Believe it or not, it has been suggested that the comedy Knocked Up is a metaphor for the war in Iraq.
It's become a common theme amongst bloggers and cultural commentators that, with no obvious end in sight in the ongoing War on Terror, that Hollywood isn't doing its bit. The discussion has been b>gathering pace all year, but recently a conflicting opinion is being voiced: is there anything that isn't about the War On Terror at the moment? As b>Ryan Gilbey notes in the New Statesman, there is an increasing tendency to read metaphor into everything. He even relates one blogger who saw pregnancy comedy Knocked Up as an allegory for the war in Iraq. But there are less subtle references all around us. As the first series of b>Heroes nears its conclusion on the BBC, the impending explosion in New York grows ever closer. Too subtle for you? The effect of the war on the US psyche is overtly addressed everywhere from b>Brothers and Sisters to Robert Redford's b>Lions for Lambs.
The snowball gathers mass with the film adaptation of b>Charlie Wilson's War, which premieres in the UK in January. Starring Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts, it's the true story of how 'Good-Time Charlie' Wilson, a US Congressman and full-time playboy, helped to covertly channel funds and weapons to the mujahideen in Afghanistan. But Charlie Wilson's War isn't a simple story for Hollywood treatment. The fact that Aaron Sorkin - of West Wing fame - is the screenwriter is proof enough it's not venturing into b>Rambo III territory, but it still has to deal with the grey area in the public's perception when it comes to the mujahideen. The Russians are clearly the 'baddies' here - but it's a common misconception that the West supported a bunch of guerrillas who turned out to be the Taliban, with whom we're now at war.
This isn't entirely the case. The word 'mujahideen' can be used to describe any group of Muslims involved in a struggle. Those in Afghanistan were a loose affiliation of like-minded groups opposed to the Marxist Afghan government. Charlie Wilson helped to support these groups with the assistance of the Pakistani government. So did a chap called Osama bin Laden. Which is where it all gets a bit confusing. After the Soviet troops pulled out in 1989, the common cause no longer bound the disparate groups together. A radical splinter group, the Taliban, eventually took control of the majority of the country, while the remaining militias formed a new opposition in the north-east of the country, under the banner of the Northern Alliance. All clear? So 'Good Time Charlie' backed the good guys, until a few bad apples went off on their own. And it's OK to cheer him on after all.
Sorkin understands that - but will the American public? The movie blogs so far reveal a reassuring comprehension of the subtleties involved - to the extent that some are even beginning to b>question Sorkin's own agenda.
