Kate says I had to watch at least two episodes because, in all honesty, I just couldn't warm to Tim Roth in the first one.
I realize that he isn't supposed to be warmed to--but I've never gotten into books or films or television shows where the whole point is how unlikable the main character is. Yeah, I like House or, at least, I find him amusing. But Tim Roth as Dr. Lightman just chilled me.
I think the problem is the level of cynicism. I'm trying very hard NOT to refer to Patrick Jane (since we will be reviewing that show next week), so I'll refer to House again. The difference between Lightman's cynicism and House's is that House's cynicism seems more like an adopted way of grappling with problems, a psychological tool to help House explain the universe. Lightman's cynicism seems more like a deliberate choice--a way of viewing the world that makes out that other people are all these bad insect-like liars. While House's Superman complex is seriously challenged (Foreman goes right on disagreeing with him no matter how often he is right), Lightman's Superman complex doesn't ever seem to be challenged by the script or by the other characters, not even, all that much, by the new employee.
It doesn't help that while House just complains (about people), Lightman is claiming SCIENCE (about people).
Not that the SCIENCE is completely false! I completely agree with the whole universal emotions idea; my favorite example is a study where a Japanese man and an American man were shown a disgusting image. BOTH had the instantaneous reaction of disgust, but the Japanese man hid it (cultural norm) while the American man let his disgust show (cultural norm). And I do find this sort of thing totally fascinating!
So I get the idea behind the show, but while watching the pilot of Lie to Me, I kept thinking, "So, what's going to happen when future actors and actresses start contradicting prior claims about facial expressions? If a lifted eyebrow means one thing in this episode, are all actors and actresses from here on in going to have to make sure they don't lift an eyebrow unless they mean to express that emotion? How often ARE they going to play the 'But you have to look at it in context' card?"
Talk about hellish continuity problems.
The second episode didn't bother me quite so much. Lie to Me really is just a detective show with some good twists. Tim Roth gains a little Jane insouciance, and I quite like Kelli Williams as the sidekick. And I get a kick out of the Radical Honesty guy even though I personally think Radical Honesty is as much a self-interested fake-out as any other type of lying.
Sorry, wow, okay, there's a little bit of cynicism!
I guess I feel kind of bad that I didn't have a more positive reaction. I honestly didn't expect to have such a negative reaction, and I can only assume it's the writing or the main character, not the idea. After all, I watch Criminal Minds despite thinking that profiling is kind of bogus. (On the other hand, I have a huge amount of respect for experience, which is why I admire real life John Douglas and fictional Patrick Jane. Perhaps, I would like Tim Roth's character more if he just said, "I can read people!" rather than saying, "It's SCIENCE!!" Okay, that approach would bring up Patrick Jane, and I promised I wouldn't, so now I will end.)
I'm not completely opposed to giving the show a few more chances. (Keep in mind that the first Buffy clip I ever saw was a clip from the Season 4 Halloween episode, and I was totally confused and disenchanted; and then, I saw the Season 4 Thanksgiving episode and fell in love while laughing.)
Mike says for the longest time, I thought Lie to Me was a Showtime series. I'm not sure why. It was one of those Netflix recommendations, and I thought, "Hmmm, why not?"
Focusing on Dr. Lightman and his team, the show solves mysteries by decoding people's expressions and speech to determine how and when they are lying. The show does its best to make the truth the solution to every problem, but it doesn't always work out.
It ended up being completely up my wife's alley, and I found it rather tolerable. I like the idea of the universal emotions, but the "micro expressions" as shown by the actors are usually so exaggerated that one has to wonder how hidden they actually were. Later in the show, different expressions are done so intentionally and slowly (so the characters can explain it), it's sometimes a little hard to handle without rolling your eyes.
Overall, I liked the show, though it has some problems. I found I do like Lightman's character- cynicism doesn't bother me as long as it's earned. It seems to me that Lightman has an understanding of truth and lies that makes the world a hard place for him to live in. Later in the show, certain characteristics, such as allowing the people he cares about to lie to him, shows Lightman as someone trying to accept the people around him for who they are as opposed to who he wants them to be. I can relate to that struggle.
If there's a popular new ingredient thrown into everything these days, Humor seems to be it. Studios are understanding more and more that audiences enjoy a laugh with their drama, and Lie to Me tries to provide it. While some of it falls flat, for the most part the dialog is kind of witty.
Lie to Me is an interesting take on the mystery/procedural cop drama. While it doesn't always succeed, and I think the premise is a bit of a stretch, it's still an entertaining show- and it's always fun to learn how to lie better.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
The one thing I completely agree with that is stressed on Lie to Me is the uselessness of the lie detector test or polygraph. I've ALWAYS believed that the test couldn't possibly be conclusive, and it's so nice to have science catch up to me (Kate pats herself on the back; okay, okay, people had doubts about the polygraph the moment it was created).
