Talk:Charlie Wilson's War (film)

Historical accuracy?

Does the film depict the USSR as blood thirsty monster bent on destruction (thank you hollywood) or a reluctant country that was begged by two succeeding Afghan presidents for assistance against the religious zealots?

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.148.150 (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The former --Dmitry Dzhus (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC).

Context

Someone named "Carter" is referred to out of context. This should be fixed or the reference to "Carter" removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.31.218 (talk) 04:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

"Carter himself"

In the last section of this page a sentence reads "... Carter himself ..." Why is the "himself" there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.124.118 (talk) 08:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It is to emphasize the fact that "Carter himself" expressed his beliefs...not spoken via his administration or a third party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.69.60 (talk) 11:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Article for Book vs. Movie

Common form is to have a separate article for the film and the book. Perhaps we should split the articles now.

Unsourced quotes

There's no source provided for the Brzezinski quote other than the rather vague "1998 interview with Le Nouvel Observateur."

Not reading French, I can't look for this on the Le Nouvel Observateur site, but I found what claims to be an English translation of the interview, which it says is from Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998. There's also an interesting brief piece from The Nation (Nov 12, 2001) that seeks to provide context for the interview. Shandaken (talk) 04:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Citations for use

I haven't the time to flesh it out myself, but these may be of possible use in any production/development section:

• Sorkin goes from White House to front line (Sorkin writing)
• Playtone goes to 'War' with U (general info).
• Playtone marches into 'Sunlight' (mentions John Orloff as original screenwriter).
• Morrywood' lures more o'seas prod' (about filming in Morocco).
• U enlists top soldier (general production and casting info).
• Other useful links include the Google News search results for the film (covering everything from the past month), and the Google News Archive, covering dates older than a month.

Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 13:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Is Sally Field in this movie? If not then the trivia section seems irrelevant or at least misplaced. CoW mAnX (talk) 04:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I guarantee you

If Charley Wilson were a REPUBLICAN the media would have figured out a way to twist this into him being the villain. He most CERTAINLY would not have been feted in a Hanks/Sorkin love fest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.70.140 (talk) 07:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• That is what is known as a safe bet.--Bedford (talk) 06:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• • I wouldn't take that bet. Joanne Herring is a religious conservative, and she wasn't portrayed as a villain while Charlie Wilson's flaws were prominent throughout the movie. As a matter of fact, going into the theater I didn't know much about this story and I was under the impression that Charlie Wilson was a republican. I didn't notice his political affiliation coming up much during the story (beyond some hints throughout the movie that he could be in one party or the other). It was only when he said "I'm a liberal" to Joanne Herring that I started to realize he might be a democrat. So it seemed politically agnostic to me.--Deslock (talk) 04:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• • • What does this have to do with the article?CoW mAnX (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Historical context

This movie may have some comedic and saterical components, but it is also a snap shot of a part of history and based on real events, so it's important that this history (some of which is in the movie, some of which is not) be included, especially because many people interested in the film are very possibly unaware of it and because the plot is placed within that historical context. If this section is larger than what I added, it could possibly justify a section at the bottom of the page. There was such a paragraph dealing with the fact that this policy of aiding guerrilla armies--whatever one thinks of it--was more a Republican creation than a Democrat one, and that Carter ultimately distanced himself from it. ObjectivityAlways (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• This should be completely reworded or at best reference other articles in that case. That has everything to do with political party history and nothing to do with the film. Plus, as it is obvious to anyone who has actually seen the film that the Republican support was essential for Wilson. This section should be redone as "Further Reading" with links to other different Wikipedia articles on the events.

"Republican support was essential for Wilson"? That may be, but that hardly makes the movie fair. If the Investor's Business Daily is to be believed, Wilson, to his credit, "did play a role in facilitating support to the Afghan mujahadeen. But it is he who should be the historical footnote." Indeed, "you have at least five players, including Reagan, involved — four of them Republican conservatives. … It was Ronald Reagan, not Charlie Wilson, who gave the order to provide the mujahadeen with the Stinger missiles that denied the Soviet air supremacy and turned the tide of battle after 1986. Yet in the movie, the likes of Dan Rather and Diane Sawyer (director Mike Nichols' wife) are more prominently mentioned." IBD's conclusion: "Hollywood would have us believe that Democrats defeated the evil empire in Afghanistan, and that President Reagan played only a minor role and even helped pave the way to 9/11." Kyle Smith has more head-shakin' from the conservative side. Asteriks (talk) 14:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

"Carter's National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski has stated that the U.S. effort to aid the mujahideen was preceded by an effort to draw the Soviets into a costly and presumably distractive Vietnam War-like conflict."

