Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Charlie Wilson's War (spoilers)
The movie is basically about how a Texas congressman, a Houston socialite, and a CIA agent get together to supply the Afghan mujahedeen with weapons to defeat the Soviets in the 1980s. The three protagonists succeed in doing just that, and then we get a scene in which we see two Russian helicopters pilots talking crudely (first about how they are hunting Afghans and then about women and commitment) while the Afghans with their new American weapon nervously get ready to shoot the helicopter down. The Russians are laughing and having a good time when the Afghans shoot and kill them. The Afghans, excited, run off. This scene is followed by a montage of Afgans shooting down Soviet helicopters, Charlie getting more money for the covert operation, and green script on the screen telling us how many helicopters were shot by the Afghans in a given year. It was like something out of Hot Shots or something. It was not just a throwback to an 80s war movie, it was so over the top it was like a spoof of one. In this day and age, our war movies are like the Clint Eastwood's Flag of our Fathers/Letters from Iwo Jima, portraits of how both sides have an equally devastating story. Who still kills Russians in their movies?
I was so uncomfortable during those scenes. I mean covered my eyes, couldn't watch unconfortable. To have the uplifting climax with the music and cheering for something that we know will ultimately be so destructive was upsetting. But I swear someone next to me in the theater clapped. My friend afterward stated that clearly these scenes were meant to be ironic. He even argued that they looked Dr. Strangelove-esque. It has been a very long time since I have seen Dr. Strangelove, but my memory of the movie is that every moment in the film is very clearly satire. Charlie Wilson's War is breezy and light but it is not all satire. The filmmakers are telling a story with jokes thrown in but the movie is not mocking anyone. And yes, the story itself has an underlying irony but that irony is pointed out pretty explicitly at the end of the film. Which brings me back to the montage in question. If it is meant to be ironic, it is tonally different than the rest of the movie. CWW would be a 97 minute movie with 10 minutes of satire stuck in towards the end. But at the same time, the majority of the audience knows where this weapon and training from the United States is ultimately headed and would suffer from the same cognitive dissonance that I did. So maybe Sorkin and Nichols could have predicted this audience reaction.
Basically, I can't decide if this series of scenes are brilliant because they point out our expectations about tone in movies and by doing that our expectations about narrative. What I mean is that once we got to know and like the characters, we expect their actions and the results of their actions to be good. By playing the scene without indicating any irony while the audience feels like it should be played for irony reenforces the tension underlying the movie beween the pure intentions of the players and the consequences. In a purely fictional movie, we would cheer with the actors in the film, but instead here we feel strange even there is no indication that the characters feel strange. It is a very powerful show of how our best intentions can get very screwed up. Or whether these scenes are just some leftover 80s nostalgic jingoism?
I was so uncomfortable during those scenes. I mean covered my eyes, couldn't watch unconfortable. To have the uplifting climax with the music and cheering for something that we know will ultimately be so destructive was upsetting. But I swear someone next to me in the theater clapped. My friend afterward stated that clearly these scenes were meant to be ironic. He even argued that they looked Dr. Strangelove-esque. It has been a very long time since I have seen Dr. Strangelove, but my memory of the movie is that every moment in the film is very clearly satire. Charlie Wilson's War is breezy and light but it is not all satire. The filmmakers are telling a story with jokes thrown in but the movie is not mocking anyone. And yes, the story itself has an underlying irony but that irony is pointed out pretty explicitly at the end of the film. Which brings me back to the montage in question. If it is meant to be ironic, it is tonally different than the rest of the movie. CWW would be a 97 minute movie with 10 minutes of satire stuck in towards the end. But at the same time, the majority of the audience knows where this weapon and training from the United States is ultimately headed and would suffer from the same cognitive dissonance that I did. So maybe Sorkin and Nichols could have predicted this audience reaction.
Basically, I can't decide if this series of scenes are brilliant because they point out our expectations about tone in movies and by doing that our expectations about narrative. What I mean is that once we got to know and like the characters, we expect their actions and the results of their actions to be good. By playing the scene without indicating any irony while the audience feels like it should be played for irony reenforces the tension underlying the movie beween the pure intentions of the players and the consequences. In a purely fictional movie, we would cheer with the actors in the film, but instead here we feel strange even there is no indication that the characters feel strange. It is a very powerful show of how our best intentions can get very screwed up. Or whether these scenes are just some leftover 80s nostalgic jingoism?
# posted by Julia @ 10:08 AM 