It seems the test is mostly used to determine guilt based on whether or not people will actually take it. For instance, I'm reading about the Laci Peterson case and how consistently Scott refused to take the test--to the point of absurdity. The guy was a sociopath, but he was still worried that he would fail the polygraph. How bizarre and damaging is that!
(But it still wouldn't have proved anything if he had taken it.)
Lie To Me is an interesting show. The basic premise is bogus; you simply can't read emotions as cleanly as they portray across all selections (sociopaths, for example, fail most of these observations--that's why they're sociopaths.) On the other hand, reading basic emotions is a lot easier than people think--without getting to political it's blindingly obvious by body language and voice patterns that Clinton was lying and that Obama is in way over his head and, to be equal opportunity offender, that Bush was largely indifferent to most issues.
That said, I think the writers generally spin pretty good tales, sometimes great ones. Unfortunately, the show becomes rather inconsistent in script quality--even worse than House, but I wonder if it's for similar reasons. How do you portray really arrogant people? How do you portray working situations with genuine tension between characters that isn't based on Big Conflicts.
Lie to Me does a better than normal job at this.
(The current season of House is generally somewhere between bad and awful, though it's had great moments. I thought the entire interaction this past week between the team was actually really good.)
My reactions to Lie to Me and The Mentalist have gone in opposite directions. It took a full season of Lie to Me for Tim Roth to figure out his character, for the writers to figure out Tim Roth, and to whittle down the rest of the cast and decide what they're doing there.
Roth's Lightman was too dysfunctional at first. Figuring out where to draw the line is a problem with House as well. They've managed to pare that down to "misanthropically quirky." The premise is also easier to take if you treat Lightman as more a superhero than a "scientist."
And unlike The Mentalist--which I think started out stronger but am now close to giving up on--the writing has managed to break even. You have to write smart scripts for smart characters, rather than simply make everybody else stupider than the protagonist.
So I watched a few more episodes and decided that I will likely go on watching the show (I really like mysteries and am always collecting more).
I was able to pinpoint more precisely what bugs me about the show (more on this later) and also what I like.
The episodes do get funnier. (I agree, Mike, that current television shows are expected to include a high dose of witty dialog. In fact, television writers are far superior to movie writers these days.) Tim Roth definitely loosens up. I get an especially big kick out of his reactions to Gillian Foster's fetish for snack food.
Also the use of reading micro-expressions seems more bound up in reading people generally. (More Criminal Minds profiling; less, "A-ha, he blinked!" stuff). I also like the comparisons to true-life murderers, such as Susan Smith.
As for what precisely bugs me--it isn't so much the claim to superior knowledge (although I did roll my eyes over Lightman's proclamation that his daughter lied to him: your 15-years-old, unsupervised daughter didn't tell you the unvarnished truth? Oooh, I'm shocked!).
Rather, it is the claim to responsible knowledge based on what is actually impulsive, reactive understanding. And the subsequent angst over said reactive understanding.
Geez, haven't these people read Freud?
Impulse-based understanding is no different for the ordinary human than for the trained human and there's rarely a good reason to act on it. So a driver cuts me off in traffic and holds up a middle finger. I don't have to be an expert to figure out the driver is pissed. I also don't need to do anything about it.
The idea of action being based NOT on internal certainty but rather on appropriate context seems entirely bypassed (at least in the first disc's episodes). There's absolutely no good reason why the intern should have any opinion about Foster's marriage while, arguably, Lightman has an actual obligation to tell Foster that her husband might be cheating on her. But his obligation is no different than her closest girlfriend's obligation would be. His expertness doesn't make his knowledge MORE valuable or important.
I mean, why all the angst? I don't talk to my students about their personal lives, no matter how often they come to class with shallow affects or bad haircuts. It not only isn't my job, it would be entirely inappropriate as well as intrusive and rude. I'm certainly not going to develop any sense of obligation to strangers at CVS, no matter how obvious it is that the mom doesn't know how to discipline her kids.
On the other hand, there are times in the classroom and in CVS where it would be appropriate for me to get involved, make a comment, call 911. But impulsive understanding is not the determining factor (I do think instinct can protect a person; I just don't think it translates into anything other than instinct).
I think this is why I find Jane and House easier to take. Neither character is portrayed as hiding information for noble reasons. Don't get me wrong--it is sometimes good to keep one's mouth shut but not because it makes one noble; it just keeps one from being a prat.
Jane and House are portrayed as men who find it almost impossible not to explain their impulse-based understanding, but their lack of restraint is just part of their characters. It isn't noble. It's just them.
SOOOO, after watching Episodes 3 and 4 of Lie to Me, I decided . . . to ignore the angst. By the time I hit Episode 4, I was simply treating the material as straight police procedural. I just pretended that the team's insights were based on actual knowledge rather than impulse-based understanding.
And it works! I enjoy the twists and turns far more than I did before. In fact, the show is a tad sappy with numerous happy endings. I like that!
Post a Comment