Review: The Invention of Lying
Filed under: Comedy, New Releases, Theatrical Reviews

You probably already know that The Invention of Lying takes place in a world where deception doesn't exist. Mankind never developed the ability. Everyone is 100 percent truthful all the time -- not because they feel obligated to, but because the concept of lying has literally never occurred to them. If someone came along who could lie, well, his power would be almost limitless. Everyone would believe everything he said. The skill of lying would be what scientists call an evolutionary advantage.
In a strange way, that's sort of what The Invention of Lying is about: the forward progression of the human species. Co-written and directed by Ricky Gervais and newcomer Matthew Robinson, the film has its wacky moments reveling in the absurdity of a world where no one lies, some of which feel like a Saturday Night Live sketch or an improv show. ("Your suggestion is: 'a world where no one lies'! The scene is: a blind date! Go!") But it's also surprisingly thoughtful, even tender, in the way it considers love, relationships, and God.
For what you might not already know about the film is that lying isn't the only thing absent from this world. There's no religion, either. No one believes in God -- that word, like "lie," is never used -- because no one ever thought to make him up. (The movie's view, one infers, is that God is imaginary and thus wouldn't be part of a world where no one ever fabricated.) The Man in the Sky, as God comes to be known, is the invention of our hero, Mark Bellison (Gervais), a loser who suddenly finds that he can say things that aren't true.
It starts out simply enough. The bank teller asks how much money is in his account, and something snaps in his brain. (The movie actually shows us his brain. It's an important event in human history, after all.) He tells her $800 even though he knows it's only $300. She checks the computer, sees $300, and assumes it must be an error. Mark said he has $800, so he must have $800. What other explanation could there be??
Well, he could just be WRONG. This is a world without lies, not a world without honest mistakes. No one ever asks for clarification, though. People will believe whatever you say, even if it contradicts the last thing you said. They usually don't even seem confused. Consequently, everyone comes across as simple-minded, almost robotic. And I want to quibble with another aspect, too, which is that people reveal every thought they have. Mark goes on a blind date with the beautiful Anna (Jennifer Garner), and the plain-faced restaurant hostess tells her, out of nowhere, "I'm threatened by you." Now, if Anna had asked the hostess what she thought of her, obviously she'd have to tell the truth. But why blurt it out? It's not dishonest to keep some things to yourself. That's not deception; that's simple civility. Then again, I know people in real life who feel compelled to vocalize every single thought they have. I've sat near them in movie theaters.
But back to our story. Once he realizes he can lie, Mark has a good bit of fun before spontaneously making up the concept of "heaven" to comfort a dying person. No one had ever thought of an afterlife, you see. Next thing he knows he's an unwitting prophet, pulling doctrines out of thin air to tell people to make them happy.
Mark isn't happy, though. He's in love with Anna, who rejects him because he isn't a good genetic match for their offspring. This world is all about evolution, the survival of the fittest. A better choice for Anna would be Brad Kessler (Rob Lowe), Mark's handsome and smarmy co-worker.
I was frankly astonished to see Gervais do such serious, heartfelt work in a couple of scenes. It's a bold move for a comedian, especially one so well known for playing jackasses, but he pulls it off. The comedic scenes, meanwhile, are vintage Gervais, with that terrific mix of exasperation and condescension. Louis C.K., Jonah Hill, Tina Fey, and Jeffrey Tambor are excellent in supporting roles, and we get some nice cameos by the likes of Jason Bateman and John Hodgman, too.
The fact that the film is less funny than I expected doesn't bother me. It's generally funny when it tries to be. It just has some serious things on its mind, too, and that's OK. The God angle gives it some extra dimension, another layer to peel off the high-concept onion.
What is a problem is the relationship between Mark and Anna. She professes love for his kindness and wit, and believes he would make a good husband. It's only his drab physical appearance that puts her off. Mark, meanwhile, thinks Anna is perfect in every way -- but the thing is, she's not. She's shallow and vain, and in ways that go beyond "I'm just being honest." Apart from her beauty, we don't know what Mark sees in her. Considering the whole story rests on his attempts to earn her love, this deficiency is troubling.
Apart from that and what feels like a rushed finale, however, The Invention of Lying is a satisfying comedy with a fair number of solid laughs. Its strange concept and storyline make it something of a curiosity, too: you can have fun thinking about it even after it's over. Honest.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
10-03-2009 @ 12:57PM
pete thomson said...
