Review: The Invention of Lying

2009/PG-13/Comedy

The Invention of Lying is set in an imaginary world where humans are incapable of lying. While this world would, in actuality, be a utopia; there is an added twist in this film to make it seem that the truth is destructive: apparently, not only can humans only speak the truth, but they also are incapable of remaining silent. For example: A girl opens the door to meet her blind date and says, "Hi! Oh, I don't find you the least bit attractive and I don't have very high hopes for this evening."

Entrenched in this world is Mark Bellison. Mark is a "loser". While being very smart, he is short, overweight, and recently unemployed. Mark is going to alter the course of human history by inventing the world's first lie. He finds this talent to be very useful, not only for paying his rent, but also for solving the world's problems. His new found power is exaggerated by the fact that everyone believes him due to the cultural disposition to the truth. No one has ever lied before, why should anyone think he is speaking anything but what is true?

Mark's mother is dying and she is afraid. To ease her fears Mark invents a story about an afterlife. A magnificent story that involves the best place you could ever think of, mansions, loved ones, peace, and joy. Of course, everyone believes him and now the world is beating a path to his door to hear more about this wonderful place that somehow only he knows about. Mark spends the entire night concocting the specifics about the afterlife. He creates "The man in the sky," a bad place for bad people, what is and what isn't a bad act, and various other very religious concepts.

This movie does something that is nearly impossible to do: it proves the exact opposite view of the message it is trying to convey.

It was painfully obvious that the people who believed him were ignorant, naive, and foolish. God and heaven, according to this film, is a lie. A fanciful story made up to ease the fear of old people, give others someone to blame for the bad things in their lives, and provide a reason for people to do good.

However
The "religion" that Mark invents is riddled with inconsistencies. It is elementary in it's concepts, and sophomoric in its arrangement. This intelligent person's inability to create a feasible religion simply goes to show that the complexity of Christianity makes it all the more unlikely that it is not of human origin.

I will give kudos to this film in one aspect: The ability to lie makes the truth more powerful. It is unfortunate that this film felt the need to put this point on a pedestal, rather than trust the intelligence of the audience. The point, however, was clear and poignant, none the less.

I would like to contrast this film and it's viewpoint that lying is not only necessary, but beneficial in all aspects of life with the view that Johnathan Swift presents to us in his masterpiece "Gulliver's Travels." In the fourth book Gulliver visits the land of the "Houyhnhnms;" A race of intelligent horses that are slaves to reason and are so honest they do not even have a word for "lie." They inquire of Gulliver "whether it were the custom in his country to say the thing which was not." Here in the Houyhnhnms we find a (debatable) utopia where laws are created to sustain life rather than control it due to man's tendency toward evil or even destroy it due to the corruption in the system. The Houyhnhnms are contrasted with the Yahoos, a savage race of people devoid of honor or virtue who are slaves to their passions. The Invention of Lying would have us believe that the Yahoos are the race to which we should aspire and not the Houyhnhnms.

I find it somewhat ironic that a faith that admonishes it's followers to "speak the truth in love" so that "the truth might set you free" is lampooned in this comical farce as nothing more than a calculated lie. Sorry, but I don't believe you.

1.5 out of 5 stars.

An Important Question

It probably goes without saying that I've had a bit of a hiatus from posting but two occurrences have spurred me back to the blogosphere.

The first, I'm sad to report, is the end of my wife's blog. She has decided to take a permanent hiatus. I'm hoping that in a few months, maybe a year, she will return. However, for right now, this is the correct decision for her. Please pay a final visit to her blog and recall your favorites of her additions to the blogging world.

The second is the oil slick that has reached the shore of Louisiana. The oil was caused by an explosion on an off shore drilling station on April 20th. Ten days later the oil has now reached the shore of Louisiana. Later that day President Obama finally saw fit to visit the state.

I have a question, or, to be more precises, several questions: Why didn't President Obama have a comprehensive plan to protect the coast of America? Why did he wait until the oil hit the shore to visit the state? Does he hate the wildlife so much that he waited this long to help them? Shouldn't he have evacuated the impacted area long ago?

While on one hand these questions are completely legitimate, they are also somewhat tongue-in-cheek. The real question is: if the media was so self-righteously indignant, so quick to point every finger at Bush, so ready and willing to label him a racist, and decry him a failure for his "lack of action" regarding Katrina and it's aftermath, where are they now? Where are the demands for the immediate action of the white house? Where is the outrage for Obama's obvious lack of planning to safe guard the shore? Last I checked an oil slick moves a whole lot slower than a hurricane. I know we can't stop, or even weaken a storm such as Katrina, but BP was taking action to attempt to lessen the spill, why weren't we? And why haven't I heard anyone else making the same demands of this President as were made on the last?

The real cherry on this sundae is an article I read attempting to pin even this crisis on Bush. I'm not looking to place blame. (This article from March 30th should shed some light on the aforementioned accusation, however). I'll allow my readers to determine how much action or preparation should have come from the current administration. The purpose of this post to point out, yet again, that the media is clearly camped on one side of the aisle. How long will we allow them to hold their President to a lower standard than they do the President of the alternate party?