In full disclosure of the truth — as Dr. Cal Lightman (Tim Roth) is such a big fan of — I did watch the pilot episode of Lie to Me when it premiered last year. So why did I choose to try the show again?
Because I can’t believe that the series is still on the air. I was sure that this show wouldn’t make it past it’s original order of however many. So in light of my mistaken estimation of the show’s chances of survival, I decided to give it a second look.
Episode Summary – I didn’t really recall what it was that Lightman and team did — I don’t mean the whole “human lie detector” thing; I’m talking about the fact that I thought he worked as a consultant to the FBI. Whether or not that is generally the case, this time around the good doctor was called in as an “expert” witness in the murder trial of Clara Musso, played by the beautiful Melissa George, who I only remember as having played Molly the Hot Nanny on Friends (yes, I believe that was her complete name as written in the script).
As ridiculous a notion as it is for anyone to be allowed to testify as an expert witness based on their observations of the accused on TV, I found it even more ludicrous that anyone takes Lightman seriously. I’m sure his “science” is constantly being called into question as a recurring plot-point, but my issue was actually rooted elsewhere — he sounds like a lunatic drunk when he speaks, which is certainly not aided by the accent.
And Lightman negated any credibility he may have had beyond his entertainment value when he switched sides and began testifying for the defense. How would anyone take what he says seriously after he himself admitted that his observations were wrong? What a joke.
And his interplay with his ex-wife Zoe (Jennifer Beals) is laughably poor. It was neither entertaining nor believable to watch the two spar, or to see them head off together at the end of the hour. And it generally served only to portray Lightman in a worse and worse light.
The plot of the episode, the young wife accused of murdering her much older, billionaire husband, with business partners, blackmail, and sons thrown in, was actually quite good for any legal dramedy or cop show. But the structure that this particular show is built on just sunk the ship.
Conclusions – First of all, seeing Kelli Williams was not a plus for my show-watching experience. And she did not fail to live up to the annoying persona that she cultivated on The Practice. That being said, had Mekhi Phifer made an appearance on this episode, he may have balanced her out. Alas, he did not.
I realize it’s unfair to penalize a show for this, but Roth’s accent made much of the episode seem like a bad ’70s British TV show. At other moments I felt like I was in the street scenes in Oliver Twist … all very Artful Dodger and Fagin. And that’s when I was able to catch what he was saying.
I had forgotten about how awful the theme song is — nothing more than a slideshow of faces and their “readings,” from the get-go the viewer is prepared for a bunch of baseless observations. And we got plenty of them, from Lightman throughout, as well as from Foster’s (Williams) witness tampering prep.
Maybe I’m missing something; maybe you’ll tell me I watched a bad episode for beginners (how can that always be the excuse?); or maybe I’m overlooking some stellar acting and writing that’s hiding behind all of the “Look, he’s lying!” declarations.
Whatever it was that I was doing wrong while watching, one thing I can say is that this show is no better now than it was after I watched the pilot and passed on it. I’m still unclear about how it’s still on the air.
And that’s the whole truth.
Clacked by Aryeh S.
on Jun 28, 2010 @ 16:00 EST5EDT
Aryeh, you have a right to your opinions, obviously, but I’m beginning to join those who probably think you should change the title of these articles to “I Sh*t On A Show.”
You have trouble understanding Tim Roth’s speech? My God, man, do you also have trouble with folks who have a Southern drawl, a Jamaican accent or that simply stutter? Admittedy, Roth isn’t the clearest of enunciators, but if you have trouble understanding him it might be more a matter of your hearing than his speech.
I thought the series was somewhat weak in the first season, as it just repeated the same thing over and over, much like “House” only a little more repetitive. The second season is much more interesting and all-out fun. Roth’s Lightman is prone to changing sides and the crux of his meandering observations are to get the subject(s) to admit the truth by getting inside their heads. He’s always doing that and he just has fun at what he does. In that way, he’s a lot like Dr. House.
I haven’t watched the episode in question, so you might have caught a sub-par one, but you do have a tendency to be overly critical at times. Personally, I find even a sub-par episode fun *because* of Roth. By not watching regularly, you’ve missed out on secrets of the character’s past which make him even more interesting.
