PDA

View Full Version : IN THE LOOP (Arnoldo Iannucci 200)



Chris Knipp
07-26-2009, 10:38 PM
Armando Iannucci: In the Loop (2009)

Review by Chris Knipp

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/536/f3yz4s.jpg
MALCOLM (PETER CAPALDI) MAKES A STRONG POINT TO TOBY (CHRIS ADDISON) IN IN THE LOOP

War of words

Overpraised due to a lingering hunger here and in England to see our leaders skewered for their muddleheadedness, slavishness to the media, and rush into the Iraq war, this nonetheless hilarious and verbally inventive spinoff from the BBC series "The Thick of It" expanded to a more grandiose scale is not overtly about Iraq or realistically about the run-up to that war but a playful satire hinting at same, and more focused than anything else on political contortions of language and internecine bullying in the corridors of British and American power.

This is farcical and blithely unrealistic stuff, and it's the collaboration of two Scots with Italian names, director Armando Iannucci and star Peter Capaldi. As usual with a feature spun off a TV situation comedy this feels blown out, and despite an air of urgency and apocalyptic rage (Capaldi is good at seeming about to have a coronary) there is no significant plot line leading to decisive government action.

Central to the action, such as it is, are the vague adjectives and metaphors the media jump upon that can cause policies to shift or heads to roll, more often the latter, especially when an Alpha Male communications officer runs amok in the Prime Minister's office. But that verbiage can cause mole hills to morph into mountains via pure chance rather than calculation may be just an improv comedy crew's wishful thinking. When Donald Rumsfeld said "stuff happens" (the title of English playwright David Hare's realistic and detailed depiction of UK-US cooperation in the Iraq war run-up) or when Condaleeza Rice said "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," they knew very well what they were doing.

The central character of this film and co-creator of it and of "The Thick of It" is Peter Capaldi, whose incredibly rude, profane and domineering Downing Street Communications Director/spin doctor is loosely based on former Prime Minister Tony Blair's chief strategizer, Alastair Campbell (see Stephen Frears' The Queen). Capaldi's character, Malcolm Tucker, freely orders around cabinet ministers, or weak ones, anyway, and the plot takes off when such a minister, Simon Foster (Tom Hollander) messes up at the end of an interview about dysentery in Africa by replying to an unrelated question about war that it's "unforeseeable."

When he hears this Malcolm Tucker goes ballistic because he thinks the word undermines the Government's determinedly neutral stand. If anything Tucker's colorful rage only pushes Simon Foster into the limelight, and asked to clarify his statement, the bumbling junior minister babbles, "in order to walk the road of peace sometimes we have to be ready to climb the mountain of conflict." This goes over very well with US administration hawks such as Rumsfeld-like Linton Barwick (David Rasche), who again is a man who likes to be fussy about words, and is snidely condescending about doing so.

In the Loop's rich ironies and (and its appeal, especially in the US) lie especially in the invective and profanity, the sub rosa, behind the scenes talk that prevails among the Alpha Males of government and that we know from the Nixon tapes.

Another important theme is political infighting, and Simon Foster's own managerial communications director Judy (Gina McKee) is very angry at the criticism she's suffered from Tucker. Her rival is Foster's new young aide and political adviser Toby (Chris Addison). The gamesmanship ramps up several notches and sexual farce is added when Foster is packed off to DC. There, we find a melting down female US government officer, assistant secretary for diplomacy Karen Clarke (Mimi Kennedy) with a young female aide who is allied politically with a Colin Powell-like dovish General Miller (James Gandlofini). Linton Barwick's aide Chad (Zach Woods) is out to savage Clarke's, the dovish Liza (Anna Chlumsky), who happens to be a college flame of Toby's. Chad scores some very palpable verbal hits against Liza, while nonetheless often appearing a fool. And to tangle the plot even more neatly, Karen and General Miller had a thing once too.

All these ties, rivalries, and hostilities are useful for generating farcical interchanges and scene shifts, but again, not so good for developing a drama about affairs of state.

This being after all a British comedy (despite spending a lot of time Stateside), Simon Foster's provincial district helps establish further comedic context and the ineffectual minister is further deflated (while ironically retaining his war policy status through his verbal gaffes) when in his Northhampton constituency a well-disguised Steve Coogan nearly brings him down over a crumbling wall, which Coogan's character claims is Foster's neglected responsibility. This gets publicized and Tucker decides to use it to send Foster packing in the PM's name.

Finally In the Loop can be reduced to a mass of invective, intrigue, and horseplay. The plot twists are amusing, but none of it would matter much without an almost Shakespearean gift for language dominated by Peter Capaldi's skill at expletive-laden put-downs -- a largely improvisational shtick he also displayed as the father of the lovable loser/sad sack Bristol schoolboy Sid (Mike Bailey) in the BBC series "Skins," where he really does have a coronary and sits dead in the living room after an evening of bliss. In the Loop is good fun and brilliantly inventive as sheer tangled plotting and nasty verbiage, but it's somehow being greeted as the second coming of high British cinema -- a slight exaggeration. Still, for devotes of English comedy and political satire, it's certainly highly welcome.

oscar jubis
08-16-2009, 10:56 AM
I am having some difficulty responding to your review, Chris. It seems primarily a corrective to a critical response you find undeservedly positive. After all, the first word you use is "overpraised". The primary focus of the review seems intended to undermine the "greeting" of IN THE LOOP as "the second coming of high British cinema".

