It must be awesome to look back on life and say I was a "Lawrence of Arabia/James Bond/Spiderman/Batman precursor" working towards the betterment of the Middle East region.

May God Bless continue all the efforts made for the betterment of the Middle East.

Chuck,

Please post a review of the movie once you've seen it (if you haven't already).

Yes, I'd like to read your review too, if you can stand to go see it. People are not going to CWW in droves. They know it's the latest in the barrage of Hollywood's anti-US polemics. Instead they are seeing the positive new National Treasure!

http://www.libertyfilmfestival.com/libertas/?p=7926#more-7926

I took the family to see the second National Treasure installment yesterday -- it was good.

As for Charlie Wilson's War, I am torn. It is about something and someone that I know about and had a small role in -- but a conservative Hollywood friend of mine who saw the "screener" said it mentioned President Reagan only once. He noted that it was expected for Hollywood to ascribe the defeat of the Soviet Union to a Democrat and his wealthy girlfriend while completely ignoring the anti-communist President's far important impact.

As it is, Diane and I probably see about one R-rated movie every seven years -- can't take the kids to see 'em and they're usually not that good anyway.

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com

I saw it. Good flick. How many times is Ronald Reagan supposed to be mentioned? The movie points out that funding for covert ops in Afghanistan had languished until Wilson arranged for greater sums to used for weapons and training. He was able to do this as a keeper of the piggy bank in his role on the Approps Subcommittee.

Is that not true? I don't remember any policy put forth from Reagan or his cabinet making the unseating of the Soviets from Afghanistan as a priority. The Soviets were spending billions in their occupation. Wilson was getting $500M to arm and train what became a Cold War surrogate. In retrospect, was that not a better way to fight?

As far as Roberts. She portrays a women who is known as a very staunch conservative in Houston society circles. I didn't see her political beliefs as being portrayed negatively. But that's just me. That she had a relationship with Wilson (horror of horrors they weren't married) was not a well kept secret. If it was made to be secret at all.

It isn't a propaganda movie. There are no anti US polemics. At least from my point of view.

There are folks on the left who trashing the movie as well. Given that both sides aren't happy with the depiction of events it must be right er...correct on the mark.

Is it the best movie ever made? Not a chance. I've paid more to watch worse movies.

I saw “Charlie Wilson’s War” just before watching the History Channel “The True Story of Charlie Wilson’s War.” (See: http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=detail&episodeId=254862.) One sees the difference between entertainment and history – history being the more interesting of the two.

Perhaps the worst thing I can say about “Charlie Wilson’s War” is that two people fell asleep in the middle of the movie – and that was just in my row of seats (a lady a few seats to the right of me had to wake up her husband to get him to stop snoring – I think he fell asleep soon after nudity ended). The nudity was completely unneeded and was set in an early 80s Vegas hot tub scene that just as easily could have made its point with creative camera angles. Perhaps the director figured the film required some spicing up to earn an “R” rating.

Aaron Sorkin of “The West Wing” fame wrote the screenplay for “Charlie Wilson’s War.” The Wilson film is surprisingly tepid compared to “The West Wing” which, I understand, people actually watched, rather than snored through.

As history, “Charlie Wilson’s War” follows the Democratic Congressman from Texas as he works to gradually ramp up the covert aid flowing to the Afghan resistance fighting the Soviet Union in the 1980s. The war in Afghanistan, a war in which the Soviet Union killed about one million Afghans while displacing or wounding another third of the nation of about 14 million, is widely credited for being of the triggers that brought about the collapse of the Soviet Union. (To this we might add the American defense build-up under President Reagan, U.S. and Catholic Church support of the Poland’s trade union movement, Reagan’s insistence of strengthened trade and loan isolation of the Soviet empire, and lastly, the threat of a strategic missile defense shield.)

Seen from 30,000 feet (high enough to avoid a Stinger missile) “Charlie Wilson’s War” is correct enough. Seen up close, it fails as history. Congressman Wilson himself in The History Channel’s “The True Story of Charlie Wilson’s War” gives proper credit to President Reagan for sending the lethal Stinger antiaircraft missile to Afghanistan. It was Reagan, who, in 1986, overruled his Joint Chiefs of Staff, the State Department and the CIA to send the lethal Stinger antiaircraft missile to Afghanistan. It was Wilson who worked in Congress to fund it. Reagan, it was said in the History Channel piece, thought it immoral to give the Afghans just enough aid to fight and die fighting the Soviet Union, but not enough aid to actually win the war. In Mr. Sorkin’s view of history, I did not recall Ronald Reagan’s name mentioned once – although there was a portrait of him depicted in a CIA office in one scene.

As for Congressman Wilson’s love and admiration for the Afghan people as depicted in the film, I can personally attest to that. I spent 11 days with Congressman Wilson in November of 1987 as we traveled to Morocco, Egypt, Pakistan and Turkey. At the time I was a Special Assistant for Foreign Affairs in the Pentagon – a White House appointee – assigned to travel with Congressman Wilson and seven other congressmen on a fact finding mission. We visited refugee camps in Peshawar Pakistan and flew up to the Khyber Pass.

Wilson was in his element among the Afghans. And, true to form, he brought along his girlfriend, Annelise Ilschenko, a former Miss World USA (Wilson had to fly her in separately because the Defense Department wouldn’t fly Ms. Ilschenko on the DIA aircraft – a privilege reserved for members of Congress, their spouses, and official staff). The Washington Post ran a story on Wilson on December 22 that mentioned Ilschenko being brought to Afghanistan, see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122102520.html?tid=informbox). We also enjoyed a state dinner in Charlie Wilson’s honor in President Zia ul-Haq’s residence on Thanksgiving evening, 1987. It was clear to me that President ul-Haq saw Wilson as a friend and the film rightly depicts that.