I know I came on a bit strong, but you hit hard in your articles and I just found myself reciprocating. You have every right to hate the show, but even in the Summer it’s doing pretty decently. Enough to have gotten another season, although I think at the moment it’s just a 13 episode order, but if the ratings stay steady or climb, I would expect Fox to up the order to a full 22-ish.
Agreed!
*POST AUTHOR*
You have a right to your opinion, the same as I have a right to mine. As long as people respect and understand that, I have no problem discussing these shows.
It wasn’t Roth’s accent that was problematic for me, it was the accent coupled with the way he’ll throw away lines all the time. I think it’s a fair observation to make, because it was part of my viewing experience.
I do not watch House, consciously, so the comparison isn’t the best idea for me.
My criticism is rooted in two things: 1) I’m writing a column based on one episode, so I need to go full-throttle on my reviews. It would be worthless for me to say “I think that X, but I’m not sure because I only saw one episode….” I’d be just as extreme in a positive review. And 2) There’s a reason these shows are new to me -– I passed on watching them in the first place, whether based on their pilots or their premises. Which means that for some reason or another these shows aren’t anything that jumped out at me. Therefore, I’d have to be pleasantly surprised to be impressed.
I welcome the passionate response. As long as you’re not just telling me I’m wrong or stupid, it’s always welcome. :)
When you think about it, writing a column based on watching 1 episode of a show you’ve never seen and maybe don’t even know much, if anything, about is kind of pointless, isn’t it? You’re reviewing something that you don’t have enough information about to review properly. In short, the column is really pointless because of your limited knowledge of the subject at hand.
I just don’t think it’s fair to the show or the readers to be giving an opinion from so little information. If you were to watch 5 or 6 episodes and then give your take on it, that would make a lot more sense.
From my own experiences I absolutely hated the pilot for the X-Files. I thought it was going to be a “UFO sighting of the week” show and had I stopped right there and written a critique of the show it would’ve been negative…and wrong. I stuck with it and it stands as one of my favorite shows of all time. So one episode does not make for a fair review and I propose you either stop writing these articles or watch a few episodes before writing them. Of course you could tell me to just stop reading them, but I’m saying this because I want to see a more informed opinion piece, not to trash you personally. That is not and never will be my intent.
*POST AUTHOR*
Everyone has a right to their opinion on the matter but here is my position — critics preview new shows and then review them (based on one or two episodes) all the time. I have done so myself. And we viewers try new shows regularly and then generally choose to watch or not watch based on a single episode. Sure there are some shows that are interesting enough to make us try again before making a final decision, but plenty of shows get quick passes after one viewing. That’s just the way we watch TV. And while there are times that we would have missed something great deciding in that fashion -– X-Files for you, Lost and Weeds for me -– that doesn’t change the fact that we simply can’t give every new show out there a 5-6 week trial period. We judge based on what we see.
That’s all I’m doing here. Pointless? You may think so, but I don’t.
I look forward to reading this column, Aryeh. I’m always interested in hearing someone’s “first impression” of a show. When I want to introduce a new show to one of my brothers, for example, I wonder what their initial reaction will be after viewing one episode. What quirks of the show will stand out? Will those quirks turn them off or make them want to keep watching? I think there is value in knowing how a newbie might react upon seeing one of my favorite shows for the first time. (In this case, although I love Tim Roth, like you I only watched one episode of Lie to Me and didn’t feel compelled to keep watching.)
*POST AUTHOR*
Thanks! :)
We all watch TV this way, but people seem to forget that when it’s their show I’m watching. Yours is the perfect perspective from which to see my column! :)
We don’t all watch TV that way. I could probably count on the fingers of one hand the TV shows I gave up on after only one episode. Maybe I’m the exception, but I usually go a minimum of 3-4 episodes and really stray into the half-dozen count before I bail. I feel like anything less would be…pointless. (You knew I was going to use that word. Admit it!)
*POST AUTHOR*
I did! :)
And I have to guess that you’re the exception. I could never find that much time to give to a show that didn’t hook me in from the get-go. Maybe a certain someone can do a weekly poll on the subject….
