Netz aus Lügen

There are three facts which I believe will help those who have not yet seen the film make up their minds whether or not they will enjoy it. First, the film was shot in Melbourne, Australia which in itself makes the film a "must see" for anyone who lives there or who has lived there. Second, the film was shot on a small budget and a tight time frame (30 days, I believe) which means that the film is not 'about' special effects or complex action scenes. Third, the film is based closely on a stage play so the viewer's interest has to be in the characters and the storyline.

I felt that the film was unusual in that it presented the different (and often opposed) viewpoints of as many as four characters in a way that led you to sympathise, or at least empathise, with all of them. The film is not judgmental and does not present a black and white conclusion. The characters are compromised, not heroic, and I would describe them as realistic rather than merely stereotypical.

This tale of workplace sexual harassment is an interesting study on how people lie, cajole, and manipulate in order to get what they want. Unfortunately, the script glosses over too many potential areas of deeper insight, leaving the audience somewhat unsatisfied. Perhaps this is because it is based on a play - indeed, the dialogue and staging often resembles theatre more than usual film structure - and therefore the audience is expected to provide more of their own interpretation to fill in gaps left by the writer. The family dynamic and examination of parental sexual abuse is particularly poorly done; it felt tacked on and shallow.

I found the opening music to be entirely wrong for setting the ambiance of the film; the music is silly and light, whereas the film is not.

LaPaglia and the Carides sisters are fabulous in this movie. Gia Carides is good as a party girl who is desperate to convince an arbitrator and tribunal that she really was victimized by her boss, playing out the old "whatever we wear, wherever we go, yes means yes and no means no" chant. Zoe Carides does a wonderful job portraying the feminist sister caught between being supportive and wondering just how much of the story really is true.

LaPaglia is the nasty boss, and so thoroughly wonderful in the role that I got chills. I'm a LaPaglia fan and generally prefer it when he plays nice but flawed guys, so in this case his loathsome character really got to me. It's a testament to his mastery of his craft that I found it hard to look at him by the end of the movie - and this is a guy I have as my desktop wallpaper! In particular, a line towards the end of the film was delivered with such malice that remembering it is making me uncomfortable even this many hours later. It's not an easy performance to watch, but I do recommend it nonetheless.

The greatest comfort to combat the on-screen unpleasantness is that LaPaglia and Gia Carides are a seemingly happy married couple!

I would say that this film is recommended for LaPaglia and Gia Carides fans, but not the best sample of either of their work. The two were also together in Paperback Romance, which is a completely different genre but much more entertaining.

Sexual harrassment, and films about it, may be last year's fashion, but it's still a good earner for the lawyers and bureaucrats administering our anti-discrimination laws. In this film, based on a play by David Williamson, Australia's premier commercial playwright, the "victim" manages to do quite well, and the "aggressor" is badly mauled.

Beautiful"victim" Susie Connor (Gia Caridies) comes to sympathetic anti-discrimination agency official Marion (Catherine Wilkin) to complain about the attentions of her handsome but piggish boss Gary (Anthony LaPaglia). She wants $40,000 in compensation. Conciliation is attempted but ends in acrimony. Marion starts to wonder if Susie is telling the truth, or is just a brilliant liar. The movies winds up as courtroom drama, with the truth strangely finding its way out through all the lies.

Interwoven with the legal proceedings is the unravelling of another set of lies and truths involving Susie, her equally beautiful lesbian/feminist sister Katy (Zoe Caridies) and their failed entrepreneur father Brian (Ray Barrett) who is in urgent need of an expensive heart by-pass operation.

It's all a bit like "Disclosure" (Demi Moore/Michael Douglas) meets "On Golden Pond" (the Fondas). Ray Barrett produces an ingratiating old rogue who even tries to persuade us that a little child molesting might not be so heinous, but might in fact stem from love. Anthony LaPaglia plays Gary the go-getter with plenty of suppressed rage and a general air of bewilderment. Gia Carides handles the ambiguity of her role - victim and sexpot - adroitly. Zoe (her sister in real life) does not succeed so well with sister Katy whose lesbianism come across as a lifestyle choice rather than basic sexual orientation. Pick of the performances really is Catherine Wilkin's Marion the anti-discrimination bureaucrat - a measured and fair portrait of a much maligned species.

The script seems a bit flat by Williamson standards. He is justly famous for his dialogue but here only the occasional line stands out. When Susie mentions that she only ever took Ecstacy (the drug) once, Marion remarks "Married women seldom get ecstacy and sex at the same time." There were two other scriptwriters including the director - perhaps that was the problem (I haven't read the play).

A filmed play, really, but an intelligent and moderately entertaining one. It's not likely to change anyone's attitudes - the war between the sexes will rage on regardless.

Very cliched, flat drama shows all its stagy origins while making you wonder how it ever hung together as a theatrical piece - nothing is subtle or implied; it all sits out in the open, almost instantly superficial and unnuanced (despite the ambiguity surrounding the ultimate truth of the case), and shot in a flat way that does nothing to elevate it. Carides' performance is hard to read, which in part is deliberate but in this context ultimately leaves you out in limbo; LaPaglia's role is largely reactive; Barrett is just awful (although awful in a way so common in Australian movies that it may - shudder the thought - be quite realistic) as the father, and the movie's echoes of Oleanna (in the issue of who's telling the truth, the overall staginess, and in the feeling that she may be crazy or unreasonable) are unhelpful in that they expose the unelevated language and general clunkiness of this version, to its considerable detriment. The film certainly doesn't contribute anything to the cinema of sexual politics (unless it be the modest benefit of an "Australian perspective").

The title, Brilliant Lies, created the obvious expectation of much lying. This was not too satisfying but I was soon rewarded by the uncovering of layers of lies in many areas of the lives of the characters. This conflict of lies and partial truths led to some surprising but plausible resolutions. The acting was excellent and served the plot very well.