All in all, I give “Charlie Wilson’s War” two stars of four. If you have the time to invest, watch the History Channel’s “The True Story of Charlie Wilson’s War” instead.

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com

I'll give my perspective in greater detail. First off, you're absolutely correct in the differences between entertainment and history. Entertainment needs to turn a profit. There is nothing stopping conservative investors from making a movie that depicts St. Ronald Reagan as the savior of all mankind. In this era of internet downloads and straight to video documentaries I'm sure it would be profitable enough to satisfy its backers. That being said.

When you mount a movie like this you need stars simply because there is a lot of location footage required (Morocco was used for Afghanistan) and that costs money; stars help reassure the studios (who demand a profit greater than a passbook savings account) that domestic audiences will show up and foreign distributors will pay big money up front for the rights.

In order to make a movie which either isn't 4 hours long or the equivalent of watching paint dry, it is necessary for the screenwriter to condense several characters into one, or invent a character to provide an explanation for events which would otherwise be too complicated to recount. If you have stars, you need to give them action sequences or monologues which befit a star. Obviously, this is not a documentary, but the folks involved with the events recounted (Wilson and Harring) both say it is remarkably faithful to the key events.

Hanks is one of the producers of the movie, and it is clear that one of the points the film makers are emphasizing is one of the things which makes America such a remarkable country: This guy from a nowhere West Texas district wound up able to influence world events. Wilson was first elected to Congress largely because he had a bit more ambition than anyone else in the district, and won reelection because he took care of his folks back home. But he is the first person to say he was hardly a role model for members of Congress (though his behavior is probably more common than we want to imagine). He became a wonk on Afghanistan and with prodding picked up the torch.

The policy towards Afghanistan by the Reagan State Dept was to be hands-off. State wanted Afghanistan to be Russia's Vietnam, a long war of attrition. Wilson visited the refugee camps and saw the raped widows and maimed children and thought this was unacceptable. The movie doesn't so much tarnish the Reagan Legacy (you can rest easy if that is the biggest fear) as point out that their path was one of inaction, while Wilson and Harring chose to act. By allowing the mujahadeen to fight back, it became a war of attrition anyway, just condensed over fewer years and ultimately with many fewer Afghani casualties.

Chuck, I saw the History Channel program you mention. It also pointed out that covert operations in Afghanistan, subsequent to the Soviet invasion, were authorized by Democratic President Jimmy Carter (upon the advice of his staunchly anti-Soviet National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, an Eastern European immigrant) those covert operations were then adopted by Reagan and his CIA Director Bill Casey.

But the operations languished. Until Wilson became convinced that they needed to be ramped up. Dramatically.

Sorkin doesn't give Carter much credit either.

As far as the nudity. I lived in Europe for several years. After watching their TV I guess I'm not as shocked/offended as others. I have to say the flesh shot was a scene of Julia Roberts exiting a jacuzzi while wearing a bikini. For a 40 year old woman whose had three children the most polite term I can think of is "well preserved." She looks better than a lot of 20 somethings I meet regularly.

Wow, from the fashions in the previews, I thought it was a WWII pic. So is it about Dana and the Taliban, then?

8AF, I guess you missed the opening sequence in the hot tub... My point was that it wasn't needed. The film could have easily been made PG-13 and appealed to a wider audience.

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com

I saw the scene Chuck. I'm just one of those crazy souls who believes seeing a child that's missing both arms is far more repulsive than a grown woman's breasts. Yet its the breasts scenes that get an "R" rating. We Americans have a perverse sense of morality.

Just saw the movie myself, and am currently watching the History channel version. Have to say, I found the movie to be particularly entertaining. And as I watch the History channel report I was distracted enough to play on the internet (returning to this post after reading the Wiki entry on Congressman Wilson) and my fiancé has fallen asleep.

For the record, the Reagan photo I remember was in Congressman Wilson’s office, him together with the President and Nancy.

And, although a bit more “creative with the camera angles”, the History channel version has replayed the coke, hooker, stripper scene at least 6 times.

Generally speaking I find History channel programs to be poorly produced and repetitive. Such as leading with the hot tub scene and doing it again and again.

The History channel does give Wilson’s quote to Reagan’s moral drive to start supporting the Afghanis, but it also quotes a CIA officer just before saying support for Stinges was an “idea off the hill rather than the agency,”

I guess my biggest point is that I don’t believe the movie tried to claim that Charlie Wilson solely took down the Soviet Union. There are references to winning in Afghanistan helping people in Poland and other places, but you don’t see the Wall coming down as soon as the first Helicopter is shot down.

It was an interesting movie that will hopefully expose a piece of history to many people who don’t know about it.

And it shows what is great about life- that one man can make a difference.

Paul Hegyi
www.paulhehyi.com

I saw Charlie Wilson's War last night! AWESOME movie about what the US can do when we put our mind to it. Unfortunately we left the job undone and that is why we are back there today trying to make it better this time. With any luck we will finish the JOB!
Ray

Assemblyman Devore shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth. Here's a movie that can have Americans cheering the fight against communism and the liberation of Afghanistan from the Soviet yoke.

Now I suspect there is a couple of reasons other then the boob shots in the beginning why the Assemblyman might object to the film:

First, a Democrat, God forbid, is featured as the catalyst in getting critical weapons to the Afghans. This, of course, does not fit into the Assemblyman's world view of Democrats being Neville Chamberlin clones.

Second, it reminded us that we blew it by not doing more to rebuild the country after the Russians went north with their bear tail between their legs. Republicans are pretty strong on guns but not on butter.

All in all though, the Assemblyman, and all freedom loving Americans, ought to celebrate the movie as an example of what one man--or perhaps a few people--can do for freedom. 8AF's comment's are pretty right on.