvy. She once opens a fundraising dinner by declaring that the guest of honor, Pakistan’s prime minister, didn’t murder the former prime minister he supplanted.
Kind of a political faux pas there.
Moreover, she’s imperious, touchy, and hypocritical. She clearly sleeps with whomever she pleases, but when Wilson’s staffers irritate her she snaps “Sluts” at them as she breezes out of the room. They’ve been...too pretty in her presence, or something.
The movie’s treatment of Wilson’s staffers in general bothers me. When asked why Wilson’s staff is so young, pretty, and blonde, one of the staffers explains, “He says you can teach them to type, but you can’t teach them to grow tits.” Taking this, and juxtaposing it with the scene where Wilson kisses his chief of staff, Amy Adams, to celebrate getting the money he wants to send to Afghanistan...
It makes me worry how Wilson treats his staffers.
This might have been an interesting contrast in his character - Charlie Wilson, the hero who brings much-needed aid to the people of Afghanistan, but has feet (and knees. And definitely a groin) of clay. But the movie treats his relationship with his staffers so damn jocularly: boys will be boys, and Charlie Wilson’s just a good ol’ boy who loves his whiskey and his women, and isn't it cute?
Um. Or not.
And despite all this movie got great reviews. I wouldn't expect the average reviewer to much care about the sexism, but the fact that the movie is anticlimactic, lacking in conflict or plot, and peopled mainly by characters (with the exception of Wilson and Herring) who are two-dimensional and, worse, forgettable - none of this bothers them?