Having just watched TIOL in a busy but silent laugh free cinema I have to say the film was deeply disappointing ! The concept is a neat but unoriginal one for a 5 minute sketch but is handled clumsily when stretched over 90 minutes. The initial honesty which should be jolting and funny is embarrassingly childish and awkward to watch- not only can people not lie they also have no internal monologue or if we are too believe Jennifer Garner's puppy dog character no intelligence. The movie is no better when Gervais- sadly out of his depth- starts to lie on a contrived pretext of paying his rent. Gervais an atheist and philosophy graduate comes across brilliantly when discussing his lack of faith in interviews and is using the film on one level to tell us that religion is a con. There is no God, there is no afterlife. That makes sense as an idea religion is after all nothing more than a leap of faith and this could have been quite a clever satire; Organised religion is the the ultimate lie with which you can manipulate people. That his characters - made up of his hand picked selection of favorite American actors- are so gullible and one dimensional is the real flaw in the film along with his starry eyed direction. The movie has no edge and isn't funny. He is making a comment on American culture being too gullible and Americans being too shallow and money driven. Too his credit that is a brave thing to do when he's so popular, but in order to appeal to that American audience the humor is literal and obvious and a bit dull. A darker tone and a more involved script that didn't have a weak romantic plot line at its centre would have made more sense. I cannot lie to you the movie is a disaster and has gathered some terrible reviews in Britain which will hopefully encourage a rethink before Cemetry Junction in April 2010.
Reply
10-03-2009 @ 3:57PM
Robin said...
I loved the movie and I loved Ricky in it. Great, great, great.
10-03-2009 @ 2:39PM
LordPaul said...
"I was frankly astonished to see Gervais do such serious, heartfelt work in a couple of scenes. It's a bold move for a comedian, especially one so well known for playing jackasses,"
Hav you even seen Extras or The Office?
Reply
10-03-2009 @ 6:45PM
Savvy Veteran said...
Yeah, the shows where Gervais plays a guy who, among many other things, pretends to be Catholic just to sleep with a woman (and not offend another with cerebral palsy), and a boss who hijacks an employee training meeting to show off his musical talents, respectively.
(I know, there's moments of great humanity by Brent and Andy in both these shows too. The last scene of the Extras special was particularly touching. But the comical idiocy is the overwhelming majority, I'd say, so I think it's why Snider brought it up.)
10-03-2009 @ 3:12PM
HelenaHermione said...
Haven't seen it yet, but your review has pointed out some interesting stuff about the movie--I knew there was more to it than those scenes showed in the commercials! Well, of course, if no one can lie--there is the moral dilemma; lying can be an important part of the human psyche, i.e. white lies. This movie seems to explore that possibility a little further, especially with what you pointed out about religion and invention--invention, in some small part, could be a part of lying; the only creative enterprises would be biographies, documentaries--everything honest, nothing contrived or influenced by 'false' sentiments, and so they don't really tell 'stories'. Because the truth is absolute in this alternate world, God is not invented or imagined, because...how can they conceive God or anything that is not certain to them?
Reply
10-05-2009 @ 4:28PM
Ashley A said...
This movie seemed to not have on complete thought or a well balanced story line, some parts were funny, at the begging it seemed a bit crude. I found the message in the movie to be..... with out lies there would be no faith, or it could be the ability of lying causes people to look past out word appearances and see what is inside. Either way i'd give this move 2 1/3 - 3 stars
Reply
10-03-2009 @ 3:12PM
HelenaHermione said...
Want to add--to them, reason is truth; what they can think has to be influenced by reason, what they can discern as truth, and not by anything else. Quote from Snider here--
"Well, he could just be WRONG. This is a world without lies, not a world without honest mistakes. No one ever asks for clarification, though. People will believe whatever you say, even if it contradicts the last thing you said. They usually don't even seem confused. Consequently, everyone comes across as simple-minded, almost robotic."
My thought: They don't think beyond what they can reason, because thinking beyond reason goes into doubting, and doubting is not truth; truth, facts is absolute to them. It's kind of like Kant--humans, as we are, are 'more' than machines; when we lose some essential human quality, like lying, then we don't have that ability to be human in essence--we are machines.
One thing, though, is that if there's no lying, then there's no violence--to a certain extent. People can defend themselves, because 'villains' would say what they were going to do--there would be no surprise attacks, no surprise of any kind, though...I haven't developed this thought so completely. Maybe I should see the movie and see how they deal with this.
Reply
10-03-2009 @ 3:35PM
Reuben said...
I haven't seen the film either, but I feel that I need to add to your violence theory.
Yes, violence would be reduced. An attacker, if asked what he was doing, would have to tell the truth, which of course would give the advantage to the innocent person. That doesn't necessarily mean that there wouldn't be any surprise attacks. If the attacker comes unseen, then there would be no "what are doing?" and therefore no confession, and so the surprise would go as planned because there would be no opportunity for the movie's laws on lying to take place.
I'm sure Ricky Gervais did no actually mean for us to dissect his movie like this, but it sure is interesting :-).
10-03-2009 @ 3:41PM
SOS said...
I got some pills that cure lying - from my therapist.
I thought about advertising these pills for sale on the internet.
But , sadly, the pills don't work.
The pills made my eyes red for a little while; but, that was all.
10-04-2009 @ 8:39PM
Bill Marshall said...
