In the Situation (comedy) Room
He was getting a bit sick of the PPI cold calls.
CJ SAYS:
The saying goes that swearing is a sign of a limited vocabulary. Billy Connolly refuted this by declaring that while he knew thousands of words he still preferred to use “fuck”. In 2009, a fellow Scotsman went one step further creating an hour-and-a-half long dictionary of vulgarities that would impress even the greatest of wordsmiths.
Armando Iannucci’s satirical take on the special relationship drops the F-bomb on Whitehall and Washington. A lot. In the Loop is a continuous stream of profanity from start to finish (much like the “arse-spraying mayhem” of diarrhoea, as described by Director of Communications/“Gorbals Goebbels”, Malcolm Tucker (Peter Capaldi)). It is not, however, a display of cussing for cussing’s sake. What Iannucci has managed to do is show the dirty, un-glamourised world of politics in a sharp, savage and astute way. It’s normally one side or the other – the glossy West Wing way or the gritty House of Cards way – and when it does come together it is often an omnishambles (as shown week in, week out by The Colbert Report).
In the Loop holds a mirror up to a system of government riddled with irony and hypocrisy, and ridicules it. It takes the political strata and tears it apart layer by layer. Gaffe-tastic, incompetent government ministers and advisers, figure headed by Simon Foster (Tom Hollander) whose statements regarding war in the Middle East sets the film’s events in motion. Hawk and dove army chiefs whose decisions are made out of self-interest rather than national public interest. Bullying spin-doctors with anger management issues. Everyday we read about similar individuals in the paper. These parallels, combined with some truly sensational one-liners, make this a timeless mickey-take of those who (worryingly) hold the reins of power.
====VERDICT====
Dr Strangelove meets The Office meets Glengarry Glen Ross. A viciously funny mockumentary, fully deserving of its 2010 Oscar nomination for Best Adapted Screenplay.
3.5/4
JJ SAYS:
Political satire on the big screen is a rare thing and there’s certainly a tendency, especially in the US, to play politics straight edged. Take House of Cards, The Ides of March, Syriana, or pretty much anything in the last ten years and it becomes all too clear that when it comes to politics, studios feel far safer commissioning thrillers over satires. Perhaps this is why In the Loop was so warmly received upon its release in 2009.
A political blunder and the potential outbreak of war between Britain, the US and the vaguely termed ‘middle-east’ forms the basis for events. This international perspective enables the action to flit between London and Washington D.C as the two nations deliberate the shaky evidence in favour of going to war. For fans of The Thick of It, there’s a lot to like. The script is sharp and filled with one-liners. Peter Capaldi also is worthy of mention for his charismatically belligerent performance as Malcolm Tucker, the governments heavy handed and profane enforcer. James Gandolfini is similarly well cast as the ‘peace loving’ General George Miller and a verbal showdown between the two is arguably the films highlight.
Having said that, I’m not a fan of The Thick of It, and neither was I really a fan of In The Loop. As I’ve already mentioned, the film has a solid script and a strong cast, but it left me cold, and aside from the odd moment I rarely found myself either amused or engaged. At times the film flat out annoyed me, specifically Oliver (Chris Addison), who really did nothing for me. Sure, I get the fact he’s a fish out of water in Washington D.C., eager to impress, and obviously he’s supposed to be a bit of an arse; but instead of being entertaining, or even entertaining and irritating, I just found him intensely annoying. In my eyes what really hurt the movie was its aura of self-satisfaction, and the derision which infuses the script ends up just weighing the whole thing down. I mean, being a satire is one thing, but having two-dimensional characters who rehash their ‘funny’ attributes again and again is another entirely; towards the end the whole thing felt forced.
I can see why In the Loop would appeal to some people, but for me the movie just didn’t cut it. I’ve seen a lot of people compare it to Dr. Strangelove, but that seems horribly misleading, these two films are stratospheres apart in nearly every respect that matters. If Dr Strangelove wasn’t directed by Stanley Kubrick, didn’t have a career defining performance by Peter Sellers, didn’t have one of the greatest scripts of the 20th century and wasn’t nearly so original or relevant; then the two might be comparable. It’s like comparing the Godfather to Lawless; they’re both about crime, that’s pretty much it.
====VERDICT====
In the Loop features some good performances, but its cynicism and derision become overbearing and ruin what could have been an effective satire.
2/4
jjcjsays 