Home » Articles » Film » Films Reviews »  Screwball Sabotage
Wednesday, September 30,2009

Screwball Sabotage

Ricky Gervais lands in Cloudcuckooland with 'Invention of Lying'

By Armond White
. . . . . . .

The Invention of Lying

Directed by Ricky Gervais, Matthew Robinson

Runtime: 99 min.

“Lying” in the title of The Invention of Lying refers to mankind’s major systems of belief. Ricky Gervais, the film’s star and co-writer/co-director, doesn’t do philosophical scrutiny or hermeneutic analysis; he merely undermines religion using the glib condescension of Hollywood leftists who assume the only people who still believe in God live in fly-over America. A hostile new trend has begun.

Gervais (and his writing-directing partner Matthew Robinson) conjure a world without “deceit, flattery or fiction”—a concept derived from John Lennon’s highly questionable (though rarely questioned) song “Imagine.” The result: a half-assed version of what used to be called Cloudcuckooland. Every character, including Mark Bellison (Gervais), a screenwriter for Lecture Films Motion Picture Studios, is bluntly, guilelessly honest—until Mark discovers that the benefits of lying are both monetary and ego-boosting. But The Invention of Lying isn’t moralistic screwball farce like Carole Lombard playing a pathological liar in True Confession (1937). Instead of exposing Mark’s own egotism when he accidentally becomes a guru, it sentimentalizes his inferiority complex; his attraction to a woman “way out of my league” (goofy, beadyeyed Jennifer Garner) replaces concern with values or ethics.

Beneath its pandering, underdog selfpity (Gervais pays a tubby, brown-suited loser who eventually loiters in lanky Jesus hair and beard), the movie intentionally caters to dominant political fashion. It is a secularist farce, designed to deflate religion as superstition or inanity.

Few moviegoers looking for laughs bargain for this kind of sabotage. Sadly, even fewer cultural watchdogs will notice the offense.That’s because agnosticism and atheism have become commonplace in popular culture. Even Ivan Reitman’s antireligious Year One glided by critics as merely weak farce.The difference here is Gervais twists the pop-mysticism of the Bruce/Evan Almighty movies into glum satire. Society’s naifs appear as gullible as they are candid—which reveals Gervais’ deep-seated contempt. Physically resembling W.C. Fields, he temperamentally recalls Bill Maher. Confusing honesty with a lack of decorum, mistaking candor for lack of self-control only suggests Gervais has been in showbiz too long.

The first of the many poor jokes in The Invention of Lying has Gervais poking fun at Hollywood: “Testing…Testing…over the credits that no one cares about.” Weak jokes about stars as “Big-name readers” are contradicted by cameos from Edward Norton, Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Jason Bateman.Yet when Mark delivers his mocking sermon on God and the Afterlife, his commandments actually flaunt Pizza Hut box covers to the assembled multitudes: Mock religion. Promote capitalism.

It will be ugly irony if this film is received more enthusiastically than the Coens’ A Serious Man, where a bar mitzvah sequence—the loveliest, most conflicted bar mitzvah since Sunday Bloody Sunday—showed sophisticated respect for faith and tradition. Gervais’ ridicule proves his lack of sophistication. Not only the most brutally photographed movie of the year, The Invention of Lying is so foully directed and carelessly acted it ultimately proves disingenuous. Gervais fails to address Hollywood mendacity—the process of misrepresentation and delusion that conditions audiences to take cinema for granted and enjoy crap.

  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Posted at 10/09/2009 
 
"It will be ugly irony if this film is received more enthusiastically than the Coens’ A Serious Man...." If you ever wondered whether Armond White is a bit out of touch with the real world, then here's your evidence that he is. Good grief, was there ever any real risk of that happening? And Armond, we're still waiting for a definition of "hipster" and "hipsterism" that will comport with you overuse of these non-terms. Thanks.

 

Posted at 10/06/2009 
 
I am glad I found this review because before I watch a movie its portrayal and treatment of religious issues are most important to me.

 

Posted at 10/02/2009 
 
I saw this film an hour ago. In truth, I saw half of it. I couldn't bear any more. I cheered when I read this review: it's so on the money. It's an appallingly acted, poorly photographed (rarely stated nowadays) but, above all, deeply cynical and snide film. I happen to believe in God but I am more than willing to engage in a debate with those who don't. Being shouted at by a not particularly intelligent film maker crudely portraying what he thinks is a liberal manifesto is no way to spend your time. I want my money back.

 

Posted at 10/01/2009 
 
You sound more shocked and wounded by the movie's proposal and less like an objective critic of film. Advertising your knowledge of high philisophical concepts does little hide that point. Sometimes the objective of a movie like this is not to argue and prove its position on religion, but to start (or in this case, restart) a dialogue through a comedic medium. That's a valuable entitlement we are afforded in this country, even if it does raise the hackles of a good portion of the population afraid to have that dialogue.

 

Posted at 10/06/2009 
It was one of the worst films of the year.

 

Posted at 09/30/2009 
 
I didn't notice Ivan Reitman's name in any of the Year One credits. I believe you meant Harold Ramis.

 

Posted at 09/30/2009 
Why does it not shocked me that Armond White is religious?

 

 
 


  • Sun
    22
  • Mon
    23
  • Tue
    24
  • Wed
    25
  • Thu
    26
  • Fri
    27
  • Sat
    28

Search in Events

Sign up for the NYPress
e-newsletter for weekly updates
and exciting event info:





Join us on Facebook Follow Us
on Twitter








 User Profile (click to open)



New_York_300_60.gif

 
 
Close
Close