Not exactly the year's feel-good flick. Boy gets girl, but what the sense???? Wht bother???Life is without reason, purpose, meaning. It's inconsistent to even imply that the protangonist has achieve anything worthwhile by hooking up with the women he says he loves. LOVES? That is just a bio-chemical state in the brain with an atheist. How sad! Rickie is such a gifted comedian. Too bad he fails to recognize the source of his gift.
Hopefully he will get involved in quality projects like The Office and Extras again. They were outstanding. This one? Pure pathos, and under scrutiny very shallow.
Reply
10-04-2009 @ 8:43PM
Bill Marshall said...
Comments confirmed.
Reply
10-04-2009 @ 8:59PM
Bill Marshall said...
Not exactly the year's feel-good flick. Boy gets girl, but why bother???? Life is without meaning, purpose, or reason. It is inconsistent to imply that the protagonist has achieved anything worthwhile by hooking up with the woman he claimes to love. LOVE? That is just a bio-chemical state in the brain with an atheist. How sad! Rickie is such a gifted comedian. Too bad he fails to recognize the source of his gift. Hopefully he will return to quality projects like The Office and Extras. They were outstanding. This one? Pure pathos, and extremely shallow when scrutinized!
Reply
10-05-2009 @ 12:06AM
Lorna Jaques said...
A few more thoughts in reference to those who brought up the violence angle: if you asked your attacker what they were doing, couldn't they simply chose not to reply, thereby *not* lying? Or, couldn't they reply with a, "I'm not going to tell you what I'm doing!"?
Something I noticed when I saw the film: insults. Mark calls Brad a douchebag several times. No one questions this. In a society where only truth is told, wouldn't that mean that Brad is literally a douchebag? Would a society without lies also have no metaphors?
Reply
10-06-2009 @ 5:45AM
Thomasina said...
I haven't seen this movie yet but from reading some of your comments I think I might give it a miss. I think this concept of telling the truth has been done too many times before. Look at Jim Carey, he alone has already done Liar Liar and the Yes Man! I just think this has been done before and I don't think they can take it much further! Come on guys come up with something else funny!
Reply
10-06-2009 @ 5:18PM
Stacy said...
This movie is absolutely brilliant. I laughed out loud throughout the whole thing, and also cried in a few places. It's thought-provoking and has a great message about love and truth, and what's important in life -- but you hardly notice the moral because you're throroughly entertained.
Ricky Gervais is absolutely fantastic, and the cameos are very fun to watch. But the thing that truly *makes* this movie is the story. One man can not only do something that others can't (lie), he can see the world in a way that they can't. It's both liberating and isolating for him; it's both his greatest asset and his greatest curse. It provides moments of hilarity as well as moments of deeply serious emotion.
This movie is unique, entertaining, and awesome.
Reply
11-08-2009 @ 5:55PM
DaveSemko said...
This movie had a total lack of direction. The premise is very good but the execution was very poor. It just did not know how to tie story lines in together. It seemed as though what should have been the bigger story line (invention of religion) took a back seat to an uninteresting and slightly confusing love story.
What I thought was strange was after the scene of him "inventing" religion, nobody seemed to be very impressed by him after that. It would have been much funnier if the religion was invented after his depression. He could have then had the long hair and beard and then came out with the "10 rules" on the pizza hut boxes. It would have made more sense then.
Jennifer Garner just came across as very stupid and very bitchy. The movie never went into why he was so in love with her aside from her looks.
Another problem with this movie was the whole idea about people not being able to lie. I think when writing this movie Ricky Gervais must have confused this premise with people being loud mouths and speaking out about anything that popped into their head. People would speak whatever popped in their head to him but it seemed as though he never had anything to say back which made that entire premise slightly confusing.
The movie had some laughs but overall very disappointing.
Reply
11-09-2009 @ 6:22AM
r4ds said...
I'm so glad to hear that this movie lives up to the hype! I saw the preview ages ago and loved it. Can't wait to see it soon!
r4ds
Reply
12-01-2009 @ 6:04PM
dougrad said...
The movie was all right, but I also thought it was strange how quickly people kinda quit caring about Gervais' character after he told them about the "Man in the Sky" and introduced those commandments on the pizza boxes. You'd think he still would have had mob-worthy celebrity status, being the guy who told everyone about God and the purpose of life, and therefore, practically invented religion. I was surprised that he didn't really turn any heads during the wedding scene, even though a God-like mosaic of him with the now-sacred pizza boxes was painted on the chapel wall. And wouldn't he have also invented church as well?
Reply
12-24-2009 @ 8:16AM
maggie said...
totally meaningless drivel.
I dont normally bother writing revews bu I felt so stronly about this movie. I was a ricky gervaise fan. xtras,office etc but this was sooooo unintelligent and soo not funny cinema was silent not a laugh was had ,total rubbish.dont bother save your money
Reply