Brilliant Lies

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.

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.

The fabulous Carides sisters combine with a young Anthony La Paglia, a suitably wimpish Michael Veitch and Ray Barrett playing Ray Barrett to sleazy perfection in framing a superbly executed movie exploring sexual tension in the workforce whilst incorporating misogyny, family trauma and an LGBTI angle, albeit in a 1990's mindframe.

Despite a budget seemingly less than the $40,000 harassment/wrongful dismissal claim central to the story, this screen adaptation of David Williamson's play is an engaging insight into the fractious male/female dynamic and how they play their cards to advantage in order to get what they want. The two combatants Susy (Gia Carides) and Gary (Anthony La Paglia) may be married off screen, yet their seething animosity is key to the film's authenticity and ambiguous rendering of who indeed is the most brilliant liar.

My only gripe is the ultimate willingness of sisters Susy and Katy (Zoe Carides) to accept the unforgivable trespasses of their mostly awful father.

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.

David Williamson has written some very good plays, but even the best of them can't be removed from the stage without wilting. This is not one of the best of them.

To be honest, it feels as though it's been cranked out. "Let me write a play (or script) about ..." Williamson thinks for a moment, fixes on "workplace sexual harassment", starts banging away that very instant at the typewriter, sticks to the scenic formula that's worked so well in the past, throws in a revelation of some kind every few pages, and it's done. The result is not at all brilliant. (Nor are the lies brilliant. Don't expect Baron Münchhausen, is all I'm saying.) Even so, it probably works well enough on stage.

But it's not on stage and it flat as a lilypad. Michael Veitch plays the part of the family Christian who no-one takes seriously in a manner that might also work on stage, but which is embarrassingly cartoony here. (It's possible to count and catalogue his mannerisms.) Principle leads are competent but don't shine. Direction is leaden. Now and then the action moves out of doors or down the corridor - as if that could possibly help matters.

If I were to say that it's boring I might mislead you. Williamson's craft ensures that it's not at all likely to induce sleep, and it's possibly worth watching as a way of passing an hour and a half; but any other film at all, provided it's one that's not positively bad, would serve just as well.