Yes, Client

Last night, I got to watch the hilariously scathing In The Loop:

The website has a nice flavour to it: a Guido Fawkes-style political blog that provides enough to entice people (e.g. the actual trailer), but isn't afraid to to have a lot of slightly impenetrable extras for the benefit of those who saw The Thick Of It and have been crying out for more Malcolm Tucker adventures for years now. Oh, and you can follow him on Twitter.

...and yes, it is 60, no, 70% about Tucker's capacity to work the phrase "Lubricated horse cock" into polite conversation, but he doesn't rule every scene. The beauty of the film is that every single character has a weakness, all of which are exploited at some time or other by someone else, and - oh yes - when the film reaches its conclusion, you have no doubt that every one is culpable in some way. And that's gotta make you think about what's happening today.

But don't despair! It is, at its core, very funny indeed. The mix of humour, human interest, and unabashed voyeurism at a secret world is irresistible. Which makes me think - we need one of these for ad agencies. Imagine! The toadying young account exec. The bothersome head-in-the-clouds planner. A foaming, psychotic head of traffic. The Client - always referred to with a mix of reverence and disdain, never seen. And various other one-dimensional stereotypes.

What d'you think? Any more compelling agency 'personalities' (not people!) the world needs to see? And who on earth could play them?

Bonus footage:

Up A Down B Left C Right A Start

I have spent the day beautifying the office in preparation for next week's big brainstorm on gaming:


Lots of people...

don't know...

what the hell...

is going on (spot the reference)

But it will all become clear on Tuesday:


Play again? (y/n)

Our APG Project: There's a magical place, we're on our way there...

After 10 weeks of hard thought, graft, and (some) dicking about, APG is over. The project brief was how to launch Best Buy in the UK, when it comes over in 2010. We answered it with verve and bombast, including reverentially watching the old Toys 'R' Us ad in silence.

Here's my bit - a madman's ramblings about recession psychology.

A Big Idea For Best Buy

View more presentations from Vituperative.

(what the bloody hell happened to the font? Use your imagination)
But the real payoff came when Ramzi (Yakob. No relation - or is he?) took the stage and went off on a beautiful, utterly impromptu serenade about the universality and creative depth of our concept.

We didn't win. She did. But I had a really, really good time.

Enjoy!


Still gives me goosebumps.

You either loved her or you hated her or had no opinion on her really

Is it possible to execute a sombre high-five? Cause DDB will have to try:



Rest in peace, Jade. You were the thin, bitter spread on the toast of the national consciousness. Apparently.

Let's stop thinking and start wanking

Enough of this. Can we all stop using the 'adjective' "wanky"? I'm all for the evolution of language and all that, and actioning things sounds like a great laugh, but there's a line between organically refining our communications, and pointless bandwagoning*. Language as I see it has a dual purpose - information, and social cohesion, these haven't changed since prehistory.

Information: "Oh no, a tiger! Look out!"

Social Cohesion: "Hey, do you remember that tiger? That was so rad, man."

Both are wholly legitimate. The species survives through awareness of the environment, and successful mating and group action. Therefore, I'd like to suggest that language 'evolves' when it a) becomes better able to describe the subject (external, internal, real or metaphysical - and one can see this is equally applicable in a creative sense), or b) better facilitates social cohesion by helping two people think in the same way, or feel some sort of empathy.

Wanky, to me, does neither of these. It has a couple of attractive qualities for the user:

- It says "I don't like this, but it's beyond my mental capacity and/or inclination to tell you why". What are you being paid to do, for fuck's sake?
- It does that whole low-level-swearing that people find edgy and cool nowadays. Good for you, Bill Hicks. You tell them.

My contention is that it's not only inefficient, but actively damaging to the discourse. Why care? First and foremost, because I'm a sentimental and pernickety young fool.

Secondly, it fucks up the way you think. George Orwell suggested that:

"...it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer. But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely. A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts"

Language is our door to understanding and empathy. Please, try not to treat it like a catflap.

...and if you must have 'foolish thoughts', make them original.



*see, I'm perfectly capable of verbifying a noun when I need to.

With a megaphone and nothing to say

Not a great start. But maybe I'll get better soon.

...hey, I've got an idea! Why not follow me and find out?

Antisocial Networking