If I weren’t in the process of morphing to my real first name I think I’d go by the nickname of “Pointless.” Maybe I’ll write a book entitled “Pointless” and it’ll become a best-seller. Bruce Willis can star in it where he wise-cracks while shooting bad guys. Then there would be the sequel, “Pointless II: Pointlesser” and my admiring fans would demand a trilogy so I’d have to pen “Pointless III: Pointlessest.”
After all that success and fame I’d have to take several years off, but the “little people” would continue to hound me for even more. So, I’d be forced to leave my private island aboard my flying yacht and write, “Live Free or Die Pointless.” Then I would fade away to a life of luxurious solitude while the tabloids make up stories about me weekly.
Yes. I can see it now…
Perhaps I should clarify that Bruce Willis would star in the motion picture made from my best-seller. It would be tough to fit him in a book…unless it was a fairly large book.
Talking about books reminds me of something else pointless to this article, but it’s probably my favorite quote of all time and it comes from Groucho Marx. “Outside of a dog, a book is man’s best friend. Inside of a dog it’s too dark to read.”
*POST AUTHOR*
Sure thing….
:)
Point taken regarding new shows, but that’s usually because critics are often given only one or two episodes to watch. You often review established shows whose episodes you could get on DVD and view selections at your choosing, and more than one or two in a fairly short time span. I think you could get a better read (Hah! Lightman joke.) on a show if you polled regular viewers of said show for episodes considered to be among the better ones, or at least episodes considered fair examples of the series as a whole, and then view them for your review.
I realize this may not always be practical, but you would probably have a better viewing experience when applying this technique than grabbing one random episode. Although the latter may be your entire point of this column. If that is the case, then if it’s not pointless it is at least far less fulfilling for both you and we readers.
*POST AUTHOR*
That’s not really the point of this exercise. But even if it were, I’d try a current episode of a show I thought I might be interested in before tracking down earlier seasons. My decision to get previous seasons on DVD would be based on one episode of the show, which I’d judge and critique in a similar fashion to how I’m approaching my column. I did it with The Wire, and I did it with The Sopranos. I was more or less lost with both, but at the same time I was intrigued to see more. Based on one episode.
And, this is just my opinion, but if I had to be pointed to the best episode of a show in order to be impressed, what does that say about the series?
Oh come on! You TV reviewer types get all those DVD’s for free when you’re having brunch with the big, Hollywood stars! Don’t deny it, we all know it’s true. ;o)
*POST AUTHOR*
I find that I have to pay the Hollywood stars in screeners in order to get them to come to lunch. And they prefer them unopened. ;)
Shawn Ryan’s involvement with the show this season has made it damn new brilliant at times.
And you only remember Melissa George from a throwaway appearance on friends? Fans of Alias, In Treatment, and Greys remember more recent work :P
You want to see this show at it’s best, track down the S2 premiere. Guest star Erika Christensen was A. Maze. Ing.
I have never watched Grey’s or In Treatment, but I remember Melissa George’s role in Alias very well.
Now regarding Lie To Me, I thought most of the episodes from this season were pretty damned good. There were a few duds, but they were far and away the exception. Season 2 has shown that this show has really found its footing, allowing character growth. I think the character of Gillian Foster is probably the most static of all the principals, but the CIA flashbacks did help a little. I hope to learn more about her, but I’m enjoying the hell out of Roth’s performance. He’s like Greg House let loose, but without all the antisocial issues.
*POST AUTHOR*
I saw that she was on it, but I can’t remember her from Grey’s. Who was she again?
She was Meredith’s friend that became an intern with George and Lexi and the rest of the group. She always called Mer “Deth,” and, either started or just participated in the whole “interns practicing on each other” storyline.
*POST AUTHOR*
That psycho? I guess crazy affects everything about a person.
I want to address a couple more of your criticisms, Aryeh.
Let’s start with this: “I had forgotten about how awful the theme song is — nothing more than a slideshow of faces and their “readings,” from the get-go the viewer is prepared for a bunch of baseless observations…”
What you’ve said there equates to nothing more than, “I don’t like the candy because I hate the wrapper.” That’s a vapid criticism at best and at worst you use it as a prejudice for the show that follows.
