A couple of weeks ago HBO’s VEEP concluded its 4th season. This marks the end of showrunner and creator Armando
Iannucci’s phenomenal work on the series as season 5 will see the show enter a
period of new leadership. This
also marks the conclusion to a 10 year cycle of Iannucci’s in the realm of
televised political comedy.
Iannucci first entered this domain in 2005 with The Thick of It, a political comedy show that revolved around a
minister in the fictional British cabinet position of Secretary for Social
Affairs. The show proved popular,
lasting for 3 seasons and 2 specials from 2007-2009 when it spun off into a
feature film called In the Loop.
In the Loop marked
the first shift over from Iannucci towards American politics in addition to the
previous British focusing, revolving around the misadventures of Simon Foster,
secretary for international development, who is caught up in pre-war fervor
surrounding the launch of the Iraq War.
After a fourth season of The Thick
of It co-produced through Hulu Iannucci made the full transition to
American politics with HBO’s VEEP in
2012. With VEEP’s conclusion now seems like a good time to examine Iannucci’s
ultimate commentary on American politics compared to England.
In case you’ve never seen the shows but are progressing with
this article for my lovely prose firstly, thank you, but secondly you should
know none of these comedies is actually about the strict policy of
politics. By this I mean that
Iannucci has a strong tendency to avoid details and specifics when it comes to
crafting the political landscape he sets his story in, settling for broad
strokes that often parallel real life to a worrying degree. We’ll usually get a vague name of some
piece of legislation or a newly enacted policy but the show never bogs down in
the specifics the initiative, much like how no one’s political party is every
actually identified. There are
vague indications of which side of the political divide people hail from,
usually owing to the stereotypes and socio-economic realities surrounding
various political affiliations.
This has the effect of keeping the show’s focus on the characters and
their struggles of governance and self-advancement, that’s where a lot of the
central commentary arises. This
forces the show into the position of what is essentially an office comedy that
just happens to exist within the confines of political space.
This particular genre mash-up affords the various shows and
movies of this ten-year cycle a unique form of commentary grounded strictly in
their stylistic approach.
Iannucci’s work has the effect of tearing down the artificial dome of
secrecy formed around the workings of government that affords it a sense of
vogue and prestige. In comparison
to shows like The West Wing or House of Cards The Thick of It and VEEP
portray politicians as selfish, inept, contemptuous, bumbling or all four. This is a criticism held across the
entire spectrum of Iannucci’s cycle, the idea that central workings of
government are, essentially, no more glamorous or dramatic than any given
office farce. Where things start to deviate is in how the various shows and
films relate to their respective politicians.
In both The Thick of
It and In The Loop there’s an
undercurrent of sympathy to be found for the various cabinet ministers that
drift through Iannucci’s lens.
From initial minister Hugh Abbot’s exhaustive struggle to keep his job
to follow up minister Nicola Murray’s floundering attempts to enact real social
change and political moment through positivity, all the way up to Simon Foster,
lead character of In The Loop being
portrayed as a hapless pawn in the schemes of larger forces, all these
characters convey an odd sense of tragedy about their respective place within
both the political machine and the ethos of western politics overall. More often then not these characters
end up broken under the wheel of political mandate with their own goals swept
away by the writ of party politics.
The point of all this is about stripping away the trappings of power
from some of the most powerful people in the government and enforcing why it
seems change is never actually allowed to occur; because the people in control
of our lives are too busy scuttling about trying to avoid bumbling their
day-to-day that no one has the strength to be a normal person and enact real
change.
This is where VEEP
enters the equations as its depiction of politicians skews in a much harsher
direction. This is best
illustrated in series lead Selina Meyer, erstwhile vice president, candidate,
and eventual surrogate president during season 4. The difference between how Iannucci views American and
English politics as well as levels of political discourse is perfectly summed
up in the way VEEP regards Selina; as
a selfish monster that can actually get things done. Throughout the show it’s constantly made clear that Selina’s
self-obsession borders on the egomaniacal but also that her massively
overinflated narcissism and aggressive self-advancement are what make her a
meaningful force in politics. A
quintessential rule of sitcoms is to include a character that represents the
unfettered id, someone who can indulge in the selfish or cruel actions we, the
audience, sublimate on a daily basis.
In the case of VEEP that
person is Selina Meyer, the most politically powerful person on the show. What’s more the emphasis of the series
always brings during moments where she accomplishes actual political change is
that it always comes at a high cost someone else must pay for her egoism. In the end it creates a pitch-black
image of top tier politics in America that’s only softened by the kind of harsh
absurdity that only exists in real life.
The ultimate and horrifying truth at the core of VEEP is that there is an inevitable amount of individuals who will
have their lives pretty much stepped on to appeal the highest echelons of the
political spectrum and that’s the price we have to pay for any kind of actual
change. This latest season
actually pushes the idea even further with the charming, charismatic and actually
caring political hero Tom James.
James is the kind of idealized political myth everyone would love to see
in the Whitehouse and VEEP’s ultimate
commentary on him is that in today’s gridlocked political climate someone like
that can only get to be president by accident.
What’s impressive about all of Iannucci’s work is that
despite the incredibly cynical outlook that is so intrinsic to the material
none of his work ever exudes a sense of pessimism. The greater atmosphere of the shows and films is a sense of
inevitably and resignation to the point of genuine release. A big part of this is the emphasis on
an actual lack of continuity throughout Iannucci’s television work. Even though the various politicians and
their staff fall into innumerable scandals and public embarrassments those
events never really come back to bite them in any sense. In fact it’s quite the opposite, with
major character resignations or shifts in government leading to changes in the
details while the same problems still persist. It all adds up a very central truth that runs through the
entirety of Iannucci’s work; that the world of politics isn’t turned into an
infuriating, gridlocked, image-driven factory that struggles to enact change
because of any one person, party, power level, or even country of origin. What makes government that it’s a
system of expecting perfection from humans. That’s the underlying truth Iannucci conveys through his
work formed into its purest nature as a cosmic joke, a twist on expectations of
epic proportions.
No comments:
Post a Comment