In The Loop

I've always been a big fan of The Thick of It, the TV show on which In The Loop is based, so I had great hopes for the film.

The TV show was written by a team including Armando Iannucci, a name attached to several of my favourite comedy shows ever* (The Day Today, The Armando Iannucci Show, Time Trumpet, Stewart Lee's Comedy Vehicle), as well as Jesse Armstrong and Simon Blackwell (Peep Show). The team remained the same for In The Loop, except for Iannucci who directed instead.

The film's similarities to the TV show go beyond the writing of course; the shooting style is identical, using handheld cameras for that "fly-on-the-wall" look, and there is no soundtrack. The comedy is entirely about the dialogue, which in the TV show comes thick and fast, before the title has even appeared. Because of this I was slightly wary as In The Loop opened with comparatively sparse dialogue. It got up to speed soon enough though; I can only assume it was deliberately calmed down for audiences unfamiliar with the style.

Simon Foster (Tom Hollander) is a new face for In The Loop, although a very familiar character. He is a career-obsessed, decidedly untalented minister who you find yourself siding with one moment then hating the next. It struck me halfway through the film that perhaps this was basically Hugh Abbot (Chris Langham**) from the TV show, but Hugh Abbot was never careerist, he was just useless. I suppose they share an awkward (and mainly suppressed) desire to "do the right thing", but Hugh was much more of an old-guard lifetime civil servant type of character.

Chris Addison and Olivia Poulet reprise their relationship, though with different character names (Toby and Suzy in the film, Ollie and Emma in the TV show). Their relationship isn't nearly as interesting in the film - in the TV show Emma worked for the opposition, and their relationship was entirely based on mutual espionage. Since In The Loop isn't about domestic politics that's not massively relevant, so Suzy is part of the government in the film.

The central character of Malcolm Tucker (Peter Capaldi) is thankfully identical in the film. He is the same foul-mouthed, basically evil bully he was in The Thick of It. His assistant Jamie MacDonald (Paul Higgins) also returns, though I thought with far too small a part. Both have the same delightfully offensive way with words (I can't believe I've never thought to use the word "catastrofuck" before..) with Jamie being the slightly more unhinged and potentially violent of the two. There are several marvellous scenes of rooms full of hapless victims silenced by Malcolm's acidic rejoinders, which I suppose is really the hallmark of The Thick of It. But where in the TV show Malcolm often appears as the only one with any sense in a government staffed by ministers completely detached from reality, with the weight of an all-too-real story about dodgy intelligence he becomes actively evil by the end of the film. I did leave the cinema feeling slightly cold; not what I'd expected.

Still, I definitely recommend it. And if that's not enough to convince you, here's a clip (warning! contains references to "lubricated horse cock")





* I was going to declare Iannucci incapable of wrongdoing, but wikipedia tells me he directed the recent Post Office adverts. I hope he didn't write them..

** I looked up Chris Langham on wikipedia, to check the facts of his sentence, and found out one of his first jobs was writing for The Muppet Show. Bet you didn't know that!

Why I love the Pope

Pope Benedict XVI is a Pope for the modern era. In a world where atheists, homosexuals, and (God forbid!) homosexual atheists parade their sins in full view of all decent members of society his guidance shines as a paragon of moral teaching.

Long gone are the glorious days of the Crusades, of course, in a time before so-called "political correctness" saw us giving "rights" to blasphemers and infidels. But while the Pope no longer wages religious wars, his instruction of the faithful remains unquestionable.

Take the recent example of Bishop Richard Williamson, who made certain remarks regarding concentration camps that were perhaps a little out-of-touch. Unfortunately when the Pope lifted Williamson's excommunication he didn't realise Williamson held such views - after all lifting an excommunication is such a minor thing the Vatican would only have done the most cursory of research. Besides, Williamson had only declared his holocaust-denial on Swedish TV - and I don't suppose they get Swedish TV in the Vatican! As soon as the Pope was informed, his action was decisive and immediate - he had his staff issue a frankly poetic statement saying the excommunication had "nothing to do with the personal opinions of a person". Then he was told that wasn't good enough, by Israel's envoy to the Vatican. And The Chief Rabbinate of Israel. And France's Europe Minister. And the German Chancellor. So he exercised his power as God's representative on Earth and demanded Williamson publicly recant his views. Which Williamson still hasn't done.

Another demonstration of the Pope's ironclad morality and certitude of purpose came shortly thereafter when he deftly linked saving the environment with not-being-anything-but-heterosexual in the beautiful phrase "human ecology". In his end-of-year speech to senior Vatican staff the Pope denounced gender theory as likely to cause the destruction of the human race, and declared lifelong wedlock between a man and a woman "the sacrament of creation". Fairly typical stuff - but here again the liberals spring into action, harping on about rights and oppression and all the rest of it. A lesser Pope would've responded with "**** you, I'm the Pope, I've got the hotline to God" and moved on - but not Benedict! No, he realises that would be inappropriate for today's world and has his staff declare the liberals to have misunderstood - "He was speaking more generally about gender theories which overlook the fundamental difference in creation between men and women" apparently.

What people forget about moral guardians like Pope Benedict XVI is that they hold back the floodwater of corruption. They stand, seemingly alone, reinforcing the dam against the tide. Every hundred years or so they move the dam back a bit to make it slightly easier but the new position is just as valid and holy as the last.

Another admirable aspect of Benedict is his refusal to conform to the modern obsession with vanity. In these days where every public figure has fashion advisors and makeup artists to have them present a flawless image, Benedict's purity again shines through by always looking like the Emperor out of Star Wars. Or an evil old Nazi.

God bless him!

have we reached the future yet?

I watched "2001: A Space Odyssey" tonight, for the first time in years. I think it's a great piece of cinema, but also it's a wonderful insight into the optimism of the 60s - it seems laughable now that at the beginning of the space race people genuinely believed we'd have both space travel and artificial intelligence "sorted" inside forty years.

We don't really have that promise-of-technology excitement any more, and that's a shame. While the expectations of the 60s were somewhat unrealistic, science and technology do enrich our lives - but I think perhaps we take them for granted. The film made me think about the cool stuff 60s sci-fi promised, like robots and hovercars, and wonder that if the year 2001 didn't bring superintelligent computers or artificial gravity, what did it bring? Put another way, what technology does exist today that makes me think "that's the future - right there"?

So far I've only thought of two examples. The first is Google Earth, which I sat and played with for hours when it launched. I learned more about the geography of our planet in that one night than I ever did at school. It made the world seem.. not small exactly but.. somehow closer together. I just wish it were realtime! The second is the iPhone - simply because it is the first real demonstration of mobile internet. The Internet is the sum of all human knowledge (leaving porn and nazi forums to one side for a moment) and having it available at all times, in all places, I think will make a great difference to society. Remember - there was a time back in the dark ages where you had to go home or use a phone box to make a phone call, and I think our static use of the Internet will soon be remembered the same way.

I'm sure there must be many more. Any suggestions?

Mixed messages at the BBC

Today the BBC are running this story (how awful!) and this story (how cute!)

(slightly related: I notice in the first article Iain Duncan-Smith is using the tabloid's favourite phrase "broken Britain". Nice to see he's still in touch with ordinary folk. The poisonous little twerp.)