Brilliant Lies

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.

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.

I did this play in 2000 here in New Zealand and had a great time.

Cast as Paul Connor, I got a chance to play a very different role to what i had been used to. I had not seen or heard of the movie before doing the play, so had no idea how different my portrayal of Paul was to the movie.

I chose to play Paul as a beaten down, almost wimpy character that had been endlessly picked on by his sisters when he was growing up, then to be stuck with his 'Christian' wife only added to the torment inflicted on him by his sisters.

As I said, I had immense fun with this play and as a result earned rave reviews from my direction who said I captured the essence of Paul magnificently.

I would love to direct this play one day as I believe the subject matter is timeless.

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.

As you might expect from a movie based on a stage play, this one is relentlessly talky, and the heavy Australian accents create an extra problem, at least if you're not from Down Under. But it's very well-acted (hard to believe LaPaglia and Carides are a real-life couple when you see how convincingly they hate each other here!) and, in its best moments, utterly engrossing; depending mostly on your sex, you may find yourself rooting for either of the two main characters while still having your doubts about him/her. The ending, however, is not very satisfying. (**1/2)