Brilliant Lies

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.

"Brilliant Lies", which seems to be trying to make a statement about the sexual assault of females, begins as a tale of workplace sex harassment and stumbles around somewhere between "All In the Family" and a soap opera by film's end. A journeyman Aussie flick farught with stereotypical superficial characters, "BL" is a mediocre watch at best with more to fault than favor. D+

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.

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.

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.