In the Loop

In the Loop is often very funny -- minute for minute, surely one of the funniest movies of the year -- but it's a little exhausting, too.

In the Loop

Director: Armando Iannucci
Cast: Peter Capaldi, Tom Hollander, James Gandolfini, Chris Addison, Anna Chlumsky, Gina McKee
Rated: R
Studio: IFC
Year: 2009
US date: 2009-07-24 (Limited release)
UK date: 2009-04-17 (General release)

Armando Iannucci's In the Loop uses its very English drabness to launch a stealth attack. It's pitched as farce, but its silliness carries a sting. Spun off from the Brit TV series The Thick of It, the film follows assorted UK and US politicians, assistants, and handlers in the run-up to a new (unnamed) war in the Middle East. Toby Wright (Chris Addison) is just beginning a junior position with meek, ineffectual staffer Simon Foster (Tom Hollander) when disaster strikes: Foster says in a radio interview that war is "unforeseeable."

This sends the Prime Minister's advisor Malcolm Tucker (Peter Capaldi) into an apoplectic spin-control fit, during which we learn hilariously little about what the right thing to say would've been ("foreseeable" is deemed just as terrible). The action shifts between London and Washington as politicians on both sides of the pond try to situate themselves advantageously, whether opposed to each other or in some sort of tense allegiance, as the mess looms larger.

One problem, among others, is that no one can agree what outcome -- war, peace, endorsement, resignation -- is messiest. General Miller (James Gandolfini) opposes the war but hesitates to lead the charge against it, while young aide Liza (Anna Chlumsky) has written an anti-war paper, but fears for her career when it starts to circulate. Malcolm stays so on-task with his manipulations of who knows and says what that the consequences seem almost pointless, apart from the issue of whether or not he's in control.

Iannucci and his co-writers (five are listed) manage to make this wonkiness funny rather than droning. Partly this results from the film's use of techniques recognizable from Britcoms, like the faux-documentary awkwardness of The Office and Spaced's cultural references. The latter turn up as ornamental extensions of the dialogue's many epithets and insults: The Sound of Music, The Elephant Man, the White Stripes, and (most scathingly) Love Actually, among others, come up as targets of withering derision.

The film's mélange of allusions, stammers, and parodies sounds like a nearly new language. This is a rare movie where you have to keep up with the dialogue, not just the plot. And the actors take full advantage of the chance to speak full, smart sentences Capaldi plays the furious Scotsman with commendable relish, but the lower-key performances are equally skilled. Chlumsky (remember the My Girls?), is particularly charming, playing a woman aware of but not always confident in her own intelligence.

In the Loop is often very funny -- minute for minute, surely one of the funniest movies of the year -- but it's a little exhausting, too. The spin machine never stops rat-a-tatting, the sorta good guys are too incompetent to get ahead, and the movie just runs until it can't run anymore. This may reflect actual foreign policy-making more than we'd like to believe, the political process reinterpreted as a fast-paced grinding down of the truth. On screen, though, the satire's relentlessness drains away the movie's tension; the stakes remain high, but the laughs eventually feel halfhearted. An abrupt ending makes narrative and satirical sense, but leaves several characters in the lurch (Liza and Toby, especially, recede from the picture as it hurtles to its conclusion). Maybe that's a testament to the movie's verisimilitude: inevitability is only funny for so long.


So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.