Then you go on to say, “Maybe I’m missing something; maybe you’ll tell me I watched a bad episode for beginners (how can that always be the excuse?)”
You see, that can’t always be the excuse and that’s the problem with your “What’s this show called?” columns. You seem to go into many of these with the idea that you’re going to trash what you saw. It’s not a good read because you’re simply not being fair. Nobody can really hate so many shows so much unless they’re bringing a bias to their viewing. I really believe that when you watch an episode of a show for this column you *try* to find things to dislike.
I’d like to know what shows you do like, and if “Adult Swim” is part of the list then please put away your keyboard because that’s the most ironically named block of shows in the history of entertainment. And I use the word so loosely with regard to Adult Swim that I actually insult it. My apologies to the word “entertainment.”
*POST AUTHOR*
The theme song issue was just about the last new observation I made, so it had no influence on my review. As far as it being valid or vapid -– it’s meant to give a good background to what happens on the show, and what the “science” is that they’re practicing. How is it not valid to criticize the manner in which that’s portrayed?
I don’t understand the connection you’re making between “that can’t always be the excuse” and “that’s the problem with your columns.” Either way, I absolutely do not go into this with a negative attitude or the intention of trashing anything. The fact that most (but not all) of my weekly columns have been negative is not due to any prior intent; rather, that’s just been my experience. Have I possibly gone out of my way to look for shows that would generate reactions from commenters? Yes. But I’m not looking for good shows to pick fights over, just popular shows that people are passionate about. Believe me, I would very much like to enjoy one of these experiences.
As far as “Nobody can really hate so many shows so much unless they’re bringing a bias to their viewing,” there are very few of these shows that I’ve hated (I admittedly found Lie to Me absolutely awful, but it is in the minority), but I don’t think bias has anything to do with how many shows people can hate. There are thousands of new shows on TV right now; would you not assume you’d hate most of them based on subject-matter alone? How many can a person like without being disingenuous?
As for shows I do like, if you read most of the shows I cover regularly you’ll mainly find me enjoying them. There are plenty of shows that I genuinely enjoy.
And as for Adult Swim … I still have no idea what that is. Never seen it, read much of anything about, nor am I interested to. Thanks for checking though.
Fair response, but understand that my criticisms of your column come from my perceptions of said column, just as your criticisms of the shows come from your perception of them. As you said, most of your columns are negative, so the perception I get from that is you must be biased against what you are going to view. If you say that I’m wrong I believe you, I just hope you can see how I could draw the conclusion I did.
You gained many points in my book simply by not knowing what Adult Swim is. It’s a block of crappy shows at night on the Cartoon Network with “adult humor” which is neither “adult” or “humorous.” I had the misfortune of channel surfing right into that rotting pool of chum once and couldn’t believe someone would actually air dreck like that. You are better for having avoided it. I would choose H1N1 over a half hour of that steaming pile.
And I don’t want to jump into the middle of this catfight, but I actually like the theme.
I like the theme as well, Ivey. And this is no catfight, just a spirited discussion that maintains a healthy level of mutual respect. At least that’s the way I see it.
Last season I thought this show was smart and different and good science and I was rooting for it to succeed. This season they brought in Shawn Ryan as show runner and turned it into a circus starring Tim Roth. The IQ value dropped at least 50 points. The Fox website has an episode commentary by Paul Ekman, the real life psychologist Lightman is based on, but from the last few I’m getting the feeling that he’s embarassed by how bad the ‘science’ on the show is getting.
Honestly, I thought this episode was a load of crap. Lightman’s theatrics were so over the top that he lost any credibility with judge and jury in his first appearance and credibility is what an expert witness needs more than anything. The legal stuff was cringe-worthy, whether Lightman feels that she really had amnesia is irrelevant since he’s neither a neurologist nor a cognitive scientist. It’s all about whether the jury feels there’s reasonable doubt. And how is Lightman allowed to work for defense and prosecution at the same time?
The Cal/Zoe scenes were just as bad. Two professionals airing their personal laundry all over the courtroom. And until the last two minutes when Cal said he did it to help her career, there was nothing there between them but sex which is one of the flimsiest things to keep a couple connected especially after divorce.
