The Good Liar – a review

An elderly conman Roy (Ian McKellen) finds that his latest mark Betty (Helen Mirren) is quite rich. This makes the evil entrepreneur in him more than willing to give it his best to unburden her of all that wealth.

Let me start by saying that the poster is actually rather well chosen, on two fronts. First it evokes the feeling of a classical detective the like of Deceived (1992), The Hand that rocks the Cradle (1992) and Single White Female (1992).

Those famous (often 90s) thrillers in which the single white female has to smarten up fast to resist the evil male intruder in her life.

Then there are the colours of black and white. At first glance this is the clear distinction between right and wrong, the villain and the victim.

But, after seeing the movie I have to admit that it also highlights the big problem of the story and thus, as a result, the movie as a whole. Strangely enough I’m accusing The Good Liar of being dishonest to its audience.

The fighting chance in a detective story

S.S. van Dine famously wrote his ‘twenty rules for writing detective stories’ in 1928. The phrase ‘The butler did it’ –I believe- derives from this list as (as rule 11) the writer clearly exclaims his disdain for the notion of someone ‘common’ committing bloody murder.

But, nevertheless, taken with a grain of salt these ‘twenty rules’ still work as a blueprint to this day and age. And one thing is almost hammered home in Dine’s list (as rules 1, 5, 8, 9 and 15 stipulate): the reader should have a sporting chance to solve the crime.

To take Midsomer Murders (or any other crime-of-the-week TV-show for that matter) for example. This show scores high on this list. Every clue is a plain sight and it up to the audience to pay close attention.

But it is human nature to experiment. It is human nature to do something different from time to time. Sometimes even to try to reinvent the wheel as it were.

So throughout crime-fiction history there have been stories in which the ‘who’, ‘how’ and ‘why’ The Alienist (2018) left out the Who until the very last episode. Sherlock’s (2012) death defying leap in The Reichenbach fall (the How) was famously left without a proper explanation. And The Good Liar, I argue, is guilty of leaving out the Why.
weren’t there for the audience to pick up upon. In televised fiction last year’s

Anybody can, at least, sense that there is something amiss between the characters; that neither of them are very truthful. You can feel it in the picture, in every frame. You’ll probably even know how it will all go down and you’ll be right. But still, in the end, you are left empty handed because you didn’t have any access to the smallest morsel of information pertaining to the question: Why.

This wilful choice (derived from the original book by Nicholas Searle I assume) makes The Good Liar and uneven viewing. The movie seduces you, the viewer, to take part in the mystery of solving what is going. Like a peacock spreading its feathers it uses tried and tested cinematic techniques of informing the audience of danger lurking, just letting the camera linger on a character’s face in a room. But at the same time denies the audience to see all of said ‘peacock’. So, in short, what you want, you don’t get.

Genre fatigue

One could easily blame the detective genre for this. After years and years of detective novels, TV-shows and movies (most recently the brilliant Knifes Out (2019)) which were all following Dine’s twenty rules to the tee audiences get alienated when a story tries something different.

Expectations restricting imagination as it were.

But, one could also make the argument, why change a winning formula? Would The Good Liar really have suffered that greatly if the 'why' was brought to the forefront a little earlier than the big finale?

I don’t think so. I actually believe it would make the story work a whole lot better.

At least it would have prepared/guided me a bit for the emotional somersault the Roy character goes through in the finale.

Audiences will always identify with a main character. Even if he or she is a villain. No matter how vile and despicable (often) he is.

But the trick here is to do vilify the villain slowly (like Ian McKellen’s character in Apt Pupil (1998)). Not to, suddenly, spring a whole new level of villainy on our evil protagonist out of the blue.

Basically the finale to The Good Liar was the textbook example of the ‘introduction of the big bad’. In any (action)movie the main bad guy’s introduction is accompanied with him doing something dastardly. Done early the movie can build from that.

But if you’ve already got the audience invested in a character and then, after a full hour and a half, spring a disturbingly dastardly deed on the character without leading into it it alienates the character and the audience is left in limbo.

The only movie this worked in, I think, is Heat (1995) with Tom Sizemore’s character. But he was a side-character, not one of the protagonists. The audience hardly knew the guy so his ‘big dastardly deed’ in the end was a possibility that could come from this character.

Maybe a bit more predictable since any weathered moviegoer/ crime fiction enthusiast now has the 'Why' handed to complete the mental jigsaw.

But, then again, this would also shift focus from the core mystery to the many other wonders that The Good Liar has to offer its audience.

Visually a detective story

The visual flair of The Good Liar is one of the main reasons to see this movie (apart from the obvious two reasons I’ll mention below). Shot in London and Berlin the camera makes good use of showing the beauty of the scenery. It truly is a bit of a tourist folder (complete with British upper-class fashion). But there’s much more. Little shots here and there that elevate the tale and truly making it a colourful feast for the eye.

There’s a brilliant little strip-club scene that is a deliciously lit set. The setting makes all the character on screen grubby and morally grey. The camera, then underlines this with quick successions of shots, just lingering long enough to capture a thoughtful silence or two.

Every set is like this; well chosen and fitting the moment in the movie with the camera subtly underlining what you see instead of distracting from it.

But, of course, the main attraction here are Ian McKellen and Helen Mirror facing off. Both have played baddies. Both have played absolute sweethearts. Both have played strong and powerful. Both have played frail.

It’s clear from the opening credits that these two acting forces are going to dominate every scene that they are in, and they do.

Who can forget Mirren’s deadpan:

“Try the c*ck, Albert. It's a delicacy, and you know where it's been.”

In The cook the thief the wife the lover (1989).

Playing both weak and empowered at times, relying on each other as they are building their characters. Just a moment here and there with a changing look. It deepens the mystery (which is only in the way anyhow) and enriches the characters.

The Good Liar shouldn’t be seen for the mystery it promises. You just have to enjoy this thriller for the two acting giants having a go at each other. Shot beautifully this movie gives all the room for its two stars to shine and to show us which one of the two is the better liar. (That’s a lie, they both are).