Films

Rain (AM and PM) 1° London Hi 4°C / Lo -2°C

The Invention of Lying, Ricky Gervais, Matthew Robinson, 99 mins, (12A)

Ricky Gervais's satire of America has a clever concept – only one person in the world is capable of lying – but its edge is blunted by too many soft touches as it drifts towards romcom

Reviewed by Jonathan Romney

Pants on fire: Ricky Gervais, Jennifer Garner and Louis CK discover honesty is not always the best policy

IMAGENET

Pants on fire: Ricky Gervais, Jennifer Garner and Louis CK discover honesty is not always the best policy

Ricky Gervais's new American vehicle is ... I'm not sure what. Technically, I suppose, it's a satire, and it certainly has the makings of a scathing one – only it's just a little too benign. You'd really have to describe it as a high-concept comedy: that is, one dominated by a single idea pursued to its logical limits. But that's really another way of saying "an extended sketch", and The Invention of Lying essentially is that – a long, impressively clever sketch that gets hung up on being a sweet-and-sour romcom.

Still, the premise is neat. The setting is an alternative version of our world, in which it has never occurred to anyone to tell a lie. Consequently everyone is brutally honest all the time. "Oh, your baby is so ugly," smiles a woman at a new parent, and even a Coke ad flatly admits, "It's basically just brown sugar water." This is not only a world without lies, but one in which people and institutions alike are incapable of self-censorship: the façade of a care home carries the slogan "A sad place for hopeless old people".

Then along comes the very first liar: Gervais plays Mark Bellison, whose screenwriting job yields the film's most eccentric and inspired joke. If there's no lying, then there's no fiction either, so Hollywood specialises in historical lectures by dry professors in leather armchairs (Christopher Guest, in one of the film's several gratuitous cameos).

The basic conceit smacks a little of Ionesco, a lot of Monty Python: it's a verbal-philosophical gag, like the Pythons' Argument Office sketch. But then the film spins off in a more tendentious direction. Something goes ping in Mark's brain, and he commits the radically innovative act of telling an untruth: he instantly makes $500 profit. He finds that his new technique can even bag him sex: a woman rushes to a motel room with him because he claims that Earth's future depends on it (the flip side of universal honesty being universal credulity). It's the film's first fatal soft touch that Mark politely declines this sure thing: a blacker satire would have had him amorally seizing every opportunity.

In fact, lying soon ceases to be self-serving and becomes a creative, generous activity. Seemingly the only compassionate man alive, Mark starts telling fibs to make people feel better about life and death, and before long is holding a crowd enthralled with his preposterous gospel about a Man in the Sky who decides all our fates. Engaging in theological debate, people at last develop a sense of contradiction: why is it that the Man in the Sky rewards some, torments others? "So he's kind of a good guy, but kind of a prick too?" the crowd puzzles.

All this is not only witty, but also courageous in a mainstream American comedy – and it's Gervais's Englishness that lets him get away with it. Mark's status as an absolute outsider – the liar as the only lucid man – goes hand in hand with the presentation of him as a fish-out-of-water Brit, scorned by, but essentially superior to, all those gullible superficial Yanks. Because of the emphasis on Mark's/Gervais's character, the film comes across not only as a satire about truth and lies but equally as Gervais's own commentary on being British abroad; as such, it yields a sour, condescending vision of America as heartless and infantile. Mark Bellison may be pitched as someone whom the world merely tolerates, but Gervais's manner makes it clear that really the entire world is the fool that he doesn't suffer gladly.

The satire is mitigated throughout by a romantic strand in which Mark tries to woo the beautiful Anna (Jennifer Garner), who likes him but sees him as pudgy, snub-nosed, inferior genetic material. This joke might have been funnier if delivered by an actress who was comely but reasonably approachable-looking (Maggie Gyllenhaal, say). But when Jennifer Garner announces, "I'm out of your league," you tend to concede she has a point: she's Olympian in that scary Hollywood way, like a tree or a stylised effigy of a gazelle.

There's a very good scriptwriter involved in this film, and a mediocre director. One is Ricky Gervais; the other is Matthew Robinson, but I have no idea which is which – and each man could be a little of both. I don't know how they collaborated in this joint directing debut, but they've opted for a bland style that fatally dilutes the sharpness: flat, functional compositions and a twinkly retro score that tries to persuade you that you're getting vintage Frank Capra stuff.

