CliqueClack TV
TV SHOWS COLUMNS FEATURES CHATS QUESTIONS

Lie to Me – Pants on fire

Is it possible for beauty to blind us so much that we actually lose our ability to think? Or is that just men?

It’s always nice to see Tricia Helfer working! It was also fun that the show made fun of the Lightman/Naomi pairing. When Torres asks Lightman if he’s been played, he tells her that when the most beautiful woman he’s ever seen (or one of them) lets him hit on her, he starts to have a clue that maybe the situation isn’t sincere. The chemistry seemed pretty real from where I was sitting, though. When they kissed each other, they really went after it. I thought she was going to unhook her jaw and swallow him whole.

I admit that I’m not entirely sure what happened in this episode. I know there was a sting operation involving the robbery of an art museum. I also know that Naomi was a decoy, but I am not really sure beyond that. What was her role? To create the distraction with drugging the Senator? Obviously it wasn’t just to keep Cal busy. No matter what he told Torres, Lightman knew he was being played. He admitted as much to Foster. He took precautions to make sure the emerald was replaced with a fake so the heist wouldn’t take place anyway.

I suppose the angle Lightman was playing is that even though he knew he was being played, Naomi was also a challenge to him. Not to mention the fact that she is absolutely beautiful and as he said himself, “I’m not a gentleman.”

Some of the best parts of the episode were the most nuanced. The first was so subtle, I rewound my DVR three times to make sure I saw it. Lightman approaches two policeman guarding the wounded bank robber. “It’s okay,” he spreads his hands. “I’m a doctor.” When they immediately step aside, Lightman rolls his eyes in disgust at their stupidity. It’s a very brief moment, but it’s definitely there.

Also, Lightman full on yells at the curator to leave Torres alone after the initial robbery attempt and deaths. Then, Lightman asks Torres if she knows the difference between a Viceroy and  a Monarch butterfly. They are almost identical; however, the Monarch is poisonous to predators. Thus, predators tend to leave the Viceroys alone, because they can’t be sure whether they are attacking the right butterfly. Lightman then tells Torres that if anybody cuts into her the way the curator did, to make him regret it so much that he will never do it again. In other words, be a Monarch.

Lightman tells Naomi she is a Viceroy. This is his way of saying that even though she may be harmless, he can’t take a chance because he could too easily mistake her for a Monarch.

Finally, Lightman tells Foster that she has always been the hardest for him to read. After seeing the trouble he had with reading Naomi because of her beauty, this comment just adds to the layers of love|hate|resentment|jealousy|longing playing out between Lightman and Foster. Very nice.

Photo Credit: Martin Yarish/FOX

Categories: | Episode Reviews | Features | General | TV Shows |

2 Responses to “Lie to Me – Pants on fire”

October 26, 2010 at 8:05 PM

I was seeking the internet for a transcript. Occasionally Tim Roth is hard to understand and I seek clarification in text to ensure I heard correctly. This time I did. I happened on this site during my search.

I have to say that the monarch/viceroy allusion is common and an example of Batesian Mimicry, however it was discovered that the Viceroy is actually unpalatable as like the Monarch. This means that it is Mullerian Mimicry, putting them on equal footing and unraveling the allusion.

This isn’t to debase your writing or that of the writers of Lie To Me. Especially since allusions have their most power within common knowledge. Obscure allusions would make little sense in a widespread visual medium. Simply an informed observation which I found amusing, while watching a great show.

Anyhow, it was a fun read to happen upon. Perhaps I shall chance by some more of your posts. Hopefully my response proves a funny quip and is enjoyable as well. Cheers!

October 26, 2010 at 8:11 PM

I am so happy you found this post! I did find that amusing– when I read the Wikipedia entries, I noted that there was an inconsistency with the show’s explanation. I didn’t point it out because, like you, I wasn’t interested in criticizing the show. The point of their using it wasn’t accuracy: It was to use a metaphor– an allegory– to explain a human relationship. So, as it was used and defined, it worked. I completely agree with you: Obscure allusions would make little sense in a widespread visual medium.

Thanks for commenting!

Jen

Powered By OneLink