Post a Comment        E-mail To A Friend        Join The List

Mike Nichols, Charlie Wilson's War

by T.O. Lawrence
12/31/2007

We are America. We have bombs, we have guns, we have ideals. We have vast quantities of resources commanded by elected officials and faceless bureaucrats which have shaped the fates of nations and changed the course of history. This has been going on for years and will undoubtedly do so into perpetuity, each decision compounding on the last, rolling up into one massive ball of dung called Politics. This is a no man's land for audiences these days, but Director Mike Nichols has found us the perfect guide in Charlie Wilson along with an incredible script to boot.

With his no bullshit style, logical politics and unflappable Texan charisma, Representative Charlie Wilson (Tom Hanks) is the Virgil to our Dante in the cinematic inferno that politically-charged movies can be. He treks through the complexities of international affairs breaking them down into realistic bits that audiences can easily digest. So the helicopters are the problem? Let's get some bazookas that can shoot them down. We can't give them American small arms? Let's buy them some Israeli weapons instead. etc. etc.

With the help of the government spy Gust Avrakotos (Phillip Seymore Hoffman), the candor of Texan socialite Joanne Herring (Julia Roberts), Wilson works the government to his means. Though constantly thwarted by the red tape and jargon that infects all legislation, he fights back with his right hand full of T&A and the left with an 8-ball of booze. Throw that in with a rapid-fire candor that's laugh-out-loud clever and you have yourself a congressional everyman who always manages to get down to the brass tax.

The portrayal of Wilson by Hanks is about as good as it can get. It's almost impossible not to like the guy regardless which character he plays. It's like putting Sean Connery into a spy movie or the Gov into an action film. Of course he's going to be good at it, he's definitely had enough practice. Yeah, and he uses another accent this time too. That's all well and good but it sure would be nice to see some versatility.

For Roberts, this isn't the first time in front of Nichols' camera and it shows. Though her portrayal isn't quite as complex as their work with in Closer, the familiarity shows and she works herself in seamlessly beside her co-stars. But as good as they are, both Hanks and Roberts seem like they're barking for golden globes using all the old tricks and failing to really make the roles as interesting as they could be.

Hoffman, as usual, manages to steal the show. Never the same loon twice, he takes things up to the next level in every single scene he's in with some of the most amusing temper tantrums I've ever seen in my life ("You're dignifying her up the ass!" being one of my favorite snippets). His innovative acting takes this cast to the next level out of conventionality.

Nichols, as well, should be complimented on his talent in beautiful, flowing direction. Any scene he shoots indoors or on a set gives the camera a magical glide matched only be P.T. Anderson and Scorcese. The colors of the film and decor on set have as much personality to the movie as any character especially in Charlie Wilson's Texas office. But in the few scenes where Nichols takes the camera outdoors, the shots are incongruously dull compared with the rest of the film as if shot by a bored second unit. Nitpicking aside, this is a beautifully directed piece that helps itself to healthy portions of skill and style.

Another big kudos should go to the Aaron Sorkin who wrote the script. The constant wit and rhythm of the dialogue is what made this whole thing really work out (Just watch the scene with the scotch and you'll get my drift). About as good as anything by Mamet, his jokes are always clever, rarely overstated and almost always crass. He also seems to know when to offer up plenty of good fun filler in the form of scantily clad women, balancing peoples' urge to see the nekkid and almost nekkid with their need for good plot and reeducation.

Though not doing as well at the box-office as many had hoped, it's bringing people back to hyper-politicized film. Fortunately, unlike Michael Moore, it doesn't portend to know all the answers and admits as much in the end. And even if you didn't learn anything by the credits, you still had a damn good time watching.

Name
Email
URL
Body
Are you human?