The case didn’t make sense either. If Leo loved Victor so much, wouldn’t he want the woman who made Victor happy for 10 years to be okay rather than sending her to jail for a murder she didn’t commit?
I’m also not buying that Lightman is so irresistable to all women — Foster, Zoe, Torres and now Clara — that they all fall for him like nine pins. I really didn’t need to see the Lightman/Clara make-out session (why not Roker who is younger and more attractive?) and then Lightman and Zoe end up in bed. Is that projection on the part of the producer?
There must be a rule at Fox that every show has to have a young attractive woman be bisexual but only in the past so that she’s now free for a guy. House, Bones and now this show. Not to mention that Lightman’s intrusive reading of Torres is completely unethical for a psychologist and to me seemed dirty old man. Stay out of your employees sex lives, guy.
Lie To Me is making the same mistakes House did, basing itself on the appeal of the lead character rather than building a solid base with well told stories and good secondary characters. And like House, people are going to get fed up with the quirks of the character and the lack of real substance and logic and start turning it off.
I’m so disappointed this season, I may not last till Shawn Ryan is gone.
*POST AUTHOR*
My hero! :)
My pleasure.
Truly, it was. I tried to watch the next episode last night and got three minutes into it before I turned the show off. The idea of Lightman being called in to deal with PTSD is absurd enough (because it doesn’t matter whether the person is really lying or not, it’s all about whether he believes that he’s telling the truth) but when Lightman walked into the room and his first words to a psych patient in restraints were “Tell me what you’re lying about”, I was done for. Not only horribly bad psychology but completely useless in order to get the information he wants. You have to establish a connection first.
The stupid hurts.
Kate, it seemed clear enough to me that Lightman, by saying, “Tell me what you’re lying about.” wasn’t trying to read the guy at all. Lightman already knew this recruit saw or did something his mind buried from his conscious memory and whatever it was it hit him so hard, abruptly and unexpected that the memory of it became buried just deep enough to not be consciously remembered, but close enough to the surface to torment him, especially as he tried to sleep. Lightman was taking the first step in helping the soldier recover the memory by making a demand that was also hard, abrupt and unexpected. Utilizing a force of equal energy in the opposite direction as it were.
The subsequent reenactments built on the momentum of Lightman’s simple, but forcefully effective first statement served to tip the scales toward the soldier regaining the blocked memory. As it became clear to the soldier, and those of us who continued to watch, that he wasn’t the one who had perpetrated the event he was blocking it became easier for his conscious mind to accept and remember what the real cause was. The soldier was not at fault and was such a loyal member of his team that he couldn’t accept that his commanding officer was not only the cause of innocent deaths, but also the perpetrator of a coverup of his wrongdoings.
Lightman and his crew used what the soldier remembered while also reading his reaction to the reenactments to gradually, but accurately piece together the events, thus getting the soldier closer to remembering and accepting the truth.
The show has always been about getting to the truth and this episode was exactly about that. The opening that put you off the episode was Lightman getting a read from an absurd and blunt question. Whether the soldier believed he was telling the truth or not won’t keep his mind from delivering reactions that helped the team ascertain the difference between what the soldier saw as truth and what his mind knew was truth. Those microexpressions and little “tells” come from the subconscious mind and just like anyone else they’re hired to read the soldier’s mind was telling the truth even when the man himself couldn’t.
I wish you had given the episode more of a chance, because the reasons for what seemed absurd became clear as the episode unfolded. Some of the best mysteries start with the ridiculously absurd and then entertain the viewer with the details of why what at first glance seemed absurd is, in fact, perfectly logical. I guess I really do watch TV differently than many of you because I’ve never turned off an episode of a show I’ve decided to take the time to watch simply because I didn’t fully understand why the events I was watching would be reasonable to a sane viewer within the first few minutes. I find that to be ridiculous and absurd.
I gave Aryeh more than his share of grief for his shredding of the show, but at least when he starts to watch an episode of a show, he finishes it. Had he decided to watch that episode I don’t think he would’ve quit in the middle, much less within 3 minutes.
*POST AUTHOR*
I’m dedicated to my art that way….