This is an ingenious film that makes you chuckle, rather than gasp at its audacity – and you'd have to be a rabid fundamentalist to take anything like the offence that such a film should be capable of causing. And its life-affirming conclusion, tart though it is, plays right into the hands of the pious. Bet you anything there are preachers out there welcoming The Invention of Lying as a parable of how even an unreconstructed liar must finally embrace faith and family values – honest to God.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Movie should have steered away from religion
[info]techgromit wrote:
Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 01:07 am (UTC)
I'm not religious, so I really don't care one way or the other, but the movie, "The Invention of lying" really should have steered away from religion. In the story he lies to people telling them about the man in the sky (ie God) to make them feel better about death, which of course implies that religion is all lies made up to make us all feel better. I'm sure there are plenty of religious zealots that would be offended by this movie. Also the rate at which to develops guilt is also a disappointment. If everyone is brutally honest all the time, it would have been fun to watch the main character in the story take advantage of people for awhile and develop the guilt emotion as the story progressed. Instead he develops guilt almost right after he invents lying. A better story would have been him taking advantage of women and other people and developing guilt along the way.
Re: Movie should have steered away from religion
[info]linear_c wrote:
Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 10:33 am (UTC)
Why? There is no good evidence whatsoever for the truth of any religeous claim, it's all just made up. Isn't that one definition of a lie?

Re: Movie should have steered away from religion
[info]mstamper wrote:
Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 12:10 pm (UTC)
Oh My! We wouldn't wanted to offend any religious zealots would we? Too bad!
Reviewer Romney "Just Doesn't Get it"
[info]geneous42 wrote:
Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 06:10 pm (UTC)
Despite his considerable knowledge of prior works in this genre, the review shows the point of view of one having a foregone acceptance of a deity (and belief there in) and conjecturing how those of fundamentalist and non-beliefs would respond. What he missed is that this movie is a parable, that is a teaching tool, aka, an analog point of view.

The movie shows how belief in a deity could have begun. Certainly the fear and disillusionment of one's personality, accumulated knowledge and memory of loved ones and experiences suddenly evaporating at death is real and has been with us way before "Ardi" (who just displaced Lucy as the earliest known hominid). That coupled with our ubiquitous ability to believe what we want to be true (e.g. UFOs and Terri Schiavo) are a strong argument for mass acceptance of "too good to be true" (the kindest thing I can say here), particularly prior to knowledge of anything like brain waves. Now we know that conscientiousness is centered in the brain and the brain ceases to function (like kidneys) at death. Further, that any transference of that conscientiousness (information) would have been detected, given that we can now detect the incredibly weak information from billions of light-years away, means there isn't a soul "going" some place.

I am aware that an analogy is not a "proof" in the Euclidean system of logic. It is just a teaching tool. This teaching tool, the movie, let's us see how humans could have fallen for belief in a deity in a funny way and with lots of wonderful satire to ease the pain of realizing we've been taken. Admittedly weak, I saw a connection between the transcribing of Mark's monologue as a reference to the transcribing of the golden tablets about a 150 years ago. That is one of the jewels of this movie.

Should reviewer Romney not be swayed by this rant, reading <http://bit.ly/3potn> [in words: bit-dot-ly-slash-3POtn] might be good or might be too far from what he wants to believe.

Gene

[info]danak73 wrote:
Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 09:46 pm (UTC)
I just saw it. The 'fact' in the movie was after death there is nothing; the 'lie' was there is an eternity of joy for good people. He refers to the rules as needing to be on tablets (like Moses). His 'lie' is about a 'man in the sky'. The movie was funny and moving up until the morning after his mother passed, then it spirals downward. He makes a movie about spaceships in the 13th century, which doesn't cause any stir. I was insulted, and left the movie. I am by no means a 'rabid fundamentalist'. But the movie insults those that do believe in an afterlife and a God. I wish I would have used my hard earned money elsewhere. Another point, I saw no trailer that included his 'lie' about the 'man in the sky'.
Invention of dull film making
[info]davidioso wrote:
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 at 11:40 pm (UTC)
This film ranks among the worst films ever made. It is absolutely dire. Dreadful script, embarrassing product placements, and astoundingly unfunny. On a par with Joe and the Volcano - but worse.

Most popular

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date