This is incorrect - the article states that US 'effort to draw the Soviets into a costly and presumably distractive Vietnam War-like conflict' preceded Soviet intervention rather than preceded aid to the mujahideen. This is an important distinction as according to Brzezinski 'Official CIA history' and the film both portray aid to mujahideen as a response to, rather than the cause of, Soviet intervention.

"In a 1998 interview with the French news magazine Le Nouvel Observateur, Brzezinski recalled: "We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would... That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Soviets into the Afghan trap... The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, "We now have the opportunity of giving to the Soviet Union its Vietnam War." "

A better quote would be the preceding response to Nouvel Observateur's questions -

"According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention."

As for the references, I have already added the link to the original Nouvel Observateur article in French. Pacificbiblio (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Rudy Giuliani

I agree with RenniePet, that including Giuliani in the See Also section will need some amplification. He isn't mentioned in this text. "Charlie Wilson" (and related) aren't mentioned in his text. Without some connecting context, the reference is gratuitous. In fact, of the five obvious articles I checked, none of them mention an investigation of Wilson (or Wilson's activities, or activities related to Wilson) by Guiliani. - Thaimoss (talk) 12:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

By chance, I found a reference to Rudy Giuliani in connection to Charlie Wilson. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122102520_3.html

But I think that if it should be used it would make more sense to use it on the Charles Wilson (Texas politician) article.

Don't feel motivated to do anything with it myself. --RenniePet (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The Hot tub scene and Dan Rather

I recently saw the movie and thought that opening bit with the hot tub, the girls and Wilson's reaction to seeing Dan Rather on TV reporting in full native dress from Afghanistan should certainly be added. I also did some editing clean up to fit things in better. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Weapons Question

Maybe someone knows: early in the movie Charlie & Gust are shown trying to obtain old Soviet weapons kept by the Israelis; this, according to Gust, to keep the Cold War from turning into a hot one. In other words, no American weaponsprint. However, soon, the mujahedden are shown happy with their American-mfr.'d Stingers (however, there is no allusion in the movie to Stingers be an Am. product, is there?); Charlie's presented with a Stinger launcher as a symbol of the American contribution. & We know Stingers went to Afghanistan, so was there ever any effort to keep the American print outta the Afghanistan pie, or was this a continuity issue bypassed or ignored by the producers? ——138.162.128.54 (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Historical footage accuracy

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but the montage of aircraft being shot down after the Afghans are given stingers shows quite a few historical videos. Aside from the CGI Hinds and one shot of a Soviet Mig taking off, I think every other piece of footage shows American aircraft being shot down. I counted: an A-6 Intruder, an F-4 Phantom, an F-16 Falcon, and a Huey Helicopter being shot down. None of these were used by the Soviets. I'll leave it to someone more talented than myself to incorporate this into the article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.4.31 (talk) 02:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Duration and Statistics

I think it would be appropriate for all movie entries to have as a minimum the duration, and where possible other statistics about the movie.--Gciriani (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

AIDS Introduction in DVD Version

I don't own a copy of Charlie Wilson's War, but from reading posts on it's IMDB forum it seems as though there is about a 10 minute portion that viewers are forced to watch every time they put in the DVD. Apparently it's Gwyneth Paltrow giving a tear-filled speech about AIDS in Africa. I didn't see anything in the Wiki article addressing the forced Hollywood propaganda and if it's true that it exists I would think it would be definitely notable. I think every DVD owner can agree that having to wait through 10 minutes of propaganda every time you put in a movie you bought legally is completely ridiculous. 207.255.62.9 (talk) 23:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It appeared on the DVD I rented but I'm not sure if it's the case for owning the DVD since rented DVD's contain advertisements for other films. 122.105.88.84 (talk) 05:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Status in Egypt

citation needed there...

Title

The title ought to be "Charlie Wilson's War (the film)" and not merely "Charlie Wilson's War." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.150.48.222 (talk) 19:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)