The Invention of Lying (Faith)

Rented this movie last night.

It had a 57% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Not terrible, I guess. Better than 50/50. I should have required a higher standard. What’s odd, is that when you read the reviews, they are totally polarized. Witty / Stupid Hit / Flop. There seems to be no connect between the reviews. Its as if they’re talking about two different movies.

I think I figured out why.

It was a pretty funny premise. No one lies. Everyone tells the truth, in fact; Everyone is compelled to be brutally honest.. its their nature.

As a result, there are a lot of funny scene possibilities. Unfortunately, most of them are acted out in the first 10 minutes of the movie.

The first lie happens after the main character (played by Ricky Gervais) has lost his job and is evicted from his apartment because he doesn’t have the $800 for his rent. He goes to the bank to withdraw his last $300 so he can rent a truck and move his stuff out. The system is down and when asked how much is in his account, he is so obsessed with the $800 dollar figure he blurts it out. Conditioned that no one lies, the teller assumes that there is a mistake in the system and gives him the $800.

All is well and good until his mother is on her death bed, scared of an eternity of nothingness. Equipped with his new ability to lie, he tells her that she is in fact going to a good place and that she will see all her friends and her deceased husband.

Happy, she dies, but the entire hospital crew, who’s been listening, wants to know more.

The next day he returns home to find throngs of people on his front lawn, wanting to know where they go when they die, and the main character is revered like Moses. The people wait for his revelation.

He goes inside and spends some time, writing down his story. he thinks his scribblings look unimpressive, so he pastes them on the back of pizza boxes. He makes his way downstairs and reads out his 10 “facts” about the man in the sky who makes everything that is good and also makes everything is bad. But he makes more good things than bad things, so its ok.

So, the religious similarities are complete.

Ricky Gervais had an agenda. A self-avowed atheist, he took a pretty funny premise and used it to paint faith as a lie, cooked up to make people feel better about dying into an eternity of nothingness.

Now I know why the reviews are polarized.

As he read the 10 facts, and suspecting his agenda, I couldn’t help but be annoyed with their silliness, and how the crowd, portrayed as gullible, saw all the holes in the idea of a “man in the sky”. Ricky, improvised and although it took him 2 hours to get through the 10 FACTS, he became rich (another over-obvious cliche’ comparison to televangelists) and was immortalized in stain glass windows in churches where people go to “think about the man in the sky”.

The part that constantly annoys me (with these types of films), is the simplicity with which the arguments against faith are made, and the way in which multiple religions are kneaded together to create inconsistency and contradiction in their logic. But he’s the one making the movie, and he can do whatever he wants. He’s the guy with the script and the investors, and the popularity to at least float such a movie.

What annoys me more is that there are not more people of faith using the same arena to tell their stories. If they do, the standards are almost always lower. (Bruce Almighty, excluded) The dismissal of the arts and excellence in many segments of the church is at least partially responsible. Its a travesty that more people of faith aren’t well-versed in the theatrical arts and comedy writing. At least if we poke fun at the human race, we could do so with an accurate depiction of the elements of faith.

Back to the reviews. The movie premise was funny, but the plot was terrible and predictable. The schmarmy ending was one in which you instinctively turn to those with whom you’re watching with a face that says “That didn’t just happen, did it?” It was really bad writing and acting. If Ricky’s character had had more tension against him, the movie could have worked. As it turned out, he was revered throughout, and there was never the successful delivery of a moral. I guess its appropriate that a movie portraying faith as a lie has no moral.

So, the reviews? What was that about? How could there be 57% good reviews on this movie? Perhaps they liked the agenda, and it was funny for some to see faith bashed, even at the expense of the writing and acting.

As for the 43% of bad reviews, I suppose some of them didn’t like the agenda, but I’d have to assume most of them just wanted to see a good movie...