Well, gosh. Now I feel bad for all the grief I gave you over this show. Not bad enough to take it all back or quit watching LTM, but bad enough to go have a bowl of ice cream to help quell my guilt. I raise a parfait glass to the artiste!
*POST AUTHOR*
What a beautiful sentiment. Thanks! :)
First, and remember this opinion comes from someone not attracted to me, but I can’t imagine many people out there saying Lightman is less attractive than Loker. And, I don’t see what you’re saying about Torres having a think for Lightman.
I thought last season, at least the first half of it, suffered under the weight of something (I was never able to figure out exactly what), that it has lost this season. Lightman is who he is, and to expect him to be all prim and proper while on the witness stand is unrealistic. For that reason, I’d imagine that Foster probably does most of the testifying.
Kate, don’t get me wrong, I respect what you’re saying, I just disagree. If next season is a return to first half of S1, I doubt I’ll be back myself…
Ivey, I completely understand what you mean about the first half of last season. I don’t know what it was, either, but the show began to go from “something I watch” to “something I look forward to watching” in the latter half of season 1. Season 2 has continued to trend upwards for me and I think a lot of it is having Roth’s character become more of a loose cannon. Is it realistic? Nah! Is it enjoyable? Damned skippy!
Maybe there are two groups of people, those who like what that show was in season 1 when it was a more low-key, realistic show, and those who like what Shawn Ryan did when he brought his The Unit sensibility to LTM at the start of season 2. (My guess is the problems with the first half of season 1 was the show trying to find its footing because it was the same show-runners all season.)
I respect that you like the show more now. For me, there are many shows out there with fakey science, loose canon characters and unrealistic situations and I’ve had my fill of them. What attracted me to this show in the first place, the use of real science in realistic situations and the chance to learn about microexpressions, is pretty much gone. It’s become ‘House’ in the courtoom, even to the over-the-top lead who gets away with everything, his long suffering female partner who is attracted to him, the young male who challenges him, the young female who admires and is attracted to him (although they have toned that down the second half of season 2) who is also bisexual, the young black guy, and the many women who can’t resist the male lead. Fox also tried the same formula with Mental last summer.
I found Lightman reasonably attractive last season. This season he’s become ridiculous and I can’t figure out why all these women on the show find him so irresistable. (Neither can many of the women at a board I post at.) If Torres wasn’t going to smack him (or better yet sue him) for being unethical and sexually inappropriate in this episode, I was ready to.
Different opinions make the world go round. My guess is that Fox brought Ryan in to run season 2 to up the ratings but for me, I want a show where I don’t have to park my brains at the door in order to enjoy it. Season 2 of Lie To Me ain’t it.
I really like ‘Lie to Me’. Tim Roth and the cast are great, and he and Kelli Williams have a really good will they-won’t they chemistry. I also think the premise of the series is original and interesting, and makes for a nice contrast to Jack Bauer’s use of extreme methods to extract the truth from people when they only have 24 hours to save lives. And I actually really like the intro, including the song. I think as long as the series focusses on interesting cases, particularly those criminals who’s psychology presents more of a challenge, eg. psychopaths, sociopaths, serial killers, cannibals, political extremists, the series will flourish.
I can’t wait to read an article from you about a show I actually dislike. I know that whatever you’re writing about, 90% of the time you’re going to tear it apart. Go with what you know, I guess…
And I think the theme (song & images) works quite well.
*POST AUTHOR*
Got a list? :)
Yeah. I was just watching Lie to Me and thinking to myself – now I know why I like this show, it’s the same exact show as House which I completely love. So I google it and here you go, thanks to the internet you can now know that you have never and will never have an original thought. :)
I did what this poster did though, I watched the first episode and then moved on but when I saw that the show was still going I decided to watch the first season on Netflix and really enjoyed it. I still haven’t seen season two, might be a while. I like the show but I’m still not sure this show is good enough to make my fall TV season cut. Still not as good as House.
*POST AUTHOR*
That’s awesome!
My wife and I did that a few years back with a bunch of shows … marathon in the summer to evaluate them before the new season. We learned then that if it’s not an automatic yes for you, there are too many new things coming in the Fall to continue on with an uncertainty. Good luck making that decision! :)