Talk:Charlie Wilson's War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Charlie Wilson's War article.
Article policies
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.

Contents

[edit] Historical accuracy?

Does the film depict the USSR as blood thirsty monsters 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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:

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)