an idiot abroad movie — i looked into it

they never made the movie. they should never make the movie. a movie of an idiot abroad would require a third act, and karl pilkington has, on principle, never had a third act in his life — which is why the show works, and why an idiot abroad movie, if it ever existed, would not.

2:47pm on a wednesday. the performance review cycle is upstairs and it has been upstairs since 1:30, and from the heels coming back down the corridor a minute ago, somebody important is fetching coffee for somebody more important. nobody has come for me.

so. the search bar wants an answer about an idiot abroad movie, and the search bar is going to get one, in the form i can deliver between now and whenever the third floor disgorges its survivors. there is no movie. there should not be a movie. the absence is, quietly, the most artistically defensible decision the people behind that show ever made.

an idiot abroad movie: there is no theatrical feature with that title, and on inspection there is a structural reason for it. comedy cinema, by long-standing convention, requires a third-act redemption — a moment where the lead is changed by the journey. karl pilkington cannot fake a redemption. the show works because karl never pretends to learn. a movie would force the pretence and break the premise.

NO ARC. NO MOVIE. NO PROBLEM.

i am, at this desk, a person without an arc. that is not a confession. that is a thesis. arcs are for people who change. i am the same man at 2:47pm i was at 9:14am, allowing for a few microwaves.

the cinema-redemption requirement, in plain terms

here is the rule, drafted from years of half-watching things at the kitchen counter while waiting for water to boil. comedy films, the theatrical kind, almost always have the same skeleton: act one, the lead is broken. act two, the journey breaks them further. act three, the lead gets fixed — by a person, a place, an apology, a wedding, a single tear at an airport. you can name the genre. the skeleton is the same.

this is, i am fairly sure, written down somewhere — possibly in a paperback i once flipped through at an airport bookshop and did not buy — but you have lived inside it your whole moviegoing life. the long argument for staying home rather than travelling, which i made earlier in the week, is partly an argument against being put through somebody else’s third act.

karl pilkington’s project, in china and elsewhere, is the refusal of that move. he is sent somewhere. he reacts. he comes home unchanged. the show would not work if, in the final ten minutes, karl turned to camera and said “travel has, on balance, made me a better person.” he never says that. he says “the toilet was outside.” those are different sentences.

the table — five hypothetical castings, one karl, zero arcs

i did, between two emails, the only kind of comparative work this question allows: imagined karl pilkington in five films that did get made. real films, real third acts. the column on the right is what karl would refuse to do — the same refusal in five different costumes.

look at the right-hand column. one position. one consistent refusal across five real films and one fictional one. that is, technically, the entire personality. you cannot build a feature around a personality whose only move is “no, thank you.” you can build a tv show around it forever. the difference is that a tv show is allowed to tell you nothing happened. a feature is contractually obliged to claim something did.

the wall, briefly, because it has been talking

the wall of insults is, on this argument, on my side. the wall is a folder of screenshots — every paid insult that has come in via the tip jar gets dropped into a private grid that sits on my second monitor, behind the spreadsheet. it is digital. there is no fridge. there is no print-out. somebody this morning called me “a man who would explain a film he has not made yet.” i looked at the grid, nodded once, and added it. the wall is on the side of no movie. the wall does not require an arc to function. the wall is a tv show in grid form.

tom, in passing, and his counter-argument

tom — a guy from university who has, in the years since, acquired a wife, two children, a volvo, and a pension that he understands — emailed me last week about a film he wanted to recommend. tom recommends films the way other people recommend dentists: with concern. tom believes a film has worked if the lead is, by the credits, a slightly different person. tom would, in the seat next to a producer, green-light an idiot abroad movie before the pitch finished. tom would say “but at the end he learns something“. that is the difference between tom and me. tom believes in arcs. i own a tie i wear to weddings i did not want to attend, the tie has been to four of them, and the tie has not changed at all. the tie is, on this question, the more honest object.

the hot take that finishes this, in case you are timing me

the only relevant hot take here, the one i will defend in any room, is this: the microwave plate doesn’t need to spin. it heats the food regardless. the spinning is theatrical. the spinning is for you. the spinning is the third-act redemption of the kitchen. nothing about the food being warm requires the food to be in motion. an idiot abroad movie is the spinning plate. the food was already hot. you just want to watch it move. the show, on tv, has been heating the food fine without spinning. leave the plate alone.

the apartment, in memory, and the verdict

last night, in the apartment, on a couch i have had since the second yoga mat era, i rewatched the bit where karl is asked if travel has changed him. he says no, the way you say “no” to a refill of coffee you did not order. that is the moment a feature would not survive. a screenwriter would, for budgetary reasons, have karl pause, look out a window, and concede half a yes. that half-yes would be the death of him.

so my verdict, drafted from this desk, is that the absence of a karl-pilkington-in-brazil feature, the absence of a mexico cut, the absence of any theatrical version at all, are not gaps. they are achievements. on the broader question of what an idiot is and is not, the show settles it without a single arc: an idiot is whoever refuses to pretend, on schedule, that he has been changed by a country. believe the absence of the movie. it is telling you something.

↑