Lights, Camera, Political Action: ‘In the Loop’

Flip on a news channel and you’re likely see to characters with perfectly coiffed hair making fantastical claims directly to camera. But how far does this connection between political figures and entertainment go? Each week A&E columnist Kevin Truong will look at a movie through the lens of modern politics, analyzing whether the political climate has changed or remained the same.

The film “In the Loop” skewers government and politicians in oh so many ways.

It’s a combination of the bumbling incompetence of a massive bureaucratic government mixed with the conniving ways that adults try to undercut each other. Director Armando Iannucci then adds a good dose of creatively cruel verbal abuse that gets flung out a-mile-a-minute on top.

In the film, the hapless minister for international development, Simon Foster, stumbles his way into opposition, then support, then utter confusion about his view on an impending war in Iraq.

Through a complete spineless lack of character, what looks like an inexorable march toward conflict is broken down into its component parts: a long line of minor and major screwups that result in war.

Iannucci has become the master of this kind of political satire on both sides of the pond. “In the Loop” was a 2009 feature film inspired by a television show in the U.K. with many of the same characters called “The Thick of It.” The success of the two meant a 2012 American import in the form of the hit HBO television show “Veep.”

The hallmarks of the three are the same – a kind of reverse gravity in which some political figures consistently seem to fail upward, a biting satire of the jaw-dropping ineptitude of government and of course, the unforgettable insults. Oh the insults!

Just one example from “In the Loop” is the inimitable Malcolm Tucker, the spin doctor who handles communications for the prime minister. In one scene, he lays into Foster for comments made in an interview, saying, “‘Climbing the mountain of conflict?’ You sounded like a Nazi Julie Andrews!”

To be honest, that was pretty much the only one I could print without resorting to more four-letter words than a mediocre Scrabble player, but rest assured that’s only the tip of the iceberg.

As citizens who are faced with a government where partisan gridlock has gummed up the works of a branch of our national bureaucracy (Hint: It’s the one that makes laws), there’s a certain amount of gallows humor to be taken from Iannucci’s contribution to the political conversation.

To me, the vision of government portrayed in “In the Loop” is quite a bit more comforting than the one I see on the news.

When I watch the movie, I take solace in its reality. There is a certain amount of comfort in the fact that our government is dysfunctional because at its heart, it is an institution staffed and run by cowardly, egotistical and selfish individuals.

That may seem like a strange conclusion, but there is little actual evil in the actions of Iannucci’s characters other than the willingness to step over others to get ahead.

The movie shields us from the reality of our current political situation by substituting earnestness with savvy, cynicism with optimism, and the intention for malice with blind ambition.

Throughout the film, we see powerful political figures showing up at the wrong meetings, getting smashed at hard rock concerts and yes, beating up fax machines.

But here’s the sort of consolation that comes from these mishaps: They make the world go round. I find myself hoping for a comedy movie set in Congress, instead of the horror story that sees government shutdowns not as a nightmare, but a normal part of business in Washington.

I know what I’m laughing at when I watch “In the Loop” – it’s the realization that government may well be more effective and a whole lot more quotable if that was the reality behind the Capitol’s closed doors.

Well, a guy can f—ing dream, can’t he?