However, if that would be, as you put it in your closing statements only "a slight exaggeration", then it is kind of odd that the prevalent thought one takes away from this review is that the movie is not as good as others claim. Perhaps it would serve you well to provide examples of political satires that constitute "high British cinema" or other political satires from anywhere that are significantly better than IN THE LOOP. Also it would be helpful to name specific critics or provide brief quotes from these reviews against which you seem to be reacting. I would want to know what specifically is being said about the film that constitutes undeserved praise.

You seem to be basing your claim that the film is "overpraised" on the following:
*That the content is "blithely unrealistic".
*That "there is no significant plot line leading to decisive government action".
*That the material is "not so good for developing a drama about affairs of state".

Perhaps you can clarify. Perhaps you can amplify your statements to help me understand your objections to the film and what's being said about it.

Chris Knipp
08-16-2009, 11:12 AM
I've pretty much had my say. Let's hear yours. Tell me what's so marvellous about it. Better political satire? DR. STRANGELOVE. Probably, as is said, the TV series source, "The Thick of It," is better than the film. The strain to make a coherent feature out of occasional and sound-bite material is obvious here.

I am not saying this is a dud, though. It's certainly worth watching. For anybody interested in politics it's definitely a must.

One weakness is that Capaldi's schtick, the high-blood-pressure apoplectic profanity rif, tends to dominate a film.

It's not overrated in the way that DISTRICT 9 is overrated. It's got quality. The English are good at satire and they're good at wit. It's just not the greatest thing since sliced bread.
However, if that would be, as you put it in your closing statements only "a slight exaggeration", then it is kind of odd that the prevalent thought one takes away from this review is that the movie is not as good as others claim. Why? What's wrong with that? I don't get your point. That's what I want to convey, that IN THE LOOP isn't as good as the hype.
You seem to be basing your claim that the film is "overpraised" on the following:
*That the content is "blithely unrealistic".
*That "there is no significant plot line leading to decisive government action".
*That the material is "not so good for developing a drama about affairs of state". That's right. Thanks for summarizing. What about this isn't clear to you?

I would consider David Hare's play STUFF HAPPENS a far better treatment and in its greater realism far better satire. The action need not be pumped up to a hysterical level to achieve powerful political satire; but that works well in short TV segments.

oscar jubis
08-18-2009, 06:26 PM
I was hoping for some examples and/or some expansion of your arguments before posting to disagree with them.

*As far as the film being overpraised (second coming of high British cinema, etc.), I read a bunch of reviews and didn't find much over-the-top adulation. Only two reviews get a score of 100 at Metacritic. The highest praise comes from Peter Rainer (Christian Science Monitor) when he opines that:
"Not since the heyday of Preston Sturges has there been such whiplash dialogue bouncing off the walls of the asylum."
My two favorite political satires were written by Preston Sturges (Hail the Conquering Hero and The Great McGinty) and I agree that IN THE LOOP is not far behind. Rainer also believes the film is the best anti-war comedy since Wag the Dog (1997), which doesn't strike me as an outrageous statement about IN THE LOOP.

*There are developments in the film that are unrealistic but not to the extent that the narrative cannot serve as material to comment on the practice of government and foreign policy of recent British and American administrations. I love Dr. Strangelove. Was Kubrick's film any more realistic than IN THE LOOP? No.

*No significant plot line leading to government action.
The plot moves inexorably towards the Brits providing the evidence and rationale to start a war that the US administration has requested and the passing of a resolution at the ONU authorizing an invasion.

*Material not so good for developing a drama about affairs of state
The filmmakers are primary concerned here with making a comedy that takes a satirical view of government and foreign policy that rings true given recent history. There is quite a bit of dramatic potential in this material. Little dramas like Toby's infidelity and the breakup with his girlfriend and the huge tragedy of the war about to ensue at the film's conclusion. But the filmmakers choose to maintain a madcap tone thus de-emphasizing dramatic elements. Karen Clarke's failure and her decision to resign for instance apparently doesn't deserve a pause in the action so that the pathos registers. Same goes for the tears of the opera-loving, older staff member. The film would be even better if it took a deep breath to register the resulting tragedy. Chaplin's best films are the ones that allow a mixture of comedy and pathos. That's what missing from IN THE LOOP. The willingness of the filmmakers to slow down so that the sadness signifies is what limits this picture, not the material. It is still a remarkable film, funny, insightful, with absolutely magnificent performances.

Chris Knipp
08-18-2009, 07:32 PM
I was hoping for some examples and/or some expansion of your arguments before posting to disagree with them. If you had your reaction already planned, then it was not necessary for me to present anytiing. You like the film better than i do. Fine. I consider it overrated. I may comment further if I get a chance to watch "The Thick of It" to see if as I suspect and some have said, the TV original is better.
the filmmakers choose to maintain a madcap tone thus de-emphasizing dramatic elements.Indeed.
The willingness of the filmmakers to slow down so that the sadness signifies is what limits this picture,That's one thing. The other is the lack of a coherent, unified plotline (too much is going on). Don't you think "absolutely magniicent performances" is going overboard? It's been accurately remarked that Gandolfini's does not resemble any real military officer anybody's ever seen.

I would suggest watching or reading David Hare's play STUFF HAPPENS. Satire on this material works much better staying closer to the actual events. But Capaldi, the originator of the how thing, is too in love with his own riffs. I'm not saying it's a lousy movie though. It's the best thing going right now of this kind.

I'm not familiar with the Preston Sturges movies you mention. They may be a good analogy. But I wonder if they were meant to reer to such specific events.