Brilliant Lies

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.

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").

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.

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.

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.